What I don't get about the Trayvon Martin case

[OCNewbie]

To clarify, my earlier question was about people looking suspicious based on how they carried themselves, dressed, looked around, etc... their general demeanor and posture.

I feel like the underlined reasons above are especially relevant to finding behavior observably "suspicious". The reason is, we have ALL been in situations where we were about to do something, typically in a public place, or "vulnerable" setting, where we made efforts to conceal our actions, or to reassure ourselves that our actions would not be seen/noticed by others. Let's say you're in your car, in traffic, parked at a red light, and you've got a giant booger up your nose that is annoying the hell out of you. Some people will just go digging with total disregard for anyone who may witness this socially-repugnant action, while others will give a few cautious looks around first, to make sure the "coast is clear" before they do such a deed. The same goes with farting in public.

As we are humans ourselves, we all have an intimate understanding of the observational faculties possessed by other humans with which to observe our actions; particularly sight and sound (and occasionally smell, in the instance of public flatulence, or hiding that dead body underneath your bed). With that understanding, we can empathize with the intentions behind the observed behavior/actions of others, without them actually telling us why they are doing what they are doing. This ties directly into finding observed behavior "suspicious", because we can empathize WHY a person might be scanning the area to see if anybody can see what they are doing, or if someone appears to be taking specific measures to conceal the sounds they would be making. Therefore, I say that one can absolutely identify "suspicious" behavior in others, through observations, merely because we can empathize with their actions from our own similar (if not also criminal in nature) experiences.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Here ya go; the post I'm referencing in its entirety:

Just wanted to respond quickly to this. Haven't yet read the remainder of your latest reply.

I stand corrected, and admit that that comment was too strongly worded. Thank you.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Have a look at this:

You do realize that that image is almost certainly 'shopped?

Regardless, I don't know what you're arguing against here. I already admitted that it is logical to believe that people who match certain profiles are more likely to be deserving of suspicion than others. I simply think that assuming someone is actually connected to a specific crime based solely on appearance is taking profiling beyond the bounds of reasonableness, unless a link between the crime and the appearance of a specific person has already been established as likely.

If what you say is true, then why do police departments bother putting out vague (demonstrated quite well in the above picture) composite sketches of people they believe to be responsible for crimes?

Had anyone put out a sketch regarding these crimes that looked like Martin? Not that I'm aware of.

Read the sign in the above picture. It's essentially saying: there are members of this community that have been trained by law enforcement personnel (like GZ was) "to report suspicious activity or persons in the neighborhood" to the local law enforcement agency. Is that not exactly what GZ was doing when he called the NEN?

It was when he called the NEN. When did I take issue with the call?

But where on that sign is there anything about stalking "suspicious persons? I'm not seeing it.

Are there in fact any credible neighborhood watch programs that would endorse what Zimmerman did here? Not to my knowledge.

 

[Geosurface]

Are there in fact any credible neighborhood watch programs that would endorse what Zimmerman did here? Not to my knowledge.

I believe if Zimmerman had done exactly as he did, got out of his car, re-positioned himself at the northern point of the "T" dog path and the street east of it, using that position to monitor down both pathways and see if he could spot Martin leaving the community, then the officer arrived and he had relayed to the responding officer "Yea he just took off toward Calabria Cove out of the back entrance." and then the officer had caught TM, and found a burglary tool on him or something... I believe all neighborhood watch organizations as well as regular people would have congratulated him on his efforts and viewed what he did in a completely positive light.

I think it is only with hindsight and knowing that someone ended up shot dead, that what he did looks unreasonable to anyone.

And if what he describes is true, that Trayvon decided to either lay in wait, or run a great distance back from being at, or nearly at, his temporary residence, northward to intercept Zimmerman before he could get back to his truck... IF that is true, I don't see how anyone can lay the blame for how things played out on him just because he got out of his truck to keep an eye out.

 

[Bowfinger]

OC: Will respond in detail to your longer thread tomorrow.

But as a point of order, not posting in that monstrosity of a thread doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of interest in this subject, but rather a lack of interest in spending time on a year-long argument.

I haven't posted in there either, because it already had over 10,000 posts when I joined, and I was not interested in either jumping in without context or spending hours catching up. Furthermore, like most P&N threads, it's more heat than light.

To add quick corroboration, I also avoided posting in that P&N thread yet have posted in this one. I saw that thread as a cesspool from the onset, with people on both sides asserting their (often glaringly ignorant) opinions as fact. I decided instead to wait until real facts were known.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

But where on that sign is there anything about stalking "suspicious persons? I'm not seeing it.

Do you have any proof or evidence that GZ stalked TM? Seems like had the prosecution/state had evidence of said stalking, GZ would have also been charged with such.

Are there in fact any credible neighborhood watch programs that would endorse what Zimmerman did here? Not to my knowledge.

So getting out of a car to see where a person ran to better inform the police would be not endorsed. I thought the neighborhood watch program says the watch is to observe and report.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Do you have any proof or evidence that GZ stalked TM? Seems like had the prosecution/state had evidence of said stalking, GZ would have also been charged with such.

If getting out of your car to follow someone around isn't stalking them, I'd love to hear what the difference is.

So getting out of a car to see where a person ran to better inform the police would be not endorsed. I thought the neighborhood watch program says the watch is to observe and report.

Well, I haven't seen any actual neighborhood watch organizations say that this is behavior they support. Most of them make pretty clear the expectation that you should report suspicious behavior to the police and then let them deal with it.

Have you seen anything different?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

If getting out of your car to follow someone around isn't stalking them, I'd love to hear what the difference is.



Well, I haven't seen any actual neighborhood watch organizations say that this is behavior they support. Most of them make pretty clear the expectation that you should report suspicious behavior to the police and then let them deal with it.

Have you seen anything different?

Here's the Florida statute on stalking. Please note there must be repeated following, harassment to meet the Florida definition of stalking.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.048.html

No where can I find a neighborhood watch recommendation that says a person can't get out of their car to see where a person they deem suspicious is heading. It does state not to confront or get physically involved the suspicious person. Which we all know in this case it can't be proven that GZ was the one to confront TM or get physically involved (start the physical altercation) with him.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Here's the Florida statute on stalking. Please note there must be repeated following, harassment to meet the Florida definition of stalking.

Okay, it doesn't meet the legal definition.

No where can I find a neighborhood watch recommendation that says a person can't get out of their car to see where a person they deem suspicious is heading. It does state not to confront or get physically involved the suspicious person. Which we all know in this case it can't be proven that GZ was the one to confront TM or get physically involved (start the physical altercation) with him.

Well of course they aren't going to have anything as specific as "don't get out of your car to see where they are heading". But in general, the advice is, if you see something suspicious, call the police, and then stay out of it. That is the main problem I have with Zimmerman's actions here.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I think it is only with hindsight and knowing that someone ended up shot dead, that what he did looks unreasonable to anyone.

Even if that's true, it's true of almost any situation where someone takes a risk. If it works out, they're a hero, or at most, nobody hears about it. If they screw up, then everyone says it was a bad move. There's nothing unique about that in this situation.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Okay, it doesn't meet the legal definition.



Well of course they aren't going to have anything as specific as "don't get out of your car to see where they are heading". But in general, the advice is, if you see something suspicious, call the police, and then stay out of it. That is the main problem I have with Zimmerman's actions here.

There's no proof that GZ didn't "stay out of it". Based on his wounds and the lack of defensive wounds on TM, I would say TM brought the fight to GZ.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

There's no proof that GZ didn't "stay out of it". Based on his wounds and the lack of defensive wounds on TM, I would say TM brought the fight to GZ.

Well, I haven't seen the wounds, nor full reports from investigators, nor most of the rest of the evidence. Neither has anyone else, which is why trying to argue the specifics of the case is pointless.

The issue I am addressing is whether it was appropriate for Zimmerman to get out of his car and follow after Martin in the first place. I do not believe it was, and I believe that that action, if it had not been taken, would have avoided a needless death.

You likely feel Zimmerman had every right to do what he did. We are not going to convince each other on this issue.

 

[OCNewbie]

The issue I am addressing is whether it was appropriate for Zimmerman to get out of his car and follow after Martin in the first place. I do not believe it was, and I believe that that action, if it had not been taken, would have avoided a needless death.

"Appropriate", based on what/whose standard? A legal standard? Or ?

Was the death of another person a foregone conclusion the instant GZ made the decision to get out of his car? If that's true, then I can see your point.

I agree that had GZ not gotten out of his car, things would not have unfolded the way they did that night. There were a number of actions that apparently took place after that action, though, that were totally out of GZ's control, and to which he should not be blamed.

You likely feel Zimmerman had every right to do what he did. We are not going to convince each other on this issue.

"To do what he did", are you specifically referring to getting out of his car and following TM? Yes, he actually did have every legal right to do so; "legal" being the operative term to consider since GZ is being accused of a breech of legality. The areas in which GZ maneuvered, after getting out of his car, were all public areas (or private to all members of that community, anyway), so he did have every "right" to go where he went. In fact the only thing that turned this into what it eventually turned into was the decision made by whomever of the two (GZ or TM) decided to get physically violent first. Maybe it was GZ, but he got lucky and there was no physical evidence to show this happening. But you don't convict someone of Murder 2, and send them to prison for a significant portion of their life for a "maybe"; that would not be a fair administration of justice.

 

[OCNewbie]

Well, I haven't seen the wounds, nor full reports from investigators, nor most of the rest of the evidence. Neither has anyone else, which is why trying to argue the specifics of the case is pointless.

There are pretty detailed pictures of GZ's wounds available online:

GZ, at the scene, in the back of a police car:

GZ, ~2 minutes (based on the cell phone timestamp) after the shot was fired:

There are also a number of high resolution images of GZ's wounds taken after they had been cleaned up by EMTs, after GZ had been driven to the police station. I won't include those here (but can provide links if you're interested; they're easily found online). There is also GZ's medical report which is available online, detailing the analysis GZ's doctor gave of his injuries the following day.

TM's full (I believe) autopsy report is available online, and goes into the details of ALL his wounds, scars, tattoos, etc. The ONLY fresh wound he had was an abrasion on his left-hand ring finger, just below the knuckle (and the gunshot, of course). I'm no expert, but I think it's easy to conclude that such a wound could come by making a fist with your left hand and hitting the wrong thing (a tooth, concrete ground, or some other harder-than-skin surface).

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I don't think we really know yet what, if anything, he did that was illegal, or that he should be blamed for. That will come out at trial.

There's no point posting pictures in here, I am simply not going to even consider any of it because it's valueless to me without seeing ALL of it, and without knowing the sources and their credibilitie and so forth. In other words -- doing what a judge and jury will do. I have no opinion on whether or not Zimmerman is responsible for Martin's death at this time. I just think what he did was, even if legal, incredibly unwise.

I also think it's behavior that, even if he is exonerated, neighborhood watch programs should be more specific about discouraging.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I don't think we really know yet what, if anything, he did that was illegal, or that he should be blamed for. That will come out at trial.

There's no point posting pictures in here, I am simply not going to even consider any of it because it's valueless to me without seeing ALL of it, and without knowing the sources and their credibilitie and so forth. In other words -- doing what a judge and jury will do. I have no opinion on whether or not Zimmerman is responsible for Martin's death at this time. I just think what he did was, even if legal, incredibly unwise.

I also think it's behavior that, even if he is exonerated, neighborhood watch programs should be more specific about discouraging.

The pictures were released as evidence during discovery requests. The prosecution had them for over 6 months before admitting that they were there.

You feel that what should be done about NW programs? Cripple them, discourage people from participating, looking out for your neighbor, not reporting details to the police, etc.
Cripple civil rights?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

OCNewbie, I'm surprised you didn't post this link/commentary in here.

Jose Baez shares his thoughts on the GZ case:

http://www.clickorlando.com/-Flashp...Baez/-/1637238/19230058/-/e0pn6d/-/index.html

Skip ahead to 7:33 for the relevant discussion.

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...vidence-so-weak-in-george-zimmerman-case.html

Jose Baez: Evidence ’so weak’ in George Zimmerman case

Jose Baez turned analyst on the George Zimmerman case and gave viewers of preview of what they might see in coming months. “I have never seen a high-profile case that is so weak as the Zimmerman case,” Baez told Lauren Rowe on WKMG-Channel 6’s "Flashpoint" The program aired Sunday morning.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

You feel that what should be done about NW programs? Cripple them, discourage people from participating, looking out for your neighbor, not reporting details to the police, etc.
Cripple civil rights?

I never said any of that, so I see no point in even asking me.

I said that I think NW programs should make clear that people should report suspicious activity and NOT pursue suspects -- for their own safety, as well as to avoid this sort of situation.

 

[Geosurface]

I never said any of that, so I see no point in even asking me.

I said that I think NW programs should make clear that people should report suspicious activity and NOT pursue suspects -- for their own safety, as well as to avoid this sort of situation.

I actually can agree with that.

I just don't happen to think what George Zimmerman did that night, based on his account and the evidence which seems to fit it (so far) fits the definition of "pursue" - certainly a lot of people disagree with me on that.

I just don't think getting out of your vehicle and re-positioning yourself somewhere you hope you might maintain or reacquire a visual from rises to the level of "pursuit" - "pursuit" to me implies a desire to catch up to the person.

I don't think it should be made illegal for a private citizen to approach another private citizen, whether that's to ask them directions, ask them their business or whatever... but I have no problem with Neighborhood Watch groups *advising* against doing so, with wording about how this could put you in danger if the person really is a criminal, etc...

I expect that sort of cautionary language and there's a lot of it already in there. As long as peoples' legal rights aren't changed, and no attempt to make NW guidelines and suggestions legally binding is made... then by all means, add that language. I'm sure that language is already present in a huge number of watch guidelines and handbooks.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I expect that sort of cautionary language and there's a lot of it already in there.

But that's what I've been saying.

I understand defending Zimmerman against charges that following Martin was illegal somehow. Because it most likely wasn't.

What I don't get at all is the incredible effort some people are making to try to make what Zimmerman did seem like entirely reasonable and normal behavior for someone in a neighborhood watch. Because everything I have seen indicates that standard advice is *against* what Zimmerman did.

I don't want to see Zimmerman go to jail if he really did nothing more than get out of his car and follow Martin. But I also don't want other people involved in NW programs to think that Zimmerman's actions were entirely appropriate and wise. Because they were not.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I also think it's behavior that, even if he is exonerated, neighborhood watch programs should be more specific about discouraging.

You feel that what should be done about NW programs? Cripple them, discourage people from participating, looking out for your neighbor, not reporting details to the police, etc.
Cripple civil rights?

I never said any of that, so I see no point in even asking me.

I said that I think NW programs should make clear that people should report suspicious activity and NOT pursue suspects -- for their own safety, as well as to avoid this sort of situation.

I am not stating that you did.

You left the post hanging about what should be discouraged. (Red/bold)

I asked why should the items that I indicated be discouraged.
They either make a NW better or they infringe on civil liberties.

Pursue vs follow.

As long as one can keep a subject in view, it is easier to LEO to take up where oen hands over the information.

To allow a subject to get out of sight, cripples the LEO effort.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I am not stating that you did.

Then why did you offere those bogus suggestions ("cripple civil rights") right after you asked your question, when I have never expressed those sorts of views in this thread?

Pursue vs follow.

"Pursue" and "follow" are sufficiently synonymous that trying to differentiate them becomes a game of semantics. Whatever word you like, he got out of his car and went after Martin.

As long as one can keep a subject in view, it is easier to LEO to take up where oen hands over the information.

To allow a subject to get out of sight, cripples the LEO effort.

Then why did the cops say "we don't need you to do that"?

Can you find ANY neighborhood watch program that officially instructs people who observe a "suspicious person" to follow them?

 

[EagleKeeper]

My intention was to offer up suggestions on what would cripple the NW programs.

In response to what I felt was a chopped off post of yours.

Pursue vs follow.

"Pursue" and "follow" are sufficiently synonymous that trying to differentiate them becomes a game of semantics. Whatever word you like, he got out of his car and went after Martin.

And we differ as to that is a good/valid thing or not. Maybe differenet social values lead to different conclusions

As long as one can keep a subject in view, it is easier to LEO to take up where one hands over the information.

To allow a subject to get out of sight, cripples the LEO effort.

Then why did the cops say "we don't need you to do that"?

Can you find ANY neighborhood watch program that officially instructs people who observe a "suspicious person" to follow them?

It would be up to each agency as to their attitudes toward how they expect the NW program to function and interact with the agency.

To me WATCH means that, not cowering behind closed doors and hoping that some neighbor down the street might see something while waiting for the LEO to show.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

It would be up to each agency as to their attitudes toward how they expect the NW program to function and interact with the agency.

True, but so far nobody has found even one that says it would approve of what Zimmerman did here. That seems pretty telling to me.

To me WATCH means that, not cowering behind closed doors and hoping that some neighbor down the street might see something while waiting for the LEO to show.

There's a lot of middle ground between "cowering" and pursuing.

Again, if this was a reasonable move, I'd expect to see neighborhood watch programs approving of it.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Here is the fairly extensive PDF manual on setting up and running neighborhood watches from what I believe is the largest NW organization in the US.

On page 22 I see this:

REMEMBER:

Community members only serve as the extra “eyes and ears” of law enforcement. They should report their observations of suspicious activities to law enforcement; however, citizens should never try to take action on those observations. Trained law enforcement should be the only ones ever to take action based on observations of suspicious activities.

The word "REMEMBER" is in large font red letters, and the whole thing is specially placed in a callout box so it will be sure to be seen.

(We can argue about what "taking action" means, but as soon as Zimmerman left his car to follow Martin, he stopped just "observing".)

If anyone has any sources from reputable NW programs contradicting this, I'd like to see them. But I doubt you'll find any.