Unarmed black 17 year old shot by Neighborhood watch captain in gated community...

Page 1603 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
O

OCNewbie

Diamond Member
Jul 18, 2000
7,596
24
81
lotus503 said:
Right because this is about you and your due credit. For drawing conclusions absent all the evidence.

Lol
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think I put trust into the Sanford PD's investigation from the outset, and when they said there wasn't enough evidence to arrest GZ, I trusted them. It appears to me that their investigation was sufficiently thorough and that the flack the Sanford PD got was unwarranted, IMO at least.

That's a big reason why I've had faith in GZ being innocent, or at least there not being enough evidence to prove guilt since near the beginning of the case.
 
Geosurface

Geosurface

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2012
5,773
4
0
Nah Lotus I just find watching the way people rationalize things or avoid certain conclusions because they are committed to other narratives etc, etc, to be amusing, fascinating, and disheartening.

That's all.

Fear not, you are one of the least offensive in this regard.

OCNewbie said:
Honestly, I think I put trust into the Sanford PD's investigation from the outset, and when they said there wasn't enough evidence to arrest GZ, I trusted them. It appears to me that their investigation was sufficiently thorough and that the flack the Sanford PD got was unwarranted, IMO at least.

That's a big reason why I've had faith in GZ being innocent, or at least there not being enough evidence to prove guilt since near the beginning of the case.
Click to expand...

Agreed, it never seemed really plausible to me that this police department would put their asses on the line to cover up a murder for some random dude, and as we found out later that he'd actually had animosity with that police department over Sherman Ware, and the ride along he went on and then badmouthed the officer who drove him... it became less and less believable that they'd hold the line for him, especially in the face of such withering media and popular attack on them. To me the logical conclusion was, especially when taken with what evidence we had, especially John's account on local news... that their investigation had come to the correct conclusion.
 
Last edited:
lotus503

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
OCNewbie said:
Honestly, I think I put trust into the Sanford PD's investigation from the outset, and when they said there wasn't enough evidence to arrest GZ, I trusted them. It appears to me that their investigation was sufficiently thorough and that the flack the Sanford PD got was unwarranted, IMO at least.

That's a big reason why I've had faith in GZ being innocent, or at least there not being enough evidence to prove guilt since near the beginning of the case.
Click to expand...

While I think SPD dropped the ball on a few issues, the overreaching narrative is that their investigation outcome was the correct one based on the evidence we have seen.
 
lotus503

lotus503

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2005
6,502
1
76
Geosurface said:
Nah Lotus I just find watching the way people rationalize things or avoid certain conclusions because they are committed to other narratives etc, etc, to be amusing, fascinating, and disheartening.

That's all.

Fear not, you are one of the least offensive in this regard.



Agreed, it never seemed really plausible to me that this police department would put their asses on the line to cover up a murder for some random dude, and as we found out later that he'd actually had animosity with that police department over Sherman Ware, and the ride along he went on and then badmouthed the officer who drove him... it became less and less believable that they'd hold the line for him, especially in the face of such withering media and popular attack on them. To me the logical conclusion was, especially when taken with what evidence we had, especially John's account on local news... that their investigation had come to the correct conclusion.
Click to expand...

I think folks feel something is off or wrong with the whole thing and I think they are right to feel that way. The mistake is translating that to legal guilt or similar ramifications.

A lot of people think he shouldn't have gotten out of his car I am one of them.
But as stated before that's not illegal.

I think zimmermans actions were reckless and dumb, again not illegal.

I think he is a lying shitbag, but again not illegal.

There is a ton to dislike in Zimmerman and his actions that night, the problem is translating that into legal guilt.

I'm also pretty pissed they have yet to release evidence of guilt, because I put some faith in the fact they wouldn't have charged him without it.

It will be interesting to see what unfolds from here, will they release a bomb? was it all a show? Who the hell knows at this point I suspect it will go to trial and he will be found not guilty.
 
EagleKeeper

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
lotus503 said:
I think folks feel something is off or wrong with the whole thing and I think they are right to feel that way. The mistake is translating that to legal guilt or similar ramifications.

A lot of people think he shouldn't have gotten out of his car I am one of them.
But as stated before that's not illegal.

I think zimmermans actions were reckless and dumb, again not illegal.

I think he is a lying shitbag, but again not illegal.

There is a ton to dislike in Zimmerman and his actions that night, the problem is translating that into legal guilt.

I'm also pretty pissed they have yet to release evidence of guilt, because I put some faith in the fact they wouldn't have charged him without it.

It will be interesting to see what unfolds from here, will they release a bomb? was it all a show? Who the hell knows at this point I suspect it will go to trial and he will be found not guilty.
Click to expand...

I do not think that there is a bomb; otherwise it would have shown in the released evidence.

They may have thought they had a bomb based on political pressure, twisted media reporting and coached evidence.

When the pot started to boil, the persecution team realized that they were just cooking a skunk. Now they are so far into the meal that they have to serve it.
 
Geosurface

Geosurface

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2012
5,773
4
0
An interesting possible explanation of how Trayvon's phone ended up so far south, further south than anything else, which I saw linked over on TalkLeft.

This comes from the guidelines of defibrillators and their use in emergency situations:

Cell phones and other electronic devices can disrupt the analyzing phase of the AED. Check for a cell phone on the patient and remove it to a distance of 6 feet or more. This will include your cell phone and any bystander who is carrying one. (If time is crucial, throw the cell phone as far as possible, don't take precious seconds to walk it somewhere. Remember, life over limb (or possessions, in this case.)
Click to expand...

So did the EMTs attending Trayvon use a defibrillator? I'm not sure. Did they toss his phone before doing so? Not sure again, but it's an interesting possibility.

A follow up someone there pointed out was that the cell phone issue is actually for the heart rate monitor, rather than the later "clear!" stage we're all familiar with, so even if they didn't get to the point of trying to fully use the defibrillator, they may have needed to get the phone out of the area for the initial heart rate monitoring phase.
 
Last edited:
S

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
He most certainly didn't have a pulse by the time they got there (his heart got exploded by his victim) so one can assume they did use one.
 
T

TerryMathews

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,464
2
0
Geosurface said:
An interesting possible explanation of how Trayvon's phone ended up so far south, further south than anything else, which I saw linked over on TalkLeft.

This comes from the guidelines of defibrillators and their use in emergency situations:



So did the EMTs attending Trayvon use a defibrillator? I'm not sure. Did they toss his phone before doing so? Not sure again, but it's an interesting possibility.

A follow up someone there pointed out was that the cell phone issue is actually for the heart rate monitor, rather than the later "clear!" stage we're all familiar with, so even if they didn't get to the point of trying to fully use the defibrillator, they may have needed to get the phone out of the area for the initial heart rate monitoring phase.
Click to expand...

OMG we love guidelines! :)

If the defense can show a defibrillator was used this is a good probable cause excuse for the phones location.

It makes sense to me too. High voltage can make a LiPo battery go off like a bomb.
 
S

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
corwin

corwin

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2006
8,644
9
81
spidey07 said:
Martin family now has website for donations saying stand your ground laws weren't meant for this purpose. Clue for you Martins, SYG was made law EXACTLY for what happened to the victim Zimmerman - so the victim can have a fighting chance against their attacker and not face retribution in the name of "justice". There will be no lawsuit for you.

http://www.eurweb.com/2012/10/trayvon-martins-parents-launch-site-to-revise-stand-your-ground/
Click to expand...
Damn...talk about a biased site...but at least I now know that Honey Boo Boo supports Obama:D:D
 
EagleKeeper

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
90% of donations go to the project.
Where does the other 10% go.
The article states that the family nor lawyers will not benefit personally.
What about professionally?
 
Londo_Jowo

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
I do believe there will also be an evidentiary (immunity) hearing before that date.

http://www.criminaldefenseattorneyt...mesticViolenceBattery/StandYourGroundLaw.aspx

Pre-trial Evidentiary Hearing under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law
When the defendant files a motion to invoke the statutory immunity, then the trial court must hold a pre-trial evidentiary hearing to determine if the preponderance of the evidence warrants immunity. See State v. Yaqubie, 51 So.3d 474, 476 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).
At the hearing, the trial court must weigh and decide factual disputes as to the defendant's use of force to determine whether to dismiss the case based on the immunity. Peterson v. State, 983 So.2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The defendant bears the burden of proof on the issue of whether the "stand your ground" or "castle doctrine" immunity attaches to his or her actions. Id.
During the evidentiary hearing the trial court considers the disputed issues of fact and must make a finding under the preponderance of the evidence standard. The court can either dismiss the charges or allow the prosecution to go forward.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom