17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #18

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you Allusonz.

I believe that's the reason GZ's attorney alluded to the 'shaken baby syndrome' scenario, in that there's not much visible evidence to the eye that there's injury, but one can die from it.

I believe it may not have been a good analogy as of course, people will jump on those words, 'shaken baby syndrome,' and not pay attention to what he means by it.

JMHO
fran
 
Can someone please help me understand this whole "under the law, you don't need to be injured to fear for your life" thing? At what point would a reasonable person think that GZ shooting TM is justified?

  • Opponent is unarmed and has not touched you – not reasonable
  • If you think your opponent has a gun because of preconceived notions you have about people like him, but you haven’t actually seen a weapon – not reasonable
  • He says something straight out of a cheesy movie like, “You’re going to die tonight.” – not reasonable
  • Someone jumps you from behind - ?
  • Someone punches you in the face - ?
  • Someone is on top of you, struggling for the gun that you pulled on him - ?
I know that some people are going to say that killing someone who initiated the fight and is beating your head into the ground is reasonable, but the question I have for those people is: do you really think Trayvon was wailing like his life was ending while beating GZ nearly to death (and yes, I think it was Trayvon screaming, supported by the analysis of the two audio experts)?

JMO.
 
Is adding information altering? If they had a police report on a shooting death and they didn't know the identity of the deceased, is it unethical to go back later and add in the identity once it is known?

I don't know, is why I'm asking.

I think it's unethical. That info could be added to a follow up or supplemental report.
 
I don't think any level of "enhancement" to that video will ever allow it rise to the level of acceptance with a jury that the UNENHANCED image of Tracy Martin's son will:

When Tracy Martin greeted the police that morning, a plainclothes detective asked him to describe his son. "He asked me what he last had on. He asked me if I had any recent pictures," Martin said.

"I showed him a recent picture in the camera and he shook his head and said, 'OK, let me go to my car and get something.'" The detective returned with a folder.

It was drizzling, and he asked Martin if they could go inside. When they were seated he pulled out a photo. It was Trayvon, dead at the scene - his eyes rolled back, a tear on his cheek, saliva coming from his mouth.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8320UK20120403

What a horrible, horrible way to realize the fate of your child.

I know many would would love to believe that this was a teardrop.

I do believe though and this is MOO that it was more apt to be a raindrop.

Maybe God's way of grieving?
 
Well, I guess we can drop the speculation about whether or not Trayvon was at the 7-11 on the night of his murder...

Georgia Students Gather In Sanford For Trayvon Martin


A corporate spokeswoman for 7-Eleven said on Thursday they have a video secured at corporate headquarters showing Martin the night he was killed.
An executive with 7-Eleven viewed the tape and can confirm: "he observed an African American male in a hoodie purchase Skittles and an iced tea between 6 and 6:30 that evening."

Read more: http://www.wesh.com/trayvon-martin-extended-coverage/30841174/detail.html#ixzz1rHyJyZmJ
 
I know many would would love to believe that this was a teardrop.

I do believe though and this is MOO that it was more apt to be a raindrop.

Maybe God's way of grieving?

I do not believe it's up to us to decide if it is a teardrop or a raindrop, the whole point of the post is to show how callous and unconcerned the Sanford Police Dept treated the father of a murder victim by showing him a picture of his child laying face down in the grass after he was murdered. To Tracy Martin that represented a tear drop and I do not believe it should be up to anyone to decipher or interpret how Mr. Martin felt at that moment to see his beloved son lying face down with a bullet through him.



~jmo~
 
The video was very grainy. What they ended up with, in the enhancement, IMHO, is what it would have looked like if you were standing behind him looking at it in person with your eyes. I don't believe the enhancement was intended to make the injuries appear worse, but rather appear correct.

I can't help but have my suspicions about the enhanced photo because I know pictures can be photo shopped and made to look like anything. I am not saying it was photo shopped to make it look like GZ's injuries are worse, but just that I have some doubt.
 
Well, I guess we can drop the speculation about whether or not Trayvon was at the 7-11 on the night of his murder...

Georgia Students Gather In Sanford For Trayvon Martin


A corporate spokeswoman for 7-Eleven said on Thursday they have a video secured at corporate headquarters showing Martin the night he was killed.
An executive with 7-Eleven viewed the tape and can confirm: "he observed an African American male in a hoodie purchase Skittles and an iced tea between 6 and 6:30 that evening."

Read more: http://www.wesh.com/trayvon-martin-extended-coverage/30841174/detail.html#ixzz1rHyJyZmJ

Thanks. It's interesting that the videotape doesn't have a time stamp that allows him to be more accurate about when Trayvon was there.

At a minimum, it took him 45 minutes to get back into the complex, or at any rate, 45 minutes (minimum) after purchasing the items he was still outside in the complex. Which leads to a question. What was he doing with that time? He wasn't going to the store and coming back, he was doing something else, likely innocent, but whatever it was is likely the reason he appeared suspicious to GZ.
 
Thank you Allusonz.

I believe that's the reason GZ's attorney alluded to the 'shaken baby syndrome' scenario, in that there's not much visible evidence to the eye that there's injury, but one can die from it.

I believe it may not have been a good analogy as of course, people will jump on those words, 'shaken baby syndrome,' and not pay attention to what he means by it.

JMHO
fran

It may turn out to be the perfect analogy, Fran. Because after we've debated it for a few weeks, we will have forgotten there is no proof it ever happened in the first place.
 
I know many would would love to believe that this was a teardrop.

I do believe though and this is MOO that it was more apt to be a raindrop.

Maybe God's way of grieving?

BBM

I don't understand, why would anyone love to believe that?
 
I can't help but have my suspicions about the enhanced photo because I know pictures can be photo shopped and made to look like anything. I am not saying it was photo shopped to make it look like GZ's injuries are worse, but just that I have some doubt.

If I saw that enhancement on a blog, or a news website that was supportive of GZ from the beginning I'd agree. But in airing that enhancement, CNN was basically going against the flavor and slant of their other coverage in this case.
 
Can someone please help me understand this whole "under the law, you don't need to be injured to fear for your life" thing? At what point would a reasonable person think that GZ shooting TM is justified?

  • Opponent is unarmed and has not touched you – not reasonable
  • If you think your opponent has a gun because of preconceived notions you have about people like him, but you haven’t actually seen a weapon – not reasonable
  • He says something straight out of a cheesy movie like, “You’re going to die tonight.” – not reasonable
  • Someone jumps you from behind - ?
  • Someone punches you in the face - ?
  • Someone is on top of you, struggling for the gun that you pulled on him - ?
I know that some people are going to say that killing someone who initiated the fight and is beating your head into the ground is reasonable, but the question I have for those people is: do you really think Trayvon was wailing like his life was ending while beating GZ nearly to death (and yes, I think it was Trayvon screaming, supported by the analysis of the two audio experts)?

JMO.

This is why I was saying several threads ago that it seems two people might each be simultaneously justified under SYG.

If GZ pulled a gun on TM, surely TM had a reasonable fear for his life. But if TM panicked and, while trying to get the gun away, pounded GZ's head into the ground, then apparently GZ also had a reasonable fear under SYG.

Now some will say GZ lost his SYG rights when he pulled out his gun, but we don't know what caused him to do that (assuming he did), do we?

Bad law.
 
I do not believe it's up to us to decide if it is a teardrop or a raindrop, the whole point of the post is to show how callous and unconcerned the Sanford Police Dept treated the father of a murder victim by showing him a picture of his child laying face down in the grass after he was murdered. To Tracy Martin that represented a tear drop and I do not believe it should be up to anyone to decipher or interpret how Mr. Martin felt at that moment to see his beloved son lying face down with a bullet through him.



~jmo~

I understand that's a terrible position in which to place any parent, but how do you want LE to identify dead bodies, if not by showing pictures to next of kin?
 
I think it's unethical. That info could be added to a follow up or supplemental report.

I'm still ruminating on this. It's not like he went back and changed an observation (for example, stating an officer noticed a suspect's limp when that in fact wasn't noticed until days later). I don't think adding the deceased's identity to this changes anything - it would be like adding an address, or phone number, or cop's badge number, or other information pertinent to the case that wouldn't change over time, but had not been in the report because it wasn't known at the time. The initial police report of a shooting that left off the identity of the deceased's identity is incomplete, and not the best recordkeeping practice, IMHO if they learn the identity and don't add it for clarity.

I don't see how filling in one of the blanks once the answer becomes known falsifies the report. Or even in any way looks suspicious. It makes it a more accurate, useful document. Trayvon's identity didn't change between 3:07 a.m. and whenever they added his identity to the report.
 
Thanks. It's interesting that the videotape doesn't have a time stamp that allows him to be more accurate about when Trayvon was there.

At a minimum, it took him 45 minutes to get back into the complex, or at any rate, 45 minutes (minimum) after purchasing the items he was still outside in the complex. Which leads to a question. What was he doing with that time? He wasn't going to the store and coming back, he was doing something else, likely innocent, but whatever it was is likely the reason he appeared suspicious to GZ.

1. Talking on the phone to his girlfriend.

2. Waiting for the rain to let up.

Which of these activities "appeared suspicious to GZ"?
 
Thanks. It's interesting that the videotape doesn't have a time stamp that allows him to be more accurate about when Trayvon was there.

At a minimum, it took him 45 minutes to get back into the complex, or at any rate, 45 minutes (minimum) after purchasing the items he was still outside in the complex. Which leads to a question. What was he doing with that time? He wasn't going to the store and coming back, he was doing something else, likely innocent, but whatever it was is likely the reason he appeared suspicious to GZ.

The corporate executive states Trayvon was in the store between 6-6:30 p.m. If it takes 45 minutes to walk to the store then obviously it takes 45 minutes to walk back so if he left the store at 6 p.m., he would have arrived back at the complex at 6:45. If he left the store at 6:30 p.m., it would have taken him until 7:15 p.m. to make it back. I fail to understand why anyone keeps needing to throw in the things that Trayvon "might have been" doing.



~jmo~
 
Nice op-ed from Huffington Post ( link )

I also became aware of the privilege of being white, straight, middle class, and suburban. I had received the benefit of the doubt from police and other authorities. I could talk my way out of a situation with lies that were believed. When parties in the suburbs got busted, we were told to go home and parents were called. A few miles away, we would have been arrested in paddy wagon

[...]

I am reminded of an incident fifteen years ago when we were moving our first office at Public Allies, and two of the women I worked with, both African American Howard University graduates in sweats, decided to treat themselves to a nice lunch. They kept waiting to be seated and were being treated rudely and when they complained were told to take their attitude back to the ghetto. They weren't from the "ghetto." I learned that one of the privileges of being white is that I can wear whatever I want and people don't assume I'm a problem. They don't follow me in the mall. They wouldn't even arrest me when they should have.
 
1. Talking on the phone to his girlfriend.

2. Waiting for the rain to let up.

Which of these activities "appeared suspicious to GZ"?

I don't know. The initial belief that he walked to the store, and then walked right back - something that would look not suspicious- may not be accurate. He may have been kind of slowly exploring the place (not a crime) or standing in one area and pacing back and forth (not a crime) or doing something else that looked more suspicious than someone walking in a purposeful way.

This whole thing was a horrible misunderstanding, and the more we learn about what led to the misunderstanding, the better. And so when you find out that 45 minutes to an hour and 15 minutes after leaving the 7-11, Trayvon was still not home you have to wonder what he was doing besides walking to the condo unit.

Not that whatever he was doing was criminal. The point is, did it look more criminal than a purposeful walk.

BTW, people don't normally "wait for the rain to let up" while they're standing in the rain. They work to get back home if the rain is bothering them.
 
The corporate executive states Trayvon was in the store between 6-6:30 p.m. If it takes 45 minutes to walk to the store then obviously it takes 45 minutes to walk back so if he left the store at 6 p.m., he would have arrived back at the complex at 6:45. If he left the store at 6:30 p.m., it would have taken him until 7:15 p.m. to make it back. I fail to understand why anyone keeps needing to throw in the things that Trayvon "might have been" doing.



~jmo~

If you re-read it, it doesn't say he was inside the store from 6 - 6:30. It says he purchased the items between 6 and 6:30. Meaning, he could have purchased them at 6.

It is kind of unclear, though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
129
Guests online
2,178
Total visitors
2,307

Forum statistics

Threads
590,018
Messages
17,929,049
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top