Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Kestrel]

I think the Neighborhood Watch coordinator had a police officer come and give them some advice, which included 'looking at houses' as suspicious. I seem to recall that from her testimony, but I can't be sure.

If we can't be sure of your memory, how can we be sure the Neighborhood Watch coordinator remembered this correctly?

The burglaries that happened in this neighborhood didn't happen at night. And the behavior of those burglars did fit the criteria for suspicious person in the printed Neighborhood Watch pamphlet.

But perhaps George is right. In Sanford, Florida any black male in his late teens on foot is simply assumed by the police to be a criminal. One of those ******** who always get away.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Is there a kind of standard verbal introduction that neighborhood watch members use when approaching someone they suspect is up to no good? I'm assuming GZ made no such address to TM.

Generally, I believe the NW says don't approach people. The generic Sanford NW pamphlet that ketrel linked to says nothing about it.

Here is wendy dorival's testimony if you want to see specifically what she told the residents of RATL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb84pIz6C5g&feature=player_embedded

We know TM was initially freaked out upon realizing he was being tailed by a strange adult. Might TM have thought GZ was going to attempt to mug, or even worse, kidnap/rape/molest him? If so, can blame--legal or extralegal--be placed on TM, for going into a "fight or flight" frame of mind then, culminating in "fight"?

By engaging TM in a seemingly reckless manner, didn't GZ provoke the injuries he got?

"Freaked out" has a lot of connotations that we don't really have evidence of. TM never even told RJ he was scared ... she could just "tell" he was.

Whether you think GZ got what he deserved or acted reckless, none of that makes what he did illegal.

AS a surrogate authority figure (armed with a deadly weapon, no less!) shouldn't GZ be held to a higher than otherwise standard of responsible behavior? Couldn't he see what a volatile situation he was about to give shape to?

As soon as we start holding the police to higher standard, then we we can start in on the regular citizens.

How do posters view the relative expectations of answerable conduct in an incident involving two people: a 16 year old boy and a 28 year old man who appropriates the role of authority figure?

17 year old young man.

Do people think the spirit of the law was upheld in this case or that justice of a meaningful stripe was served on July 13th?

Yes.

 

[RandFan]

See this is what I love about this board, there is always someone there who is willing to take your statements about X, ignore that they are about X and instead apply them to Y and create a strawman about what you said. It never fails.

Go back and read the post you quoted, I was talking about why GZ rang the NEN number.

To why he got out of the car, he believed that the NEN asked him to by asking him to a) tell him if TM did anything else, and b) asking him which way TM was running. The NEN operator even stated that yes it was possible that GZ took those questions to be instructions.

On the gun, unlike the claim that was made here a number of times that NW were not allowed to carry guns, NW has no policies on participants carrying weapons. The coordinator was asked directly about that and stated that they have no policy and that each individual participant is allowed to carry or not as they see fit to do so.

Fair enough. I apologize.

 

[lane99]

"B" stands for Bias

I haven't heard anyone mention it after the trial. But when the issue came up, someone did mention that telling jurors to ignore something is a bit like trying to unring a bell.

The public tends to believe that police investigators are experts at telling if a suspect is lying or telling the truth. The problem is that science has shown that even professional trained in techniques such as the Reid Method pick out liars only slightly better than chance.

And it's not only the public. To make matters much worse, cops themselves are liable to have an over-inflated confidence in their own intuition. Zimmergun's lawyer, for example, was pandering to that tendency when he asked the investigator what his "spidey-sense" was telling him.
.
.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

Can you show the neighborhood map that demarcates the public vs private areas? I think you are just making up the rules.

There is an easement between units 102 and 103 where Trayvon is claimed to have crossed. At the time there were no fences.

The area where the shooting happened has been referred to several times in the trial as "The dog walk" by both sides and there was even a doggie-poop disposal station complete with a plastic bag dispenser (visible in the walk through video) at the top of the "T". It's quite clear that the area was a public one.

I never said that the lawns Zimmerman indicated in his video involved the short cut. You said\inferred that on your own. I said that he was cutting across lawns between the sidewalk and the houses, as in across the fronts of them, not in between the houses. If I had meant in between the houses I would have said so.

 

[WildCat]

I will, but first let me just ask if you are claiming that there is any witness or evidence that can definitively show that Martin assaulted Zimmerman first, and not just that there is a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman assaulted Martin, because that would be pertinent to this thread.

That thread is a big one, if you have a particular post or starting point in mind, please let me know.

Well there's the fact that the only person who shows signs of getting hit is Zimmerman. That a witness (state witness btw) saw Martin on top of Zimmerman in a "ground and pound MMA style" position. The state's star witness says she thinks Martin threw the first punch at that "creepy ass cracker" and "*****" who was following him.

Then there's also the complete lack of motive for Zimmerman to assault Martin. Zimmerman called the police, Martin did not nor did he go home despite ample opportunity.

 

[WildCat]

Self-appointed leader of all black people Jesse Jackson calls for the UN to investigate: http://www.suntimes.com/news/jackson/21341420-452/investigate-the-racial-context-behind-martins-death.html

 

[AlBell]

Not seeing the irony there, as self defense is not vigilantism.

It is kind of ironic that here in 2013 it's civil rights supporters taking offense at due process of law and calling for extra-judicial punishment, aka lynchings.

Ironic? No, just par for the course.

http://townhall.com/columnists/mona...nversation-holder-doesnt-really-want-n1643922

 

[Dan O.]

(post transfered from unmoderated thread)

It has been pointed out before that in this case we have clear evidence that George Zimmerman serially stalked Trayvon Martin.

1. From where Trayvon came through the easement onto Retreat View Circle to the clubhouse, George parked his truck where he watched Trayvon.
   
2. From the clubhouse to the cut-through, George altered his stated plan and instead followed the path that Trayvon took.
   
3. At the cut-through, George got out of his truck and took a flashlight to enter the area where he saw Trayvon go.

While each of these events alone are not illegal, together they form a pattern of stalking which is illegal. By his own statement, ("**** he's running"), Georges actions created a sense of apprehension or fear in Trayvon yet George continued the pursuit even when he was clearly told that the police did not need him to do that. When asked by the police if he would return to a fixed location, his truck or the mailboxes, to meet the responding officer, Geroge would not do that. George was doing something else. George was hunting Trayvon Martin.

 

[Dan O.]

(moving discussion of case from unmoderated thread)

Really? Come on Dan O., in the Knox case you applied a lot of good logic. Here you are drawing longer bows than the Prosecutors did when they tried for Murder 3 by Felony Child Abuse.

Then attack my argument. each of those statements in the above posted list are fully supported by the evidence. I believe case law has already been cited that stalking can be a serial instance of a contiguous event. Included in the list are decision points where George chose to continue stalking Trayvon which breaks this into the three separate events instead of a continuation of a single event.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

If we can't be sure of your memory, how can we be sure the Neighborhood Watch coordinator remembered this correctly?

Or how can we be sure Rachel Jeantel remembered anything correctly??

The burglaries that happened in this neighborhood didn't happen at night.

Evidence required.

And the behavior of those burglars did fit the criteria for suspicious person in the printed Neighborhood Watch pamphlet.

Evidence required.

 

[Dan O.]

Yeah, because a pamphlet is more of an authority of what was discussed with the NW Coordinator than she herself is, right....

The pamphlet is evidence of the talking points unbiased by the event. The commander would have been familiar with the points George raised in the NEN call. There would be a natural tendency for confirmation bias to match George's points to the talking points used in the neighborhood watch program.

To analyze how these talking points shift by the time they are used in testimony, it would help if there were any recordings of these talking points made prior to the event.

Are those points that have been posted in this thread direct quotes from the commander's testimony or have they been further biased by the poster?

 

[Mister Earl]

hen there's also the complete lack of motive for Zimmerman to assault Martin.

I think it's entirely possible Zimmerman decided he wanted to physically detain Martin because "these [expletive] always get away". If Zimmerman grabbed Martin, then Martin would've been well within his rights to punch him in the nose.

I don't buy Zimmerman's story here. He had no reason to leave the car, if his only purpose was to defend the neighborhood against a percieved intruder. The cops were minutes out, they had a description, and the kid was already leaving the area. That would have satisfied that goal completely. That that wasn't good enough for Zimmerman tells me that probably wasn't his only goal.

 

[MiloMinderbinder]

If we can't be sure of your memory, how can we be sure the Neighborhood Watch coordinator remembered this correctly?

Why would you compare my memory to hers? I didn't claim to have a meeting and I wasn't under oath in a murder trial giving testimony about what I recall.

 

[beren]

The lie detector also believed GZ.

and passes lie detector test.

George also has a history of passing a lie detector test

during a lie detector test given that same night. GZ said "No." Lie detector said 'true'. [ . . .]

who could beat a lie detector

He passed the lie detector [ . . .]

estimate of lie detector validity would give.

Can you please explain why you feel this particular fact is relevant to the discussion? You have brought it up multiple times in this thread as well as in other threads.

It is my understanding that lie detectors are, at best, woo, that they are meaningless and the fact that George "passed" one is completely irrelevant and unimportant.

Surely there are enough real facts in evidence to discuss that we don't need to bring up such a pointless and irrelevant "test."

 

[WildCat]

I think it's entirely possible Zimmerman decided he wanted to physically detain Martin because "these [expletive] always get away".

So George Zimmerman is on the one hand so stupid he thinks he can detain suspicious people for the police and the police will thank him instead of arresting him for assault and false imprisonment, yet at the same time a criminal and legal genius who knows all the right things to say to the police that meshes perfectly with witness accounts and the physical evidence while being questioned over several days with no lawyer present?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

(post transfered from unmoderated thread)

It has been pointed out before that in this case we have clear evidence that George Zimmerman serially stalked Trayvon Martin.

1. From where Trayvon came through the easement onto Retreat View Circle to the clubhouse, George parked his truck where he watched Trayvon.
   
2. From the clubhouse to the cut-through, George altered his stated plan and instead followed the path that Trayvon took.
   
3. At the cut-through, George got out of his truck and took a flashlight to enter the area where he saw Trayvon go.

While each of these events alone are not illegal, together they form a pattern of stalking which is illegal..

Stalked has a legal definition you have not met.

What is my evidence of that ? The state did not charge him with stalking.

By his own statement, ("**** he's running"), Georges actions created a sense of apprehension or fear in Trayvon yet George continued the pursuit even when he was clearly told that the police did not need him to do that.

When told he did not need to do that, he responded "ok" and stopped. No evidence exists that he continued any "pursuit"

When asked by the police if he would return to a fixed location, his truck or the mailboxes, to meet the responding officer, Geroge would not do that. George was doing something else. George was hunting Trayvon Martin.

Apparently meeting at a fixed location was not something the police needed him to do, did they ?

Zimmerman: Actually could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?
Dispatcher: Okay, yeah that's no problem.

Again, no evidence of any wrong-doing.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I think it's entirely possible Zimmerman decided he wanted to physically detain Martin because "these [expletive] always get away". If Zimmerman grabbed Martin, then Martin would've been well within his rights to punch him in the nose.

If IFs and BUTs were candy and nuts ...

I don't buy Zimmerman's story here. He had no reason to leave the car, if his only purpose was to defend the neighborhood against a percieved intruder. The cops were minutes out, they had a description, and the kid was already leaving the area. That would have satisfied that goal completely. That that wasn't good enough for Zimmerman tells me that probably wasn't his only goal.

Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything, ok ?
Zimmerman: How long until you get an officer over here?
Dispatcher: Yeah we've got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else

Nope, no reason at all...

 

[Dissolution]

I think it's entirely possible Zimmerman decided he wanted to physically detain Martin because "these [expletive] always get away". If Zimmerman grabbed Martin, then Martin would've been well within his rights to punch him in the nose.

I don't buy Zimmerman's story here. He had no reason to leave the car, if his only purpose was to defend the neighborhood against a percieved intruder. The cops were minutes out, they had a description, and the kid was already leaving the area. That would have satisfied that goal completely. That that wasn't good enough for Zimmerman tells me that probably wasn't his only goal.

It sounds like Zimmerman left his vehicle after the NEN dispatcher asked him to, "Let me know if he does anything else".
That would be a reason to leave, as he couldn't do it without being able to maintain eye contact with Martin.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Can you please explain why you feel this particular fact is relevant to the discussion? You have brought it up multiple times in this thread as well as in other threads.

It is my understanding that lie detectors are, at best, woo, that they are meaningless and the fact that George "passed" one is completely irrelevant and unimportant.

Surely there are enough real facts in evidence to discuss that we don't need to bring up such a pointless and irrelevant "test."

Lie detector tests are woo and should have been eliminated from use long ago. They have no more relevance in proving GZ's innocence than the laughable voice analysis quacks had in proving GZ's guilt.