dagblog - Comments for "Reality Check on the Trayvon Martin Case"

Earlier yesterday, another

Donal — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 15:23:19 +0000

In reply to Oh shit, read your own goddam

Earlier yesterday, another witness called by the defense conceded under cross-examination by the prosecutor, Gregory L. Waples, that Mr. Cabey could have been shot while sitting.

That witness, Joseph Quirk, a ballistics expert called by the defense had testified with certainty last week that Mr. Cabey was standing when he was shot. But under cross-examination yesterday, Mr. Quirk said that if Mr. Cabey had turned and ''flinched'' just before the last bullet was fired, as Mr. Goetz described in his taped statements, then the bullet could have entered at the same angle as if Mr. Cabey were standing.

As it turned out, the jury had enough reasonable doubt to discount Boucher's and Macfoy's accounts that Goetz was shooting at a seated Cabey, and to speculate that Goetz was talking to Cabey inside his head.

Oh shit, read your own goddam

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 05:11:55 +0000

In reply to There was no autopsy because

Oh shit, read your own goddam article:

One witness, however, presented problems for the defense: Christopher Boucher. Boucher testified that Goetz did pause between his fourth and fifth shot, and went over to Cabey and fired the last shot point blank into Cabey's side as he sat in a subway seat. The fact that the evidence concerning the location of Cabey's entry wound was inconsistent with Boucher's testimony allowed some jurors to speculate that Boucher made his whole story up, though for what possible reason the jurors had a hard time determining. In the end, the concept of reasonable doubt turned the jury to a not guilty vote.

So not "autopsy", but whatever. The entry wound was inconsistent with his testimony.

There was no autopsy because

Donal — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 21:32:00 +0000

In reply to As your article notes, the

There was no autopsy because no one died. Regarding the first defense expert, "On cross-examination, Quirk admitted that the prosecution's theory of the firing pattern was also consistent with the ballistics evidence, but insisted that his own interpretation was "more likely."" DiMaio, the second, didn't sound very reliable.

As Bmaz notes, likely a

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 20:29:18 +0000

In reply to Gives me an opening to say

As Bmaz notes, likely a flamboyantly incompetent role.

No indication in the indictment of criminal activity.

No mention of the main statute constituting Zimmerman's defense.

Guesswork & innuendo. I that that was what the press was supposed to do, not the prosecutor.

As your article notes, the

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 19:50:15 +0000

In reply to Despite your statement, the

As your article notes, the star witness' testimony contradicted the autopsy of the victim - where the bullet entered.

In any case, a jury had to figure out what they thought happened within reasonable doubt. I wasn't there, I haven't looked carefully at evidence, etc.

But this article notes the process of how stories take place in the media - basic impressions turned into a story, rather than facts detailing the likely event.

And with the internet, in general people become modern media - not investigating facts, but simply categorizing them to a fixed narrative, using details to support a pre-fixed conclusion.

I don't care who's in the wrong - Zimmerman or Martin, Goetz or the 4 youths. I want to know what happened, and I want public policy & laws to reflect an optimum protection of freedoms and rights among all parties - a very difficult balance.

And I want media to start doing its job - find out what happened, report it. Later they can fantasize all they want, but first we need basic facts. When millionaire anchormen with millions more in resources can't tell you for sure whether the police confiscated Zimmerman's gun or not, it's sinful - it's killing us as a society.

We never know what happened with Wall Street theft, Afghanistan drones, health care, social security.... the media's so intent on being interesting that no one's left to report basic, clear facts where they exist.

We can understand fear and

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:42:55 +0000

In reply to We all come with biases. Some

We can understand fear and sympathize with people in multiple situations - however, we also have to come up with laws and define limits.

We want to protect free speech - but limit harassing & threatening free speech in someone's front lawn. How much is too much?

I think we know gangs of different colors can intimidate and harm passengers in the subway - the New York subway became the poster child for muggings - we'd like to limit the effects of gang harassment without encouraging citizens to just start shooting people every time scared or seemingly cut off from safety.

If the group in the subway were skinheads and Goetz black, how does the sentiment change? If a group of black thugs hassle a poor black woman out of her last $20, how does our reaction change?

If the guy in his house was white was defending his son from black kids beating up his kid every day to and from school and stealing his money, how does that change the picture?

People get scared and react in various ways - how do we define the limits? When is a gun okay to use, when not? How much leeway & flexibility can we allow in the definition?

Despite your statement, the

Donal — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:37:21 +0000

In reply to Despite Goetz's statements,

Despite your statement, the prosecution's star witness testified otherwise.

Despite Goetz's statements,

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:03:10 +0000

In reply to It appears from the evidence

Despite Goetz's statements, from witnesses there was no delay in the firing of bullets - that he did not wait and then fire the 5th bullet in cold blood.

It should be remembered that people in traumatic circumstances get things confused. Goetz's confusion hurt his position in general. - made him seem like a true Charles Bronson.

On the other hand, the situation, like the beating of Rodney King, crystallized opinion on untenable situations that had gone on too long - subway & city violence with a city full of fear, and police brutality against minorities.

wecan understand both fears,

Anonymous — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 10:03:00 +0000

In reply to And, sometimes an entire

wecan understand both fears, plus cheer a response as a symbol of our frustation, not a perfect repeatable solution

And, sometimes an entire

Michael Maiello — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 19:53:06 +0000

In reply to We all come with biases. Some

And, sometimes an entire culture shares the same reality tunnel. As I recall, Goetz was something of a folk hero in what was then a crime-ridden New York. To some, Zimmerman is a similar figure, though the public support seems far more fringe and muted. In both cases, though, there were well-meaning people who seriously believed that prosecutors had gone too far and were attempting to punish people who were, if not heroes, acting within their rights.