17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #13

[OneLove]

We know who shot Martin.
What we don't know was it justifiable.

Two trains of thought here:
1# The newly assigned DA found the same lack of evidence that her predecessor had and that's why we've not seen an arrest?

2# Or the newly assigned DA is buying her time so that she shift the determination onto the Grand Jury?

As for the dog & my neighbor they both was in the middle of the street the one inciting the other and neither willing to back down. The dog had as much right to be where he was as the man. But it became a standoff and had the dog bitten my neighbor I would have told him he got what he was asking for. Of course had the dog attacked him and he killed it I would have said the dog got what it had coming... See the point I'm making is each had a right to be where they was, each had a right to defend themselves. Yet, neither had the right to provoke the other as they was doing but in doing so this didn't evaporate the right of the attacked to not defend themselves... The dog's owner is inconsequential right at the moment you're having to deal with whether your about to get bitten... It's a bit like the government surveyor showing the bull in the pasture his papers, the bull is still going to chase him regardless of what authority he may think he has.



Yes, I agree everyone is accountable for his/her actions... All I was saying is time after time we hear the what "if's" and a number of people depend upon those to justify their outlandish claims. Many try to convert those what if's into facts throwing all critical thinking aside when it doesn't support their assumptions... If this or If that... Life behaves funny and sometimes turning left when we should have turned right causes us to get caught in a traffic jam, that could have otherwise avoided.

I can't explain it but for some unknown reason Martin/Zimmerman was set on some sort of collision course. And from what I gather each added to it till it culminated in the tragedy we are witnessing.



Now we've got two investigations and neither have resulted in an arrest. Some will see this and say LE hasn't gotten it right. To some it will never be right until they see someone hanged for it regardless if that person was guilty or not...

Again, nicely written and considered. Please don't think I am pestering you. I believe you and I are both committed to the points we are trying to make, so I'm not contesting you, just explaining the difference in our REASONING.

In your dog vs man scenario, the dog really did not have as much right to be in the middle of the street as the man did. at this point, there is a condition of neglect, potentially resulting in great harm. Of course, as a matter of sheer gut survival instinct, each will, in that moment, fight for their lives. So there are FACTORS to be considered.

Relevant questions are: Does this dog have an owner? Does the owner have a HISTORY of letting the dog run wild? Has he been reported before? If so, how many times? Conversely, has this man been known to intentionally agitate the dog? Did he open a gate and let the dog out, thereby CREATING the situation. These questions are pertinent to assessing what is REALLY going on.

Man v dog is not really just a random coincidental "no ones at fault" situation.

I feel the same way about GZ v TM. They did NOT end up on the walkway behind the condos with Trayvon dead as a result of total random coincidental actions. And a young person is dead. That's pretty serious.

I'd like to see pertinent facts released. An autopsy report would help. Knowing a fair and competent investigation is happening would help. But hanging in limbo in the dark so far, I've seen nothing that justifies TM's killing, even if he defended himself from GZ's vigilante actions.

 

[legalmania]

ITA (but in case of a change of venue please don't consider Pinellas County)

I'm pretty sure people in Pinellas County have learned to stay away from high profile cases.

 

[LambChop]

Why are you assuming the expert never got such a result?

I think it's far more likely he has gotten 90%+ results in the past, or he wouldn't be quoting that number as the threshold for a positive i.d.

I would think this equipment must be tested or calibrated in some way to verify it is working correctly because it would be challenged in the courtroom. jmo

 

[Adrienne37]

I have been sitting here for a couple of hours trying to think of a way to word this. Don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or get banned from WS.

I have been a non-active member of WS for a couple years, would read sometimes and almost never posted. When I first starting following this case, while I felt that George Zimmerman was wrong in what he did, I still felt there was a possibility that he did act under the SYG law and was leaning strongly on the side of giving him the benefit of doubt. I wanted everything investigated and let the "chips" fall where they may. My feeling was if the voice on the 911 calls yelling for help was that of George, then he was within his SYG rights and that should be that. Now that 2 experts have stated that it is NOT George's voice yelling for help, leaving the only other possibility being Trayvon is the one yelling for help, I find it absolutely amazing that posters are still trying to find excuses for what George did or someway to discount the experts testing.

Thank you mercuriod for your honesty. I wish I had an answer to your question because it's something that I've been wondering this entire week and just asked it in another post of mine - what's it going to take to show that this man murdered Trayvon Martin?

Again, thanks for your honesty.


~jmo~

 

[LolaMoon08]

All this talk about riots, it's almost like wishing for it to happen? I live here in Florida and I am not even remotely afraid of rioting? I've watched the rally's and I see thousands of people of all races standing together for one cause. Justice for Trayvon.

 

[dsntslp]

I like to think we all play 'devils advocate' and shred everything to pieces until we have nothing but facts left. Brainstorming until there is a meeting of the minds. Sometimes it's just not possible.

 

[Beyond Belief]

That screaming sounded like whailing to me. Like howling with words that are not understandable. I feel like I heard it coming from little kids whose parents are dragging them to car, out of store, like that.

I wonder how many times police officers have heard something like?

I also think if Trayvon was that verbal the girlfriend would have him gasp, yell, something just before the cell phone went dead. He would have reacted if gz had accosted him.
imo

 

[iluvmua]

LiveLaughLov asked in Thread #12, post #12 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - FL 17 y/o Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #12 -
"Please listen and let me know if you hear what I do hear and it's a C..." ---

I listened to it earlier, several times and heard the c... word.

A few minutes ago, I had my husband listen without telling him anything regarding the audio clip. He also heard the c... word. I asked him "you didn't hear phone or punk?" He said, no the word definitely started with c and ended with n.

I listened to it and I believe he is saying F'ing Punks.

Not the C word like so many would like to believe.

 

[LolaMoon08]

That most likely would have been Trayvon Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton.



~jmo~

It was his mother. It was also quoted in this weeks issue of People Magazine.

 

[legalmania]

All this talk about riots, it's almost like wishing for it to happen? I live here in Florida and I am not even remotely afraid of rioting? I've watched the rally's and I see thousands of people of all races standing together for one cause. Justice for Trayvon.

I'm hoping Americans have moved passed that. Most people weren't happy with the Anthony decision but we moved on.

 

[Americka]

If this goes to trial and he is found not guilty, the riots would start right back up again.

What riots are you referring to?

 

[Nova]

Your right. It depends on the defense and the jury. But using things like a 48% match certainly gives ammunition to the defense. And an out to a jury who is predisposed to a certain side.

I honestly don't think so, Ranch. We're just looking at one newspaper quote (that has been repeated by other outlets). That's no indicator of how the results will be presented at trial.

But FWIW, you and I share over 98% of the DNA (I'm assuming you are also human); yet everyone knows that isn't enough to say we are the same person; nor is it the case that somebody mixed up 44% of your DNA with 54% of mine. Chimps share almost 98% and yet juries understand that chimps are not human beings. The threshold for a match with DNA is 100% under normal circumstances, I believe.

So let's compare fingerprints: I'm not sure what is the current number of matching points required to declare a print a match to a specific person, but let's pretend it's 8 points. Juries can understand that a 4-point match means the print does NOT match the person; it doesn't mean it "half matches" him and "half matches" someone else.

 

[OneLove]

to be held either criminally or civilly responsible for the consequences of your actions, intended or not. Most human behavior is not subject to law. However, when you, for example, undertake to contact law enforcement authorities because of your concern about a person you've concluded is a criminal and then you fail to follow their instructions it can very easily be found that you were not acting reasonably, that you were grossly or simply negligent etc. The whole story, when known, will be knit together and evaluated in terms of what a reasonable person would do in the same or similar circumstance.

It may very well be that his decision to continue to pursue TM after being told such an act was not needed by LE is determined to be a proximate cause of what occurred or that combined with his decision to take and wield a gun against a person who has not committed any crime made that person reasonably fear for his life so that whatever he did to his assailant was justified and thus the assailants killing of TM was unlawful.

Basically, at this point we don't know the whole story but the fact that not doing what 911 tells you is not a crime may not be terribly relevant to the legal analysis and may not act to "save" GZ from any legal consequences that stem from his actions.

Excellent way to explain the situation! Thank you. I will not be at all surprised if this is exactly the finding in this case when all is said and done.

 

[Nova]

To see If he actually went to the store. Just because the media reports that he did does not mean that he actually went to the store.

Then where did he get the Arizona ice tea and skittles on a rainy night?

(ETA my first response was mildly sarcastic. I'm editing it because we've been asked to use care, but I don't want iluvmua to think I wrote anything nasty. I did not.)

 

[LolaMoon08]

I listened to it and I believe he is saying F'ing Punks.

Not the C word like so many would like to believe.

You think people would like to believe he said that? What person on God's green Earth would like to believe someone would use that word? It is one of the most vile words ever created?

IMO, it is either c*** or goon. Not because I would like to believe he said either one, but because it is what I hear with my own ears.

 

[TonyGatto]

That screaming sounded like whailing to me. Like howling with words that are not understandable. I feel like I heard it coming from little kids whose parents are dragging them to car, out of store, like that.

I wonder how many times police officers have heard something like?

The term that I have come across many times in my line of work describes this excruciating sound of woe: PLAINTIVE WAIL.

 

[m00c0w]

I have been sitting here for a couple of hours trying to think of a way to word this. Don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or get banned from WS.

I have been a non-active member of WS for a couple years, would read sometimes and almost never posted. When I first starting following this case, while I felt that George Zimmerman was wrong in what he did, I still felt there was a possibility that he did act under the SYG law and was leaning strongly on the side of giving him the benefit of doubt. I wanted everything investigated and let the "chips" fall where they may. My feeling was if the voice on the 911 calls yelling for help was that of George, then he was within his SYG rights and that should be that. Now that 2 experts have stated that it is NOT George's voice yelling for help, leaving the only other possibility being Trayvon is the one yelling for help, I find it absolutely amazing that posters are still trying to find excuses for what George did or someway to discount the experts testing.

You're certainly not hurting my feelings. I know exactly how I sound and how this comes off, but I don't really care. The only thing I want is objective testimony, and we still have not gotten to that point yet. I don't know if I've made this clear here, but I've actually started to lean towards Zimmerman having greatly overstepped his bounds and the potential for 2nd degree murder charges to be brought. However, I've tried to remain objective in this and take all of the evidence for what it is, not what I want it to be.

The one-sidedness and sheer lack of objectivity I've seen here is very discomforting and borderline startling. We determine if a person is guilty in a court of law, after following due process. Every American is afforded the same rights, and we should not ever effectively hang someone in a trial by media, and cater to and feed the lynch mob that's aggregated outside of the jailhouse door.

I've said it before, and I've said it again - there is a new prosecutor on the case. The family has requested a second opinion, and they are getting it. It does absolutely no good when you go into this thing already believing one person is guilty. You look at everything from that angle, and every piece of evidence supports this claim. It's called confirmation bias, and it's been present from day one in this case. I understand that this isn't a legitimate court, and no one is obligated to seem impartial, but I thought that the point was to find the truth, and not cling on to some prejudicial notions that were developed because of the clearly biased media coverage that has plagued this case.

Y'all may have assigned guilt already, but I have not, nor am I comfortable doing so when we literally have very little factual evidence to go on. Yes, the entire thing was a tragedy, but the entire thing also does not pass the smell test to me. Neither story makes sense, and as I've learned, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. Now, you can be as one-sided as you want in this. That's your right. But don't expect me to stop contesting notions, assertions, or ideas because you've already shut off the possibility of anything else being the truth.

("You" in this is the general "you" past the first paragraph)

 

[Donjeta]

And there's very little documentation about this software and how it was tested. However, if the test came back 95% Martin and 48% Zimmerman, I would not contest those results. I just do not like the assumption that because they "disqualified" Zimmerman that it automatically means it was Martin. It's still jumping to conclusions without all of the facts.

If it has not been tested and validated I agree completely.

There is a body of research on voice biometrics but we don't know how this particular software differs from what has been used earlier.

 

[m00c0w]

Why are you assuming the expert never got such a result?

I think it's far more likely he has gotten 90%+ results in the past, or he wouldn't be quoting that number as the threshold for a positive i.d.

The person demonstrating the product was getting an 86% result with known recordings of the same person...

 

[Americka]

The ones we are having now.

Where are these riots occurring? I've only seen peaceful marches and protests which are protected by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.