The death of Trayvon Martin.

  • #101
jim hardy
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2019 Award
Dearly Missed
9,839
4,877
@Jim: I still haven't quite understood your line of reasoning when you made your claims, and was hoping to get it before you conceded. I am sorry you did that, but I cannot go any other way as I have no where to go?
Correction : I disengaged .

What i've claimed is:

(1) The facts are not all out.
(2) At this stage any reasonable person (IMHO) would accept an official police report as pretty factual statement of what was observed and not suggest the officer lied about it..
And what the officer observed was:

One guy bleeding from nose and head, grass stains on back of his shirt.
Other guy shot dead.
post 43

What other claims were you referring to ?
 
  • #102
16
3
At this stage any reasonable person (IMHO) would accept an official police report as pretty factual statement of what was observed and not suggest the officer lied about it..
I've always disliked statements that said, "... any reasonable person would agree with...", reasonable under what position, the position you hold? That is a rather arrogant statement to make.

I was merely giving counter-examples of why not to totally trust the police report unless backed by other sources like the EMT report or Martin's medical report as he went to the doctor's office the next day from what has been claimed.

Is it scientific to trust one source of process or multiple sources claiming the same?
 
  • #103
29,762
6,089
A police report alone is not sufficient evidence.
Not being "sufficient evidence" is a big difference from not being "evidence". A police report certainly is evidence, but whether it is "sufficient" or not depends on the purpose for which sufficiency is being judged. For example, a police report might be sufficient evidence to obtain a search warrant, but not sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction.

a police report alone is not sufficient evidence to compel a jury to not to convict or not to convict
No amount of evidence is sufficient for that, so that is an absurd standard. Try picking a more reasonable standard for judging sufficiency of evidence.

IMO, there is sufficient evidence to not assume guilt on the part of Zimmerman, but not sufficient to assume innocence. Similarly, there is sufficient evidence to not assume innocence on the part of Martin, but not sufficient to assume guilt. I will wait for more evidence, not discounting individual pieces simply because by themselves they do not meet an impossible standard.
 
Last edited:
  • #104
16
3
Not being "sufficient evidence" is a big difference from not being "evidence". A police report certainly is evidence, but whether it is "sufficient" or not depends on the purpose for which sufficiency is being judged. For example, a police report might be sufficient evidence to obtain a search warrant, but not sufficient evidence to obtain a conviction.
I say "not sufficient evidence" in the sense that it is more hearsay than evidence to an actual case of events on the scene. It is more of the opinion of the officer than being something that actually details the events of a particular incident. That is what I am referring to when speaking about insufficient evidence.

In addition to the above, a police report alone isn't sufficient evidence to obtain a search warrant based on the the officers merits alone. The officer's report is usually examined and corroborated, then is his/her warrant issued. And, in cases of murder the officer is cross examined, and then his/her police report, if passable, is issued in as evidence.

No amount of evidence is sufficient for that, so that is an absurd standard. Try picking a more reasonable standard for judging sufficiency of evidence.
I'd advise you to stop saying my statements are absurd when neglecting to read the context of 'said' statements. Compelling a jury to vote a certain way happens given the evidence as compelling is a form of influencing (not exactly a form, but is the act of influencing someone to produce an outcome), so that isn't absurd. Jury's have felt that given the evidence of x, y, and z, they sentence the defendant to one or multiple outcomes.

IMO, there is sufficient evidence to not assume guilt on the part of Zimmerman, but not sufficient to assume innocence. Similarly, there is sufficient evidence to not assume innocence on the part of Martin, but not sufficient to assume guilt. I will wait for more evidence, not discounting individual pieces simply because by themselves they do not meet an impossible standard.
There isn't sufficient evidence not to assume guilt, also there hasn't been any "impossible" standards taking place. We have several facts so far:

(1) Zimmerman stereotyped the victim saying he was on drugs, up to something, etc... When an autopsy report states that the victim was not on drugs and his father's fiance lives in the neighborhood and he was visiting her residence.

(2) Zimmerman felt compelled to follow the victim under advisement not to follow the victim.

(3) Zimmerman states, "these a-holes always get away". Whether those statements are meant to be taken as Zimmerman labeling Trayvon a criminal is up to how a lawyer is able to get him to tell us what he meant by those comments. I cannot assume what he meant as people would obviously contest it and it'd digress towards opinion vs. opinion.

The evidence for Zimmerman's defense is:

(1) Mostly hearsay from police officer reports and Zimmerman himself

(2) Unidentified witnesses corroborating the police and Zimmerman's side of the story.

Whether that is sufficient evidence or not is up the grand jury to decide. In my personal opinion, it's not sufficient evidence to say Zimmerman is not guilty.
 
  • #105
Ryan_m_b
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,844
711
In my personal opinion, it's not sufficient evidence to say Zimmerman is not guilty.
That's not how court works. Innocence is the default state, you don't try to prove it.

The conversation is getting a bit ahead of itself. The question at the moment is if this will even get to court.
 
  • #106
472
0
I really wish that everybody at PF would just let this go for a while. It seems that there's going to be some sort of investigation. So, let that investigation take its course. It's become a national issue, so it probably isn't just going to get buried.

There have been some informative, for me, statements wrt the moral and legal issues involved. Thanks for those.

Hopefully, the truth of the matter will be ascertained as precisely as possible and justice will be done. My own cynical belief is that this isn't normally the case, but since this particular case has gotten nationwide attention, then there seems to be good reason to believe that a thorough and honest investigation might actually happen.
 
  • #107
I'll be honest, I don't know what side to take but I'm really more on the side of zimmerman if only for the fact that everyone else is so irrationally against him.

I wonder how different everyone's opinions would be if this image were floating about;
george-zimmerman_trayvon-martin_media-bias.jpe

"Oh my god, that poor zimmerman, he was just trying to make his neighbourhood safe and that 'gangsta' started laying into him, if I was in his position I would have shot too. That vandal was already caught with stolen jewlery"

As opposed to;
http://cdn.eurweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/trayvon_martingeorge_zimmerman2012-wide1.jpg [Broken]
"Wow, zimmerman is twice the size of that poor little child, like that little boy could pose any threat to big strong zimmerman. Zimmerman should be put to death for his hate crime"

I seriously doubt this is hate crime or racial crime or w/ever it's branded as and since zimmerman was found to be bleeding after his encounter with trayvon I'm more inclined to believe that it was self defence. If someone was in my face attacking me and I had a gun, I'd shoot then. Maybe not to kill them but I'm guessing aiming is kinda hard when you're having your head stoved in.

Y'know who should be arrested?
Spike Lee
Regardless of wheter zimmerman did anything wrong, broadcasting his address (which was actually some elderly couples address) to a bunch of hyped up idiots is definitely wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #108
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
80
Video of George Zimmerman in custody immediately after the incident:
ABC News Video

This doesn't necessarily contradict what was reported in the police report, since first aid was administered at the scene before Zimmerman was brought to the station, but it does suggest any injuries were less severe than Zimmerman's lawyer suggested.
 
  • #109
1,944
0
Video of George Zimmerman in custody immediately after the incident:
ABC News Video

This doesn't necessarily contradict what was reported in the police report, since first aid was administered at the scene before Zimmerman was brought to the station, but it does suggest any injuries were less severe than Zimmerman's lawyer suggested.
I don't see any blood or visible wounds and he doesn't even look stunned or shocked after having killed someone. Not that any of that means much other then the case just keeps smelling worse with every fact revealed.
 
  • #110
29,762
6,089
Compelling a jury to vote a certain way happens given the evidence as compelling is a form of influencing (not exactly a form, but is the act of influencing someone to produce an outcome), so that isn't absurd.
No amount of evidence can compel a jury to convict, at least not in the USA. The usual name for this is jury nullification, where the jury renders a verdict of not guilty despite the fact that based on the evidence the jury themselves are convinced that the defendant is in fact guilty. So it is an absurd standard that no amount of evidence can meet.
 
  • #111
russ_watters
Mentor
19,705
6,047
I say "not sufficient evidence" in the sense that it is more hearsay than evidence to an actual case of events on the scene. It is more of the opinion of the officer than being something that actually details the events of a particular incident.
That is patently false. The key components of this - and probably all - police reports are statements of fact, not opinion. 'Lying in the grass bleeding' is a statement of fact. Someone is either bleeding or not - it is not a matter of opinion. It could be an erroneous or falsified fact, but it cannot be an opinion.
 
Last edited:
  • #112
246
1
Yes this is a terrible tragedy and one that could have been avoided if the man had been carrying a stun gun instead of a hand gun. As a parent I feel the pain of this young man's family. And looting and destroying a store as the mob did helps in what way?

Florida is home for many many very old people who live alone. They are constantly taken advantage of and many carry handguns because they have been previously attacked. But there has to be a better way to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

At this point people want a lynching - they don't want the truth. They want Zimmerman convicted whether he is innocent or not and if he is not tried and convicted there will be additional violence. Assuming Zimmerman is brought to trial and not convicted, if I were on the jury I'd leave the country because at this point no one wants the truth, they want BLOOD, REVENGE. It's so very sad.
 
  • #113
1,944
0
Yes this is a terrible tragedy and one that could have been avoided if the man had been carrying a stun gun instead of a hand gun. As a parent I feel the pain of this young man's family. And looting and destroying a store as the mob did helps in what way?

Florida is home for many many very old people who live alone. They are constantly taken advantage of and many carry handguns because they have been previously attacked. But there has to be a better way to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

At this point people want a lynching - they don't want the truth. They want Zimmerman convicted whether he is innocent or not and if he is not tried and convicted there will be additional violence. Assuming Zimmerman is brought to trial and not convicted, if I were on the jury I'd leave the country because at this point no one wants the truth, they want BLOOD, REVENGE. It's so very sad.
"There is no justice in or out of court." Clarence Darrow

Majority rule IS mob rule. Democracy isn't about majority rule and it isn't about civility either. It's about minorities being empowered enough to feel being stepped on all the time is worth it. The minute it isn't worth it anymore, they protest or even revolt. Welcome to the reality of protests, riots, and even terrorism when things get really out of hand.
 
  • #114
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
(1) Zimmerman stereotyped the victim saying he was on drugs, up to something, etc... When an autopsy report states that the victim was not on drugs....
Where's that coming from? News outlets say the autopsy is still under seal.
 
  • #115
jim hardy
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2019 Award
Dearly Missed
9,839
4,877
Never mind.
 
Last edited:
  • #116
16
3
No amount of evidence can compel a jury to convict, at least not in the USA. The usual name for this is jury nullification, where the jury renders a verdict of not guilty despite the fact that based on the evidence the jury themselves are convinced that the defendant is in fact guilty. So it is an absurd standard that no amount of evidence can meet.
No need to bold the word compel as I have told you what I meant by it which is in correspondence to the actual meaning of it. A certain amount of evidence, i.e. tangible facts to the case can heavily influence/compel a jury to convict. Your last statement is irrelevant.

That is patently false. The key components of this - and probably all - police reports are statements of fact, not opinion. 'Lying in the grass bleeding' is a statement of fact. Someone is either bleeding or not - it is not a matter of opinion. It could be an erroneous or falsified fact, but it cannot be an opinion.
More like false statement, incorrect account, incorrect version, or lie, half-truth, etc... False (untrue) fact (truth) seems more akin to an oxymoron.

In addition, what I stated is not "patently false". Police statements if cross examined are facts. Facts are truths, it is true that the officer said x and y, but not true that x and y exist or occurred. Saying something and it being true is dependent upon its validation, "person lying in the grass bleeding", is a version of the story I've told which is an opinion, what looks to be blood could be ketchup or something equivalent. Unless examined, it remains an opinion of the officer.


That's not how court works. Innocence is the default state, you don't try to prove it
Yes, that is how the legal system works. I am not saying he is guilty or innocent, two sides claim to different stories, so I am thinking the legal system is the best option before unnecessary violence takes place. And, seeing that the grand jury is deciding his fate, I alluded to it being left up to them to decide whether to indict or not. My personal opinion is moot compared to their decision. But I think a trial is a better option that could, if there is, guilt on Zimmerman's part, or prove to people who are damn near calling for his crucifixion, his innocence.

Remember the controversy surrounding the Duke case where 3 lacrosse players were accused of spouting racial slurs and raping an African-American girl? The outcry was nearly the same as this case, and through the justice system it was found she was lying and actually sleeping with multiple males. Once that was proven, everyone shouting on the hilltops for their immediate prison time became silent. It's better to wait for the evidence, but seeing as people who "claim" such things, aren't actually impartial to the matter.

Majority rule IS mob rule. Democracy isn't about majority rule and it isn't about civility either. It's about minorities being empowered enough to feel being stepped on all the time is worth it. The minute it isn't worth it anymore, they protest or even revolt. Welcome to the reality of protests, riots, and even terrorism when things get really out of hand.
That is all created by the government to instill more sheep-like mentalities amongst people. No-one should be living such lives as this isn't the days where we actually need to keep a mate around, live unnecessarily as people generally do, or horde lots of money. Now people want to look younger instead of allowing the process take its course, but those are different topics.

Just like this case, blown way over the top. African-American kid gets shot? Happens a lot believe it or not, but this particular case is way overblown because of the mishap in investigation. Sure the police have issues with their process and favored Zimmerman because he was in constant contact with them so they kind of knew him and wouldn't think, based on his past record of actually helping in catching criminal (some of which were African American) and not having to get violent with them at all, and they were in his neighborhood. So when he shot a kid, they more than likely jumped onto the assumption that he was actually defending himself. That is my take on how this occurred and why the investigation was seemingly mishandled.

As I was saying though, obviously the government keeping people in the dark of the happenings and the media in a fury. First Kony 2012, now this, what bills are being signed currently? (Too conspiratorial, but still... seems a bit unnerving and like too much sugar for my tastes)
 
Last edited:
  • #117
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
Never mind.
?? The Lincoln address was exactly on point, 150 years after it was made. This thread should use the relevant passages as a sticky.
 
  • #118
16
3
Most replies in this thread are replies of my defense in the position that police aren't always truthful.
 
  • #119
jim hardy
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2019 Award
Dearly Missed
9,839
4,877
?? The Lincoln address was exactly on point, 150 years after it was made. This thread should use the relevant passages as a sticky.
Thanks Mheslep

i didn't want to sound like lecturing.

Might try it again later on with a better intro.



Anyhow here it is without my running inteference.

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/lyceum.htm

Hard to believe he was just twenty. And wrote this in 1838.
 
  • #120
29,762
6,089
No need to bold the word compel as I have told you what I meant by it which is in correspondence to the actual meaning of it. A certain amount of evidence, i.e. tangible facts to the case can heavily influence/compel a jury to convict. Your last statement is irrelevant.
"Heavily influence" ≠ "compel". Since it is obvious that "compel" is a silly standard to apply I don't know why you continue to use the word. If you mean "compel" then try to actually justify your use of the word instead of complaining about bold typeface. And if you don't mean "compel" then stop using the word.

I agree that a police report by itself is not sufficient evidence to heavily influence a jury, and that is a standard which could be applied reasonably.
 
  • #121
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,825
2,052
Thread is closed pending moderation and a cooling off period. Some posts are drifting way off-topic.
 

Related Threads on The death of Trayvon Martin.

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
6K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
601
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
4K
Top