quote:If you slander me and stalk me and so on, then there are ramifications for those. You can suffer the appropriate fines and penalties for those acts. If I assault you, it isn't justified by your behavior. So yeah, you can defend yourself. I'm the aggressor at that point.
I think you are either misunderstanding the issue or misusing the word assault. Any threat of imminent violence, either through word or act, is legally assault. Assault does not involve any physical contact. If my actions or words cause you to believe that I am about to do you physical harm, intentionally, I have committed assault. If I threaten you using a deadly weapon, I have committed aggravated assault.
If I actually make physical contact with you, that would be considered battery, not assault.
Sigh.
Rabbit, you did read my posts, right? The three or four so far where I explicitly say I'm discussing the issue from a moral standpoint and not a legal one?
So, in context, when I say "physical assault," do you think I mean that I threatened you, or do you think, you know, that I hit you? Physically.
The word assault, while a legal term, is still a word, with a quite commonly used, readily understood, and well known definition.
Come on. If you want to argue with what I've said, go ahead, I'm happy to discuss it. But this is just pointless quibbling over an issue I've repeatedly explained is irrelevant to my actual comments.
Edit: And now this post kicks off a new page, while my post on the topic I'm actually interested in languishes at the bottom of the old page. Double sigh.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude, don't even get me started on pepper spray...I'll suffice to say:
Yay yay pepper spray! Works great in many ways! Buy some for yourself today! Don't have to fork over a lot of your pay! Save your life it may!
How about just pulling out your gun and ordering the person to lay flat on the ground as they are now under citizen's arrest for assault? Why ya gotta plug em?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way the key phrase that the legal system (I know that's not the point of your posts) looks for with justifiable shootings is "I feared for my life or the life of others." You have to have some justification for that fear, you can't just be ascaredy cat, but if you believe that a life was in danger, you may act.
So, if you are worried that someone punching you will end your life, then legally you can shoot.
Morally I'd say it is right to use the minimum needed force to remove the threat.
Is it wrong to shoot someone who is merely trying to punch you? Not entirely as you are defending yourself, but it sure is a bit wrong if you could stop them any other way.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I think it's like Arthur C. Clarke said about scientific theories. You can't convince the older generation of much. They pretty much just die off, still believing the old theories, and it's the new generation believing the new ones. I have little faith that anything will change in these areas very much, until a new generation is running things.
Also, again, like I've said before in another thread, I also think the rural/conservative skew of our Congress via the Senate prevents real change from happening.
The fact of the matter is, the most represented people on the planet are white people that live in Wyoming. They have the smallest population, but they still have 2 senators. Most of the bottom 15 states by population are very rural and white. Only Rhode Island and Delaware buck that trend.
You'd literally have to change the structure of the Congress to create real change and allow more equal representation. That's the only way you'd get real education improvements for poor/minority citizens, separated prisons, and handgun bans. That's not going to happen for a good long while. Probably not for at least 30 years or more...which will be pretty much when the old guard dies out completely.
It's like the song goes, "we're waiting on the world to change..."
which is a semi-polite way of saying "please die of old age already, so poor black kids don't have to grow up in Third World war zone conditions."
Posts: 52 | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you wish to further discuss handgun bans, I would join you, but please start a new tread so we don't derail this one.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I have no problem with people using "try not to kill people if you can resolve an issue another way" as another guiding principle. Seems solid to me.
The issue is that guiding principle no. 1, whether not also advised through this caveat, is overly morally simplistic. Some easy ethical quandary work shoots grapesail through the sails. We do not automatically get to claim justified self-defense if we play the game of goading them into an altercation, especially one initially motivated by fear.
If we take your statement at face value, you're creating a guiding principle which allows for entrapment. And with gusto, too.
In addition, "how easy it is to defend yourself" doesn't apply to how you wrote the first guiding principle. It's irrelevant when the guiding principle you 'think makes sense' is: "No matter how much (or little) someone physically assaults me, I have the right to stop them the most expedient way possible." It doesn't matter if the assault is in the 'extremely little' category (i.e., you're being attacked by a 12 year old) and your most expedient method is to shoot them.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, a handgun ban ain't gonna happen and would be far more trouble than its worth at this juncture. You'd have an easier time putting the toothpaste back in the tube with roe v wade.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Also, a handgun ban ain't gonna happen and would be far more trouble than its worth at this juncture. You'd have an easier time putting the toothpaste back in the tube with roe v wade.
Since Roe v Wade was just a Supreme Court decision, whereas the 2nd amendment is an actual part of the Bill of Rights, I'd agree. It would literally take a Constitutional Amendment to ban handguns and make it stick. I'll probably be dead before that ever happens.
Posts: 52 | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I have no problem with people using "try not to kill people if you can resolve an issue another way" as another guiding principle. Seems solid to me.
The issue is that guiding principle no. 1, whether not also advised through this caveat, is overly morally simplistic. Some easy ethical quandary work shoots grapesail through the sails. We do not automatically get to claim justified self-defense if we play the game of goading them into an altercation, especially one initially motivated by fear.
If we take your statement at face value, you're creating a guiding principle which allows for entrapment. And with gusto, too.
Entrapment of the "I made him hit me with my mean words" variety? Because I've expounded on that many times already.
Though I suppose it's worth mentioning that I also think that entrapping people is also bad! And nothing in what I said somehow inevitably leads to entrapment. You're simply observing that, by itself, it doesn't rule it out. That's fine. It's an idea about when it's okay to use force to defend yourself, it doesn't need to contain knowledge about entrapment. I have other ideas for that!
A separate principle: "Don't insult people in the hopes that they will choose to attack you because they dislike your words," is in no way inconsistent with anything I've said.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's an idea about when it's okay to use force to defend yourself, it doesn't need to contain knowledge about entrapment.
No, it doesn't need to. It wants to, if it wants to be a useful moral system. As written, when you apply it to the nuance of real-world positions, it turns out to be as impractical as a stand-your-ground law.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, so at this point I'm just going to assume you stand by your pleased anticipation of Zimmerman being the victim of prison violence, then. I asked you multiple times if you meant that, and while you have responded to (some) other things, you have continually neglected that. So: being satisfied with prison violence, which so often will include beatings, rapes, mutilations, and murders is a terrible thing to believe. Aside from being profoundly wicked in and of itself, it's also foolish since it serves neatly to heighten the violence and criminality of both its victims and its perpetrators, and this continues when they're out of prison.
As for other things you didn't address, you didn't address how you were wrong when you said I called you evil-I was very specific. You didn't address the morality of looking forward to prison violence for Zimmerman. You didn't address the contradiction between your supposed impotence as a private system in our government, and organizations such as MADD. you didn't address the fact that nobody said or suggested that prison reform be the most important thrust in addressing our racial problems. Color me the opposite shade from 'surprised'.
Oh, and on a different note, am I correct in remembering you said you aren't in fact a black person? If so, 'the brothers' sounds awfully...off...moving past your fingers.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rabbit, you did read my posts, right? The three or four so far where I explicitly say I'm discussing the issue from a moral standpoint and not a legal one?
So, in context, when I say "physical assault," do you think I mean that I threatened you, or do you think, you know, that I hit you? Physically.
The word assault, while a legal term, is still a word, with a quite commonly used, readily understood, and well known definition.
So what you are saying is that unless a person makes physical contact with my body, I haven't been physically assault and do not have a right to defend myself with potentially lethal force. Is that correct?
Let me give an example. Suppose I am walking down a street and I am being followed by a person in a car who is yelling obscenities at me. He has not made any physical contact so if I hit him, I'm in the wrong. Correct?
Next, he swerves his car up on the side walk attempting to hit me. I dodge so he still hasn't made contact. According to your "principle", if I hit him it isn't self defense because he has not physically assaulted me. Then he gets out of his car and swings a fist at me. I duck the blow and take off running. He chases me for half a mile at which point I find myself with my back against a wall in a dead end with no where left to run. He's still running towards me, cursing and threatening to kill me but he hasn't actually ever touched me. By your definition, if I a take a gun from my bag and shoot him, I've committed murder. He never touched me so I was the aggressor. There was no self defense.
Now put the gun in the other hand. He's running toward me cursing and waving a gun. He fires a shot that hits the wall over my head. He still hasn't landed a blow so he hasn't met your "common sense" definition of "physical assault". In desperation, I lunge at him. I put a foot in his groin and break his nose with the flat of my hand. He fires the gun and kills me. By your definition, I am the aggressor and he has killed me in self defense.
Is that what you are saying?
If not, at what point in this scenario would you say I'd been assaulted (common usage). At what point would could my choosing to fight be justifiably called self defense?
I know that I've painted an extreme case. There is an opposite end of that extreme where I might shoot someone because I felt threatened by a dirty look. Somewhere between those extremes there is a point where the threat of violence becomes serious enough that most people would consider it to be "assault" and most people would consider fighting to be self defense.
Your idea that a person has to wait until an assailant actually lands a blow is not something I think many people would call a "common sense" definition of self defense.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Also, a handgun ban ain't gonna happen and would be far more trouble than its worth at this juncture. You'd have an easier time putting the toothpaste back in the tube with roe v wade.
This man speaks the truth. Though I would jig in the streets if every single handgun disappeared, and the means to make them were lost.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, what's the point of your examples? You're still doing a very weird hyper-literal interpretation that, as far as I can tell, doesn't really address any of the numerous times I've given my opinion of what justifies force.
While there are legal distinctions between attempted murder and murder, for example, when someone is obviously trying to kill me I don't treat that person as an "attempted murderer" and use less force than I would against someone who I knew had already killed someone. For my purposes, both people are murderers.
If someone tries to punch you and misses, that's morally the same as if they punch you. Neither is the same as if they shoot you a dirty look.
I'm really not that interested in playing this game with you, but if you want to actually go back and read something I wrote and then discuss it with me, feel free.
Sam: My moral system is made up of thousands of ideas (what I was calling "principles"). So, no, I disagree, no single one of them taken in isolation needs to have an answer for everything. However, I do prefer that each of them, taken in isolation or as a whole, is consistent.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, no, I disagree, no single one of them taken in isolation needs to have an answer for everything. However, I do prefer that each of them, taken in isolation or as a whole, is consistent.
Then that one in particular direly needs to be rewritten. You don't have the right to stop a tantrum-throwing child with a shotgun just due to the expedience of the method. The caveats don't solve the issue of inconsistency, they create inconsistency. You might as well be writing "X, except Y, so ... not X at all, really."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit: I would say that in all likelihood D_F meant the attempt to physically cause harm, not merely the successful attempt.
As to the whole handgun issue, if we are making wishes on falling stars, why aim so low? Heck, I mean at least shoot for heaven on earth right? I mean it would take a magical wish to get the handguns, so might as well pick something better.
Guns are dangerous. So are many, many useful tools which can be used for good or harm. To blame the tool for its evil use is as silly as blaming the food for making one obese. It is the human mind at the end of the trigger finger (fork finger?) which makes the choices. Guns are neither good nor evil in and of themselves, simply powerful. Like all things powerful, those who wield them without discipline or good sense often invite tragedy into their lives and the lives of those around them.
We were founded as a country of free people (except for the obvious glaring contradictions) and let's face it, freedom is for the grown ups. You wouldn't allow a child the freedom to do whatever they wanted as within mere minutes they would have harmed themselves. You do not promote a free, self reliant and responsible people by taking away all the scissors because someone might hurt themselves.
Guns are the reigns of power, and unless good and moral people pick them up and hold them they will fall into lesser hands. It is good that the police have guns. It is good that a citizen in good standing (with the added implementation of paying for and taking a psych and safety eval) should be able to acquire a license to carry their weapon.
Zimmerman had a record of violence, and would likely not have passed a psych eval. In that way our system failed us. He should not have been given a lawful concealed weapons permit. That he ultimately caused discord, tragedy and the needless death of one of our young people is without question a problem of systemic proportions. That he has not been charged with any crime is a problem which is much larger on an order of magnitude.
Guns are dangerous. And while I fully support that Americans should have access to them to own and carry, it must be tempered with careful training and screening, and harsh penalties for those who abuse our freedoms and cast doubt into the minds of reasonable people about if we as a country are really able to shoulder such heavy responsibilities.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, no, I disagree, no single one of them taken in isolation needs to have an answer for everything. However, I do prefer that each of them, taken in isolation or as a whole, is consistent.
Then that one in particular direly needs to be rewritten. You don't have the right to stop a tantrum-throwing child with a shotgun just due to the expedience of the method. The caveats don't solve the issue of inconsistency, they create inconsistency. You might as well be writing "X, except Y, so ... not X at all, really."
I think you're grossly misunderstanding me.
For example, I think what you're referring to as "caveats" are actually parallel moral ideas that inform decisions, each of which should be internally consistent.
The only caveat I can see that I've expressed was "in the most expedient way possible" and on reflection, you're right, I don't need that!
If someone attacks me, I have the right to defend myself. Full stop.
If someone can be reliably and effectively stopped by nonviolent means, that's great! This child assailant angle seems like an intentional misreading of what I'm saying. There's no reason shooting a kid in that situation would remotely be the best way to stop the situation, and at no point did I indicate that it would.
If the kid is in the LRA and is pointing an assault rifle at me, then maybe shooting him is the best way to defend myself.
And once we get into the realm of physical altercations between adults, if you take guns out of the picture then the power is in the hands of the biggest, strongest person in the fight. That seems horrible to me. Often times the biggest strongest person will be the one that picked the fight in the first place, after all.
If you have the power to easily overcome your assailant without a gun, sure, do that. But if you're afraid you will not be able to, better that you use a gun and protect yourself than chance your wellbeing on your physical superiority.
This ties back to when I objected to the idea that once you use a gun to defend yourself, the burden of responsibility for the situation is shifted from the assailant to you. That's false.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a general principle I agree that the use of a weapon in self defense does not shift the burden of responsibility on to you, the attacked, but do find issue with the idea that any and all force is acceptable because the other guy started it.
I would go so far as to say that if a non lethal solution was present that was reliable and effective at stopping an assailant that it is evil to not choose it and instead choose lethal force.
Not the most evil thing in the whole wide world, because remember, this the victim of violence using lethal force in this scenario.
I still say that the threat of lethal violence is usually enough to control a situation. "I have a gun, I will use it, you are under citizen's arrest for assault, lay down on the ground and don't move, the police are on their way."
If the threat of violence isn't enough, you can always carry out that threat. But just skipping to the bang bang is no good in most cases.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have any specific objections to anything you just said there, SW.
(Do you call me DF because I call you SW, or is it just coincidence? I can call you Stone if you prefer!)
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If someone is attacking me, why shouldn't I stop them the most effective way I can?
Because not every crime should be punished with the death sentence? Because we should try not to take people lives if we don't absolutely have to?
Sure. Defending yourself against a deadly assault, rape, burning down your house could justify a lethal response. But throwing a punch in a fight you started? It doesn't have to escalate to someone being dead.
I've personally seen 3 deaths in fistfights, with no weapons drawn. Plus a number of disfigurements and permanent injuries.... So I don't care if it is a knife, a gun or a fist....I do believe that I have a right to defend myself from any of them, by any means necessary.
That is of course balanced by my desire to never put myself in that position again. Killing someone, justified or not, is not easy, nor should it be. I had nightmares for years, and I I did was walk alone thought a park at night, then try to run away when confronted, and I used my bare hands not a gun.
Regardless of if charges are filed, I am sure Zimmerman will pay a price, and will never be the same. And that isn't even considering the $10,000 bounty the Black Panthers put on his head.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to get meta-- well, actually, to get completely meta-- but I've been interested in seeing the evolution of how the media is handling this. Specifically in terms of the pictures they're choosing to run of Martin and of Zimmerman. When the story broke, the picture of Trayvon with his white hoodie-- a young, handsome, vulnerable kid contrasted with Zimmerman-- scruffy, thuggish, mug shot.
As time has gone on, other comparative pictures have come out-- Trayvon, looking at the camera with hostility, and a smiling, nicely dressed Zimmerman. (See that one here.
What I take from this thinking is this: I cannot trust the images the media chooses to run. To me, the use of the images seems timed to coincide with the shifts of opinion in the general population. When it was felt certain that there was a completely innocent child that had been murdered by a state-supported-thug, the media posted pictures that boosted that narrative. Now that better footage of Zimmerman's wounds has been released-- it appears that the guy had been in a tussle after all-- pictures showing Zimmerman in a positive light and Martin in a not-so-positive light are making the rounds.
I think I'm decided that I'll stick to text. Although how much I can trust the media's reporting is up for debate as well.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
While you should never trust images, it's worth noting that those subsequent images were specifically released to "rebut" the impressions left by the first set. And there's actually a third set, including shots from Zimmerman's first arrest and the party Martin was at just nine days before his death, which are intended to rebut the second set, but they haven't really "broken" yet.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If someone is attacking me, why shouldn't I stop them the most effective way I can?
Because not every crime should be punished with the death sentence? Because we should try not to take people lives if we don't absolutely have to?
Sure. Defending yourself against a deadly assault, rape, burning down your house could justify a lethal response. But throwing a punch in a fight you started? It doesn't have to escalate to someone being dead.
I've personally seen 3 deaths in fistfights, with no weapons drawn. Plus a number of disfigurements and permanent injuries.... So I don't care if it is a knife, a gun or a fist....I do believe that I have a right to defend myself from any of them, by any means necessary.
That is of course balanced by my desire to never put myself in that position again. Killing someone, justified or not, is not easy, nor should it be. I had nightmares for years, and I I did was walk alone thought a park at night, then try to run away when confronted, and I used my bare hands not a gun.
Regardless of if charges are filed, I am sure Zimmerman will pay a price, and will never be the same. And that isn't even considering the $10,000 bounty the Black Panthers put on his head.
Trayvon Martin will never be the same either.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, first you said "Yes, absolutely, institutionalized racism is worse than individual racism."
Then you say "Well, freakin' duh, Aris." when I note that that's a moronic position to take without taking into consideration the severity of each.
You're a horrible debater, incapable of expressing a single clear thought, and bashing me for actually being clear in what I say, and precise in my questions and answers.
quote:Trayvon Martin will never be the same either.
Yes, but if Martin was the one who first attacked Zimmerman, then Martin is the one to blame for Martin's death, not Zimmerman.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: . Though I would jig in the streets if every single handgun disappeared, and the means to make them were lost.
Oh, man--the Monkey's Paw/Ebil Genie in me just came up with 4 or 5 horrible ways of fulfilling that (implied) wish.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then you say "Well, freakin' duh, Aris." when I note that that's a moronic position to take without taking into consideration the severity of each.
It goes without saying that mild institutionalized racism isn't as bad for a given individual than *murderous individual* racism. It was a cheap trick, and I don't believe for a moment you actually thought anyone meant that ANY degree of institutionalized racism is worse than any degree of individual racism, no matter how extreme. Instead of focusing on what was actually being discussed, namely which was worse generally, individual or instutionalized racism, you employed a cheap, transparent rhetorical gimmick.
You also haven't had anything to say about how you've lied about what kmbboots and I (and possibly others) were saying about the burned white boy, that we were downplaying it. You got hysterical, continued calling people stupid (while hiding it behind 'Americans are so stupid', while transparently saying 'Americans who think what you do are stupid'), and ignored the fact that both of us acknowledged that the burning was awful, but that because the kid there didn't die, suffered first degree burns, and an investigation was begun at once, it's not as bad. So you lied about that.
quote:You're a horrible debater, incapable of expressing a single clear thought, and bashing me for actually being clear in what I say, and precise in my questions and answers.
Yes, well that's fine of you to think. Over here where we're *not* shouting and ranting and calling people stupid and lying about what they've said and playing the victim, I actually know that I've expressed many clear thoughts in this discussion, and your labeling someone else a 'horrible debater' (as though this were an actual debate) is good for the funny bone.
You know, you *could* just say, "Man, I was angry. My bad for shouting, calling people stupid, and misstating what other people said." I'd still think you were badly misguided on this issue, but that happens, no problem. I wouldn't think you were a big chump, though.
quote:Yes, but if Martin was the one who first attacked Zimmerman, then Martin is the one to blame for Martin's death, not Zimmerman.
If in the surprising event that Martin went from no known history of violence to suddenly and with great aggression and brutality attacked a man he didn't know who hadn't done or said anything to him beyond following him, then yes indeed, he shouldn't have done that, and he is the one most responsible for his own death.
That doesn't change the fact that even if all of that above is true, though, there would be one less dead kid in the world, and one less man who's killed a kid, if Zimmerman hadn't had a concealed weapons permit (as he clearly shouldn't have), hadn't carried it with him on *neighborhood watch*, hadn't followed someone when told not to by 911 (they have, y'know reasons for saying that sort of thing), and/or hadn't gotten out of his car.
How's that for a clear thought, Aris? You're welcome to point out which of those was wrong at your leisure, or you can shout some more about how stupid people are. If you do, be sure to follow up with labeling others horrible debaters:)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: While you should never trust images, it's worth noting that those subsequent images were specifically released to "rebut" the impressions left by the first set. And there's actually a third set, including shots from Zimmerman's first arrest and the party Martin was at just nine days before his death, which are intended to rebut the second set, but they haven't really "broken" yet.
I know, Tom-- that's part of my point. The pictures are trying to sell a certain story. What the public needs is not a story, but facts.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, it seems you're allowing for an obligation or duty to avoid killing if possible, even in self-defense.
Do you agree that such an obligation also implies a moral duty to try to escape a fistfight, rather than "stand your ground," if that's clearly possible? (Assume the fight doesn't take place on your property, or anything like that.)
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Stop saying that my arguments are "tricks". We need to form a basis for communication, so I need to be making simple statements.
When I say something simple, and e.g. ask you to confirm it, and you refuse to respond to even something as simple as that, then I'm forced to use even simpler arguments to you, which you then again refuse to respond to.
How do you expect us to form a basis for complicated thoughts, when you refuse to deal with simple ones?
I've not played a single "trick" on anyone in this thread, or in any thread of this forum, EVER. Stop saying that I'm playing tricks. I'm quite likely among the most honest and direct debaters you will *ever* find.
quote:You also haven't had anything to say about how you've lied about what kmbboots and I (and possibly others) were saying about the burned white boy, that we were downplaying it.
I honestly believe you were downplaying it. It was not a lie. You may claim it *false*, if you disagree that this is what you were doing, but it still remains my honest impression that you were downplaying it.
And I'll state it again: You were downplaying it.
"lost some skin," "Of course it was horrible, but it's being investigated and nobody goes to a funeral home." "Well he isn't dead. " That's what someone downplaying something looks like from the outside. What did it look like to you?
quote:That doesn't change the fact that even if all of that above is true, though, there would be one less dead kid in the world, and one less man who's killed a kid, if Zimmerman hadn't had a concealed weapons permit (as he clearly shouldn't have), hadn't carried it with him on *neighborhood watch*, hadn't followed someone when told not to by 911 (they have, y'know reasons for saying that sort of thing), and/or hadn't gotten out of his car.
How's that for a clear thought, Aris?
It's a very muddled thought actually. You seem to confuse the concept of physical causality, with the concept of moral responsibility, and you seem to confuse both with legal responsibility.
For example you list lots of *legal* things that Zimmerman did, which nonetheless *causally* led to Martin's death; and you therefore assign *moral* blame to Zimmerman.
Even if the moral blame was Zimmerman's, you can't assign legal blame by listing things he did that were in themselves legal.
quote:You're welcome to point out which of those was wrong at your leisure, or you can shout some more about how stupid people are.
If you don't want me to think you stupid, don't treat simple sentences as if they're "tricks" meant to entrap you.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: Yes, but if Martin was the one who first attacked Zimmerman, then Martin is the one to blame for Martin's death, not Zimmerman.
And we don't get to hear his side of the story because he is dead.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: I honestly believe you were downplaying it. It was not a lie. You may claim it *false*, if you disagree that this is what you were doing, but it still remains my honest impression that you were downplaying it.
And I'll state it again: You were downplaying it.
"lost some skin," "Of course it was horrible, but it's being investigated and nobody goes to a funeral home." "Well he isn't dead. " That's what someone downplaying something looks like from the outside. What did it look like to you?
I think it looks like stating the truth of a situation to counteract your hyperbolic claims that the white boy had been "burned alive". "Burned alive" usually means that one is dead after having been burned rather than having first degree burns which can be painful but not quite to a Jean d'Arc level. You also claim that he had third degree burns which is not the truth.
So, yeah, "downplaying" to actual facts, I suppose.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for correcting the "third-degree burns" mistake that I made. That was an honest mistake.
quote:And we don't get to hear his side of the story because he is dead.
True. But that happens in all killings, that someone ends up dead and we don't get to hear their side of the story.
So what's your exact point? Please be specific about how someone being dead should affect the methodology we use on determining whether the person who killed them is guilty or innocent of wrongdoing.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am frankly surprised that nobody has mentioned the eye witness that saw Treyvon Martin on top of Zimmerman punching him and slamming his head into the pavement.
Medical reports also read that Zimmerman did have a gash on the back of his head that may have required stiches, but due to the amount of time after the injury they weren't able to stich it up. (I'm not a doctor so I don't know if there is a time limit to stich a wound)
The witness also says Zimmerman was moaning "Help."
I'm not making a judgement on the case, just pointing out additional information. The witness backs up Zimmerman's claims, what witness has come forward on Treyvon's case? The only accounting of what happened in support of Treyvon has been by people that were not present when the shooting took place.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can understand the first/third mistake. Do you also see the problem with "burned alive" and why it is important? Do you also see how the police are working to get justice for Allan Coon?
Self defense is usually an affirmative defense. (I don't know if Florida law is different.) That means that the burden of proof would normally be on George Zimmerman to prove that he was attacked. The only evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman is George Zimmerman's story. Witnesses say otherwise, the audio recording seems to say otherwise, and the fact that Martin's hands showed no evidence of such an attack seem to say otherwise.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you also see the problem with "burned alive" and why it is important?
Since it's mere luck the kid survived, I see less of a problem with that, but I'll keep it in mind that English-language connotations of the word is that someone gets burned to death, and will thus avoid such miscommunications in the future.
quote:Do you also see how the police are working to get justice for Allan Coon?
No, I don't have any inside scoop on the police to know if they're working to get justice for him, or if they're sitting on their asses. Nobody has been arrested yet, after all, have they?
quote:The only evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman is George Zimmerman's story. Witnesses say otherwise, the audio recording seems to say otherwise, and the fact that Martin's hands showed no evidence of such an attack seem to say otherwise.
Actually: The witness confirmed Zimmerman's story. The expert on the audio recording says there 48% chance it was Zimmerman shouting, so this is effectively a 50/50 chance, not "say otherwise"
And as far as I know bruises take a while to form. The guy who made this argument about Trayvon's hands (http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/03/28/funeral-director-saw-no-signs-fight-trayvons-hands) isn't a forensics expert.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The expert on the audio recording says there 48% chance it was Zimmerman shouting, so this is effectively a 50/50 chance, not "say otherwise"
From the CNN article I linked to earlier:
quote:Owen, a forensic audio analyst and chairman emeritus of the American Board of Recorded Evidence, also said he does not believe the screams came from Zimmerman.
He cited software that is widely used in Europe and has become recently accepted in the United States that examines characteristics like pitch and the space between spoken words to analyze voices.
Using it, he found a 48% likelihood the voice is Zimmerman's. At least 60% is necessary to feel confident two samples are from the same source, he told CNN on Monday -- meaning it's unlikely it was Zimmerman who can be heard yelling.
The experts, both of whom said they have testified in cases involving audio analysis, stressed they cannot say who was screaming.
quote:Do you also see how the police are working to get justice for Allan Coon?
No, I don't have any inside scoop on the police to know if they're working to get justice for him, or if they're sitting on their asses. Nobody has been arrested yet, after all, have they?
Not yet, but in this case, that is because they don't know who the suspect are. They have said that they are investigating and that they intend to prosecute - most likely as a hate crime.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not yet, but in this case, that is because they don't know who the suspect are.
And if you believe that and give the police such benefit of the doubt in Allan Coon's case, why don't you do the same for Martin's case, and assume they let Zimmerman go because the evidence told them he was acting within his legal rights?
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The expert on the audio recording says there 48% chance it was Zimmerman shouting, so this is effectively a 50/50 chance, not "say otherwise"
From the CNN article I linked to earlier:
quote:Owen, a forensic audio analyst and chairman emeritus of the American Board of Recorded Evidence, also said he does not believe the screams came from Zimmerman.
He cited software that is widely used in Europe and has become recently accepted in the United States that examines characteristics like pitch and the space between spoken words to analyze voices.
Using it, he found a 48% likelihood the voice is Zimmerman's. At least 60% is necessary to feel confident two samples are from the same source, he told CNN on Monday -- meaning it's unlikely it was Zimmerman who can be heard yelling.
The experts, both of whom said they have testified in cases involving audio analysis, stressed they cannot say who was screaming.
quote: and ed, what is your level of satisfaction with your finding? are you 99% certain, 70% certain?
>> i'm in the 90s lawrence . i would love to have an exact kpamp lar of mr. zimmerman 's voice to compare to those screams and i could come up with some stein tisk evidence to prove whether it is or is not his voice at that point.
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: Scott, you do realize that's exactly what I said, right?
I encourage you to read the portion from the CNN.com article again. There's a difference between what you said, and what the expert is saying.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is an interview with Ed Primeau, the other audio expert.
quote: "There's a huge chance that this is not Zimmerman's voice," said Primeau, a longtime audio engineer who is listed as an expert in recorded evidence by the American College of Forensic Examiners International. "After 28 years of doing this, I would put my reputation on the line and say this is not George Zimmerman screaming."
This is all stuff that the police should have been investigating rather than the media and before media pressure made them do it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, if there's some sort of consistency between "48% likelihood the voice is Zimmerman" and ">90% likelihood the voice isn't Zimmerman's", I fail to see it.
Can someone explain this math to me?
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Using sophisticated voice match software, Tom Owen, forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services LLC and chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, told the Sentinel that there was only a 48% chance that it was Zimmerman crying for help on the tape.
Usually, a positive match rates higher than 90%.
"As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman," Owen said.
posted
No, I'm sorry, but this isn't a valid explanation to anyone remotely familiar with math.
If there's a 48% chance it was Zimmerman, you can't then use the fact that it wassn't a 90% chance, to reduce it down to less than 10% chance. If it's a 48% chance, it's a 48% chance. If it's less than 10% chance, it's less than 10% chance. You can't say "it's 48% chance, therefore it's less than 10% chance".
Either Owen is a buffoon, or he's being grossly misquoted in one claim or the other, or both.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Either Owen is a buffoon, or he's being grossly misquoted in one claim or the other, or both.
It's pretty clear to me that none of these are the case. You may want to try to understand how the percent chance of a match is being used there. It's a statistical measurement somewhat similar to determining if a given result is statistically significant or the product of random chance.
What the experts are saying makes prefect sense, you just don't know enough to understand why.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something meaningful to say would have been something like "48% of voice-element criteria match, but that corresponds to less than 10% probability that this is Zimmerman's voice".
But the article says instead "told the Sentinel that there was only a 48% chance that it was Zimmerman crying for help on the tape."
So, no, MrSquicky, either he's been grossly misquoted or what he's saying doesn't make sense.
You can't at the same time have P(X) = 48% and P(X) < 10%, no matter the X.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Look, what he said made sense to me. I think if you look into what was said and learn a bit about vocal matching, you'll see that it does actual make sense as quoted.
You're trying to compare statements about chance from very different contexts. I can get that if you don't understand that these are different contexts, the statements can look contradictory, but I can assure you that they are not.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
