Crime Time: Expert opinions on Petraeus, Broadwell & Trayvon Martin

EPISODE SYNOPSIS: The Clemente Brothers have both worked as FBI Agents, Police investigators, and currently write and consult for television. They are truly a unique pair, but they remain clearly distinct from one-another in their social and political outlooks. From their take on Gen. Petraeus’ recent scandal to their explosive divergence of opinions on the Trayvon Martin case, they showcase their opinions and willingness to challenge the other’s reasoning. GUEST BIOS: From 1998 until his retirement in October 2009, Jim Clemente was a Supervisory Special Agent in the FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit in Quantico, Virginia. He has undergraduate degrees in Chemistry and Philosophy as well as a JD from Fordham University School of Law. Clemente was stationed in Guantanamo to consult on interrogation methods and the development of an interrogation plan, but took a public stand against the tactics, saying they violated the US Torture Statute. Clemente is now a Consultant/Writer/Producer for Network Television and Feature Films for the television program “Criminal Minds.” He is a nationally recognized expert in the fields of Sex Crimes Investigations, Sex Offender Behavior, Child Sexual Victimization, and Child Pornography. As an FBI Special Agent Tim Clemente worked as a counter-terrorism and tactical operations expert around the world, specializing in Europe, the Balkans, the Middle East, and Africa. An expert interviewer/interrogator, he is extremely adept at “flipping” people 

Sphere: Related Content

25 responses to “Crime Time: Expert opinions on Petraeus, Broadwell & Trayvon Martin”

  1. Faladrin

    But you and I don’t know if GZ put a hand on TM or not. I’ll give you GZ had injuries and given both the front and back of his face were hurt it doesn’t seem like he fell or something on his own, it definately seems like he was attacked. But we don’t know who did what first. So TM had no injuries, so what, that just means if GZ did do something he wasn’t affective, not that he didn’t put a hand on TM. We know pretty much nothing of TM’s choices.

  2. Faladrin

    And actually we do know that one choice of TM was that he tried to get away from the guy following him. But the guy following him caught up. So that choice of TM’s was absolutely correct. He first tried to flee. There is no indicication that GZ was trying to keep any sort of distance. He was clearly following TM and maybe he was being careless about how close he was getting or maybe he purposely confronted TM. I don’t buy that their meeting was an accident of TM going around a corner.

  3. rak haemet

    Actually, we don’t know that GZ caught up to him. FACT. The evidence STRONGLY suggests otherwise. You imagine it b/c the media was race baiting and twisted the facts when this story first came out. I think it caused an unfair bias against George. I am just glad I was intelligent enough to see through it and not be a sheep. But it was nice debating with you. I hope you had a great Thanks Giving.

  4. DWeinberger93

    Okay, so let’s say that is true. In the Hannity interview GZ says that he stops giving chase and turns around to go to his car and TM is between GZ and his car. What motive does TM have for this and how is TM able to not only outdistance GZ, but then double back and get between GZ and the car. Why would he run if he was going to confront him anyway?

  5. rak haemet

    Having teens myself, I know they can be hostile towards people. My 23 yr old son walks to the store at night and he is constantly yelled at by people he doesn’t know or approached in an aggressive manner. He ignores them, but I don’t know what motive they have for doing it. I just know that he never followed them, but they obviously find some sort of motive anyway. I bet if my son did respond to them, that would be enough reason for them to go on the attack. So you tell me?

  6. Savino Vargas

    Being accosted at night gives you the right to stand your ground. Killer Z attended anger management classes because when you don’t listen to what he says, he goes crazy.

  7. DWeinberger93

    I don’t understand your analogy, is Zimmerman your son or the aggressive people?

    If you are just talking generally about the motive of that aggressive behaviour, I’d guess, laughing at someone’s discomfort and fear, maybe posturing. I don’t really see how random yelling at someone is the same as GZ claiming that unprovoked TM tried to murder a random stranger.

  8. DWeinberger93

    Doesn’t this contradict your prior anecdote about the friend’s nephew being shot in self-defence while taking out his keys?

  9. rak haemet

    First of all, I am not really convinced that TM was planning on killing GZ. That is not what has to be proven. Secondly, there are many motives TM could have. He could be what GZ thought he was “a punk” and I describe those type of people as purposfully engaging in conflict instead of avoiding it. They get an enjoyment out of beating people. Or he could be hot headed like my younger son and he may have been pissed off that GZ followed him. It is all speculation, but both are plausible.

  10. DWeinberger93

    But if that was his motivation, why give ground and look weak by running? And if you are not convinced TM was trying to murder GZ then it isn’t legitimate force and GZ should at the very least get a conviction for manslaughter.

    But there is no evidence to show that he was a hot-headed or sadistic person who liked to beat people. So it isn’t plausible, it’s possible. He doesn’t have a criminal history and the worst they can pin on him is a school suspension for drug possession.

  11. Faladrin

    He obviously did catch up to TM at some point since he claims he was close enough to be assaulted by him. Unless you suggest that after first trying to flee from G, TM decided to turn around and chase down his pursuer. I suppose it’s possible, but I doubt he would chance his tactic to abruptly. On the other hand we know GZ was following TM. It’s made clear from his own statements both on the 911 tape and after.

    I hope you had a good holiday too.

  12. rak haemet

    Not true. My friend’s nephew was going for his keys and was shot by a man who thought he was going for a gun. Obviously, getting your keys is not trying to kill someone, but the guy was never charged. He got self defense immunity. Armed people shoot unarmed people and get self defense immunity. The fact that the TM was on top of GZ and refused to get off when GZ was trying to retreat gave GZ a right to use deadly force under the law. Besides, TM could have disarmed him.

  13. DWeinberger93

    Yes, but TM didn’t have a gun to enact lethal self-defence when GZ went for his phone, so it’s only self-defence if you kill them straight away? I don’t really understand.

    As for disarming him, GZ said that TM was going for his gun, that’s allegedly why he shot TM.

  14. rak haemet

    No. The nephew was trying to break into cars so the person who shot him was reasonable in suspecting he may have a gun. That is the difference. If Trayvon attacked GZ out of fear b/c he thought GZ was going for a gun then I don’t blame him. However, the eyewitness and forensics doesn’t support that conclusion. But even if Trayvon feared GZ & was acting in self defense, I don’t see how it follows that GZ can’t defend himself. It would just add up to a misunderstanding or a tragic accident.

  15. DWeinberger93

    GZ did have a gun, that is the difference.

    How don’t they support that Travon thought he had a gun, what do they say?

  16. rak haemet

    I don’t think TM chased GZ down b/c GZ didn’t run I don’t believe. But evidence suggests he did come back to confront GZ. Why? Because the altercation took place in the same area where TM was seen running away a minute or two before. He had to have come back or hid and stayed in the area. GZ followed TM in his truck. What GZ was doing when he got out of his car was following in TM’s last known path. He couldn’t see TM anymore when he got out of his truck.

  17. rak haemet

    But GZ’s gun was legal. He had a right to carry that gun. Have you noticed that GZ was not charged with anything else? For example, if a bank robber kills someone they will be charged with murder, but they will also be charged with the bank robbery itself. GZ was committing no crimes. He had a right to carry his gun and a right to get out of his car. Under the law, GZ had a right to defend his own life.

  18. DWeinberger93

    Okay I’ll bow out of this fight gracefully. The key factors in determining this would be if they can prove Zimmerman chased down Travon or if his belief that his own life was in jeopardy is found lacking.

  19. rak haemet

    So far, there is no evidence he chased TM down. The evidence released suggest otherwise. Besides, how does a short fat dude chase down a long legged teen with a head start? He lost sight of TM. The assault injuries & witness testimony of TM being in the power position is strong evidence of SD. This is why the prosecutor didn’t take it to the grand jury. She knew that it wouldn’t get through. This is sad that someone died. I just see no point in unjustly persecuting GZ. It won’t change anything.

  20. DWeinberger93

    Actually one last thing, the assault injuries actually make the case that GZ use of deadly force was illegitimate. Those “wounds” on the back of GZ’s head were superficial at best. He required no hospital treatment and wasn’t covered in the blood that should have been pouring out of a broken nose.

  21. rak haemet

    Actually there are photos of blood pouring out of his nose, but it doesn’t matter. You are allowed to use deadly force when someone is assaulting you especially if they refuse to stop. TM was on top of GZ, GZ didn’t have the ability to get away. TM wouldn’t let him. So GZ is justified in using deadly force to prevent someone from beating on him. This is why this isn’t SYG.In GZ’s case, it is standard self defense. GZ was unable to retreat. GZ showed restraint, he didn’t use the gun right away.

  22. DWeinberger93

    No he’s not. He has to reasonably believe his life is in imminent danger.

    Where can I see these photos?

  23. rak haemet

    Just google it. They were taken at the scene. No. You use deadly force to defend your body from assault as well. You do realize that you can die when assaults you don’t you? Believe me, if I have a concealed gun and you are on top of me beating me without stopping and I have no ability to get away, you are going to get shot. Think I am lying. Go to Florida and do to someone who is armed and see what happens.

  24. DWeinberger93

    No I’m sorry you are wrong, you have to have a reasonable belief that your life is in imminent danger. My point was that if they can prove that a reasonable person would not have felt their life threatened at that point then GZ can’t plead self-defence.

  25. rak haemet

    No. Read the law. Mark O’Mara explained it. It is imminent threat to your life OR great bodily injury. Sorry. I don’t have to lie there and let someone continue to beat me. If I am lying there and not fighting back yelling for help and the person doesn’t stop beating me then I am allowed to shoot them if I have a gun. This is a fact.

Leave a Reply