quote:You seem to overlook the fact that Martin had a rather more serious injury.
Don't play dumb, kmbboots. If before the shooting, only Zimmerman suffered injuries, then we already know who was the assailant, and who wans't -- which is my exact point, that we know who the assailant was.
quote:In fact, you seem entirely unconcerned about the fact that a boy ended up dead.
I'm very concerned about the murderous macho cultures of America which leads to young boys becoming assailants of other people; and thus ruining their lives either by going to prison, or getting themselves killed. You know, the *systematic* harm.
I'm very concerned about the war on drugs, which leads to *hundreds* or thousands of innocent drug-users going to jail, or becoming the victims of drug-related violence.
But I'm not particularly concerned about violent assailants getting themselves killed, when the other alternative seems to be to allow them to kill or maim, instead. The boy was 17 years old. When you have a man's strength, you have a man's responsibility for the violence you perpetrate.
So, yeah, since I'm convinced Martin was the violent assailant, I will shed no tears for him, or any other violent assailant. To do otherwise is to blame the victim of an attack for the means they took to defend themselves. And I don't blame the victims.
quote:I said that your claim that Martin had bruised and bloody knuckles. Do you dispute this fact?
I dispute that I ever used the word "bloody" knuckles. I said "bruised". If you want me to remedy this by saying "scraped" instead, I hereby retract the word "bruised" and replace it with "scraped" - my point stands.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know enough about drugs, Xavier, to know what amounts mean what. I retract that point, too, if you want. The rest of the evidence remain.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: But in the end, the racial element isn't all that relevant
It was the only thing that seemed to be relevant, until it was effectively disproven as a motivation.
What? Do you really believe that the only reason most people cared about shooting an unarmed teenager was a because of racism? I'm pretty confident that if all the circumstances had been identical except the victims race, it would have made front page news. I suspect a different set of people would have be protesting, but I'm sure there would have been protesting.
The racial issues obviously got lots of media attention but its pretty clear never understood the racial arguments or why they were relevant.
I don't think anyone ever said that racial bias was relevant to the murder charge. It would only have been relevant if Zimmerman were charged with a hate crime, which has not happened.
The central racial issue was never whether or not Zimmerman was motivated by racial prejudice. The biggest racial question was always about whether the police investigation and attorney's recommendations were tainted by racial bias. That's why the case was turned over to a independent investigator. The central racial issue was not whether Zimmerman would have shot a white teenager under similar circumstances, it was whether the police would have arrested him and done a more thorough investigation if he'd killed a white teenager. If you don't think there are serious reasons to ask that question, you are pitifully naive about race relations in America.
We know that the local police had a history of serious racial bias. We have reason to believe that the police did a shoddy incomplete investigation of the crime scene. They couldn't even identify the victim for nearly a day. They had Martin's cell phone for gosh sakes. I'm confident I could identify most anybody in less than 5 minutes with their cell phone. Two weeks after the crime the police still didn't know Zimmerman had a criminal record -- they were going on Zimmerman's word. There is every reason to believe that the police would have handled the case differently if the victim had been white. If you don't think that's at least a good possibility, you are really seriously naive about race in America. The vast majority of unsolved murder cases in the US involve black victims. There is a well established systematic bias against black victims in the UW. Based on what I observed, this was always the main racial issue. The question of whether Zimmerman was racial motivated was an issue, but it was not the primary issue.
The question of whether or not Zimmerman was racially motivated is irrelevant to whether or not he committed murder but it is relevant to lots of people who regularly face racial discrimination and are victims of racial profiling.
America has a big racial problem that it simply doesn't want to face. That problem has two sides. Statistically black men are more likely to commit violent crimes in America than whites. American neighborhoods are still highly segregated so from a strict statistical stand point, a strange black man walking around a white neighborhood is a lot less likely to be on legitimate business than a strange white person. In most situations, it really isn't an unjustifiable prejudice to be more suspicious of a black stranger than a white stranger.
But on the other side of the coin, the overwhelming majority of blacks in this country are not violent criminals. Those innocent decent people get treated with suspicion, hardship and disdain on a regular basis because of racial profiling. They get treated worse by private citizens, businesses and government. In all kinds of subtle ways, black are treated as suspect until proven otherwise in situations where whites would be assumed to be innocent. If you doubt that, you've never sat down and compared notes with a dark skinned man. If you've experienced racial profiling personally on a regular basis, it's going to be relevant any time an innocent unarmed black kid gets shot by a vigilante. It's going to be relevant to you because you know how easily it might have been you or your kid. Even if Zimmerman wasn't a raging racial bigot mumbling epithets, he would be an extremely unusually American if race was not a significant part of why he thought Treyvon was suspicious. From a strictly statistical standpoint, it's extremely likely that Treyvon would be alive today if he were white.
And that is something that is a real racial problem. Even if 95% of black people were violent criminals, the innocent people with black skin should not suffer because of their skin color. I'm not sure how to fix the problem, but until we admit that it is a real problem we won't.
[ May 24, 2012, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Don't play dumb, kmbboots. If before the shooting, only Zimmerman suffered injuries, then we already know who was the assailant, and who wans't -- which is my exact point, that we know who the assailant was.
That's legally, morally and logically incorrect. A person doesn't have to wait until they have sustained an injury to defend themselves. What you are saying implies that even if Zimmerman tackled Martin, Martin should be consider the assailant unless the tackle caused an evident injury? Do you really think that? Legally and morally, a person should not have to wait until they sustained an injury to defend themselves any more than they should have to wait until they've been killed to use deadly force in their defense.
An assailant is by definition anyone who commits assault and not the first person to cause a lasting injury. I suggest you read the definition of assault. By legal definition, If you do something that a reasonable person would understand as a threat and which would cause that person to believe you are about to violently attack them -- you have committed assault and are therefore an assailant. If they hit you first, you are still the assailant and they are justified in defending themselves.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:A fight that involves my head getting injured from both the front and the back (a mere push/stumble to the ground would injure only one side), would almost certainly be a fight for my life -- and if I had a gun on me I'd use it to protect said life.
For someone whose never even got a bloody nose in a fight, you have a surprising amount of confidence in how much you know about what would constitute a fight for your life.
Roughly one person out of 1000 who is attacked by an unarmed assailant seriously enough to attract criminal charges dies. Nearly all of those who are killed by an unarmed assailant are women or children who are much smaller than their attacker. It's easy to break someones nose. It's easy to scratch the back of someones head. It's really hard to kill someone with your bare hands and extra-ordinarily hard to kill someone bigger than you without a weapon.
Is there anyone participating who ever wrestled competitively? How hard would it be for you to pin someone who was 4 weight classes heavier than you? What do you think the chances are that a good wrestler would be able to pin any wrestler 4 weight classes heavier? That's what Martin is alleged to have done. It's claimed he had Zimmerman, a man who outweighed him by 42 pounds, pinned to the ground and unable to escape.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you really believe that the only reason most people cared about shooting an unarmed teenager was a because of racism?
Yes. I'm pretty confident that effectively nobody would have cared if it was a white man had shot a white boy, and nobody would have cared if a black man had shot a black boy.
It not only wouldn't been front page news, I doubt it'd have been third page news. Race is what motivates tribal politics in America, much like religion motivates tribal politics in Bosnia.
And if the outrage wasn't political, then you wouldn't see leftwing and rightwing Americans align so *neatly* on whether they assume Zimmerman innocent or guilty. You wouldn't see the President make statement on a case of purely *criminal investigation*.
I'm not an American, so my being what's called "left-wing" in America on pretty much everything else (from same-sex marriage, to legalizing drugs, to America withdrawing troops from Iraq, to whatever) prevents me from aligning so automatically to what my political side's position is assumed automatically to must be.
quote:For someone whose never even got a bloody nose in a fight,
And proud of it, unlike you macho Americans, who see nothing wrong about a supposed "innocent" boy being violent enough to break other people's noses.
If someone's violent enough to break any part of me, including a nose, I wouldn't wait until they break my skull as well.
If you don't like it, here's a solution: Don't be violent, and teach your children not to be violent either.
quote:What you are saying implies that even if Zimmerman tackled Martin, Martin should be consider the assailant unless the tackle caused an evident injury?
No, I'm saying that Zimmerman didn't tackle Martin first. I'm saying we have enough evidence to recognize beyond reasonable doubt who the assailant must have been, and it was Martin.
Given the preceding scenarios and the following consequences, Zimmerman initiating a hand-to-hand fight just doesn't make sense as a narrative. He was armed. When you're an shorter, fatter man, and you're armed, and you're afraid that someone may be a criminal, you don't go for the fistfight, when someone may stab you in a heartbeat.
What makes sense as a narrative, was the young man being pissed off and offended that someone had considered him as a suspect (perhaps because of racial profiling), and being part of the American macho culture in which offense must be repaid with violence, (or you're not a real man at all), he went for the violence, overpowering Zimmerman easily -- at which point a scared Zimmerman cried for help and shot Martin.
If anyone truly thinks that it was Martin who was crying out for help, then you're wrong. That doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense that the guy without the injuries was crying out for help, and the guy with the injuries wasn't. It does make sense for Zimmerman to panic because he was being pummeled by a person he believed to be criminal, shout for help, then shoot Martin.
quote:How hard would it be for you to pin someone who was 4 weight classes heavier than you?
There's a difference between an athlete and a fat man, and it's all about how much of that weight is muscle.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A scenario that makes just as much sense is for Zimmerman to have grabbed Martin, Martin punching him in the nose to get away and it escalating from there until Zimmerman pulled his gun and killed Martin.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You forget one thing Aris. Florida is a "Stand Your Ground" state. This means that, "If a person feels threatened they are allowed to defend themselves." In other words, if Zimmerman was threatening in his posture, Martin was within his legal rights to defend himself even if Zimmerman doesn't attack first.
If Martin had a gun, we would have legally been allowed to shoot Zimmerman. Certainly he'd be legally allowed to throw a punch.
That's the problem with Stand Your Ground. Not that it legalizes hunting the poor. If the threshold for violence is the assumed threat of violence, then we get a shoot-out mentality. I need to pull my gun because first because he feels threatened by my so he's going to pull his gun first....
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Is there anyone participating who ever wrestled competitively? How hard would it be for you to pin someone who was 4 weight classes heavier than you? What do you think the chances are that a good wrestler would be able to pin any wrestler 4 weight classes heavier? That's what Martin is alleged to have done. It's claimed he had Zimmerman, a man who outweighed him by 42 pounds, pinned to the ground and unable to escape.
Weight classes assume equivalent levels of muscle and skill.
Speaking as a fat guy who occasionally spars for fun, I have absolutely been overpowered and pinned by people more than 50 pounds lighter than me. It wasn't even much of a contest.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: You forget one thing Aris. Florida is a "Stand Your Ground" state. This means that, "If a person feels threatened they are allowed to defend themselves." In other words, if Zimmerman was threatening in his posture, Martin was within his legal rights to defend himself even if Zimmerman doesn't attack first.
You put quotes around that, which makes it sound like it's the actual language of the law.
It's not. You're grossly misreading it. That's okay, it's not your fault, since the media has also been misreading it grossly.
The circumstances under which Stand Your Ground allows for deadly force to be used is this:
quote:He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;
It goes on, but the rest of it is related to the Castle doctrine, which only applies if you are in your home, so it's irrelevant in this case.
So: "feeling threatened" does not appear anywhere in the language of the law. And now you know. Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You seem to overlook the fact that Martin had a rather more serious injury.
Don't play dumb, kmbboots. If before the shooting, only Zimmerman suffered injuries, then we already know who was the assailant, and who wans't -- which is my exact point, that we know who the assailant was.
No, we do *not* know who the assailant was. We know who was injured, and we can judge probably mechanisms of injury. That is the extent of our knowledge. You are overreaching, and assuming fact that are not in evidence. If your view is predicated upon these assumptions, your view is incomplete.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If before the shooting, only Zimmerman suffered injuries, then we already know who was the assailant, and who wans't
*sigh*
no. no you do not. this is getting stupid. I'm sorry, but this has gotten incredibly, incredibly stupid.
I assure you, I have been directly and criminally assailed by individuals who have ended up with 100% of the injuries, merely through me reactively defending myself. I'm amazed to hear that, according to aris kataris Legal Logic™, said individuals then could have shot me dead, and the presence of said injuries on them and not me (prior to the gunshot wound in the chest, of course) will have conclusively proven that the act could not possibly have been anything other than self-defense on their part.
Jesus
H
Christ.
please back up and severely reanalyze your position. It is so invalid it is boggling me.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, I'm saying that Zimmerman didn't tackle Martin first. I'm saying we have enough evidence to recognize beyond reasonable doubt who the assailant must have been, and it was Martin.
How do you know this? What evidence do you have that Zimmerman did not chase Martin and tackle him? What facts are there that show beyond any reasonable doubt that Martin was the assailant? You can't just assert that is obvious. What facts make it obvious?
The facts I know are that Zimmerman was following Martin in his car and that he got out of his car and confronted Martin. A short time after Zimmerman got out of his car he and Martin were observed fighting. Shortly after that, Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest. Following the shooting, it was found that Zimmerman had a broken nose and a scrape on the back of his head. Those are the only facts I've seen about the time line of events. None of those facts tells us how the fight started. If you know of established facts about the course of events that lead to Martin's death, please provide a link.
I don't know what culture you come from, you say you aren't American. In America, following a stranger in your car and then getting out of the car to confront them are widely understood to be threatening acts. A reasonable person in Martin's situation would have feared an imminent attack from Zimmerman. By definition, those circumstances make Zimmerman an assailant.
Of the events we all know happened, this is the only one which might reasonably be considered assault. It's possible that many things intervened between when Zimmerman assaulted Martin and the time Martin was shot. It's possible that Zimmerman's assault did not start the fight.
It's entirely possible that after assaulting Martin, Zimmerman apologized for intruding, assured Martin he meant no harm and headed back to his car. It's also possible that after getting out of the car, Zimmerman chased Martin waving his gun or tackled him as he was trying to run away. It's even possible that the two men started a friendly conversation about the NCAA playoffs and Martin blew up when Zimmerman dissed his favorite team. But anything you think you know about what happened between when Zimmerman confronted Martin and the time when the two of them were seen fighting on the lawn is pure speculation. None of the facts I've seen say anything about what happened in that time period. It's pure speculation.
On the other hand, we know Zimmerman committed assault by the strict legal definition. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the most reasonable assumption is that Zimmerman's assault is what started the fight. It doesn't actually matter who threw the first punch. A reasonable person would have apprehended Zimmerman's acts as a serious threat of an imminent violent attack. Under those circumstances, Martin had a legal right to hit Zimmerman in self defense.
Whether or not he had a moral right to hit Zimmerman at that point is certainly debatable. Personally, I think it would have been preferable both morally and tactically if Martin had run for help. But I don't know enough about the situation to really judge whether that was a reasonable possibility. I don't think people should be expected to always take the morally preferable option when they are scared by a threatening stranger. The truth is, I don't know whether or not Martin tried to run for help. I don't know whether he was scared or just angry over the insult. I don't know how the fight started and neither do you. I think we need to know more facts before we can judge.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes. I'm pretty confident that effectively nobody would have cared if it was a white man had shot a white boy, and nobody would have cared if a black man had shot a black boy.
Then your understanding of what its like in America is pretty seriously flawed. It makes headline news whenever a middle class white kid gets killed by an adult. If a white neighborhood kid had been killed by the a white man on neighborhood watch, there would have been serious outrage if the killer wasn't arrested. If a middle class white kid had been shot by a police officer under similar circumstances, it would have been huge deal. It certainly would not have become the a big national political issue and media circus if race had not been involved, but it would not have gone unnoticed.
I can't really even imagine the same situation arising if the victim had been a middle class white teenage girl. I have absolutely no doubt that Zimmerman would have been arrested and charged immediately with murder if the victim had been a white teenage girl. If the victim had been a white teenage girl, it would never occur to anyone that Zimmerman's nose was broken in anything but self defense. People would be arguing about the whether Zimmerman should get the death penalty not whether it was self defense. It's hard for me to even speculate about how politicians and the media would have reacted if the only difference in the facts was that the victim was a white girl instead of a black boy because I can't really imagine that it would ever have happened the way it did.
[ May 24, 2012, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Race might have added fuel to the fire, but no matter how much of a tan the shooter and dead kid have or lack, this case gets national attention, and rightfully so.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As Rabbit noted earlier, the shooting might not have gotten national - international, apparently - attention if the police had behaved differently.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If someone's violent enough to break any part of me, including a nose, I wouldn't wait until they break my skull as well.
If you don't like it, here's a solution: Don't be violent, and teach your children not to be violent either.
What gives you the right to presume I'm violent and teach my kids to be violent.
I've been in only one fight in my life and was only 13 at the time. I didn't start that fight and I've walked a way from many fights since that time. I'm a committed pacifist. I'd prefer to be killed than to kill in self defense. I don't think I could live with myself after killing another human being. My very worst nightmares involve being in a situation where I have to injure or kill someone to protect myself or someone else. But in all honesty, I really don't know how I would react if my life was seriously threatened by an assailant. I hope I would have the courage and self control to remain non-violent but I can't guarantee that I would. I certainly wouldn't expect anyone else to. That's why I don't just hope I never have to make that choice, I actively avoid situations where I might have to choose between killing and being killed.
I think the right to defend ones self is accompanied by a moral obligation to avoid situations that would make self defense necessary when ever practicable. I think reasonable people can disagree about when its really practicable to avoid a dangerous situation, but Zimmerman didn't just fail to avoid a potential dangerous situation -- he created the situation. He crossed a clear line that I don't think any reasonable person could justify morally.
A person who straps on a gun and goes out pursuing suspicious looking young men is doing the exact opposite of what I is morally required to claim the right of self defense. He's choosing not only to put himself needlessly in a potentially dangerous situation, he's taking actions that are likely to provoke a violent attack and preparing to kill if it does. That person does not deserve the same right of self defense as a person who is minding their own business walking in their own neighborhood on a rainy night.
An unarmed person who is killed while walking home from the store deserves to be presumed innocent of wrong doing until its proven otherwise. An armed person who accosts strangers does not deserve the same presumption of innocence. We owe it to Martin to presume he was acting in self defense until it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not. We don't owe Zimmerman that same trust.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My favorite part of this latest turn in the conversation is probably the way you so authoritatively declare that it was Zimmerman's voice on the phone.
Nationally renowned voice evidence experts apparently are not to be trusted! To hell with what forensics tells us (when convenient), we need to rely on witness testimony...even when it changes. And if it does change, well then for some reason we should consider their first testimony reliable and not the rest, rather than taking all of it a bit less seriously!
It's laughable, man. You're specifically, openly not responding to direct pertinent challenges to your claims, while continually asserting your own argument's superiority. You don't get to do that-or at least do that without being laughed off.
(Oh, and your views on racial politics in America are...odd to say the least. Yeah, people care *so much* about race in America. Pft.)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have been directly and criminally assailed by individuals who have ended up with 100% of the injuries, merely through me reactively defending myself.
Did they call 911 in advance, before they attacked you? Were they armed with guns?
quote:My favorite part of this latest turn in the conversation is probably the way you so authoritatively declare that it was Zimmerman's voice on the phone.
If my life depended on it, that's the option I'd bet on without a question.
And I'd bet a very great deal of money on it with you right now, if I knew of a way where I could trust you to uphold your side of the bet, and where we could find a mutually acceptable third party to determine the answer.
But you don't have to believe, and I no longer care if you do -- you're the sort of person who argues that people don't care that much about race in America, and that this whole issue has nothing much to do about race (half a dozen references to race in the first few paragraphs of this thread illustrate that, I guess).
You have lost all credibility.
quote:Nationally renowned voice evidence experts apparently are not to be trusted!
"Nationally renowned"? Says who, their own webpages? And, yeah, when they claim 55% certainty in one sentence, and >90% certainty in the next; they not only aren't experts, they can't even do arithmetic.
So, yeah, I'll trust the witnesses. I'll trust the people who heard the recordings and recognized or failed to recognize people's voices. Your "experts" are bozos.
quote:And if it does change, well then for some reason we should consider their first testimony reliable
You know the reason. Second testimonies are more removed from the facts, more likely to be influenced by the words of others, more likely to be the result of exerted pressure. First testimonies are more likely to be genuine.
I'm not interested in talking to people who play dumb.
posted
I find this discussion to be quite interesting from a meta-perspective. Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, I think the thread provides ample evidence for the Denning-Kruger effect.
When a person comes to a fallacious conclusion because of poor reasoning ability, it is very difficult for them to recognize sound reasons for revising their conclusion.
As Denning and Kruger put it,
quote:Those with limited knowledge in a domain suffer a dual burden: Not only do they reach mistaken conclusions and make regrettable errors, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it.
It's should be self-evident that I think my own reasoning ability is not most likely at fault. After all if I thought my conclusion were very likely wrong, I'd change my conclusions. Nonetheless, like Denning and Kruger, I must admit that if I believe and understand their hypothesis, I can't ever really vanquish the concern that I am simply not competent enough to recognize my own incompetence.
[ May 25, 2012, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, well no wonder, Aris. They're not actually experts at all, contrary to what major news organizations and the criminal justice system says about them.
Also, they're stupid-their arithmetic doesn't appear to make sense to you, 100% layman, therefore the obvious conclusion is not only that they're not experts, but that they're actually *stupid*. Not that perhaps you misread a complicated, rarely used set of mathematic principles or something. No. They're idiots.
Can we talk a bit more about credibility, please?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought we established that the article probably mis-quoted the voice expert about which number was a probability and which was something like a "percent match."
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I thought we established that the article probably mis-quoted the voice expert about which number was a probability and which was something like a "percent match."
That depends very much on what you mean by "we". If "we" includes just you and me, then yes "we" established that the author almost certainly misreported the experts conclusions.
If you intended "we" to include Aris, then evidently "we" did not all agree to this conclusion.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember the conversation being had, and also really strong resistance to the idea that these two experts ought to be taken seriously in spite of an apparent basic math error. I can't recall if anyone who didn't already regard them as credible changed their minds after having the math explained to them.
Which is actually this latest round of chatting with Aris on a small scale, talking about 'all the evidence' points one way. Changeable witness reports? The ones which condemn Martin are the credible ones. Signs on Zimmerman's body which point to a very wide range of levels of violence? It was a brutally savage, powerful beating. Voice evidence experts claim Zimmerman wasn't calling for help on the tape? Well, they're idiots.
quote:I thought we established that the article probably mis-quoted the voice expert about which number was a probability and which was something like a "percent match."
So, this is apparently kind of pointless, but, as I tried to make clear before, what the voice experts were quoted as saying in the article was perfectly accurate. I get that this may not intuitively make sense, but I think I did lay out all the information you need to understand this.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought what was established was that the direct quote was accurate, but the journalist's paraphrase at another point in the article was inaccurate. At some point a number that could sum to higher than 1 was referred to as a "probability," which obviously it can't be.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
MrSquicky very clearly explained this matter already. Aris ignored it, and continues to argue from incredulity.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, but there was one inaccurate line in the original article (which I think was probably the reporter's mistake). When the article says
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.
it must actually mean something like "there was only a 48% match between Zimmerman's voice and the one on the tape," since it sounds like the chance that the voice was Zimmerman's is actually much lower than 48%.
Weirdly, when we were discussing this before, Aris said,
quote:"1 What will it take to persuade you the experts we've heard from so far actually are clear it's very unlikely it's Zimmerman's voice?"
I'm now already convinced that they've stated they're clear on this. And that the article misquoted them.
But now it seems like he's no longer convinced of this?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that anyone can say that Martin had a right to feel threatened at first. Being followed from a distance isn't particularly threatening, and we still have no evidence or credible witnesses that I am aware of that say Zimmerman did anything threatening.
He called 911, stated he had followed.....we all take that as proof he did. Yet he says, in the same call, that he stopped, and would return to his car.....and no one here seems to give that any credence at all. We DO know that Zimmerman didn't immediately approach and threaten him, because if he had it would be on the call.
Once again, I don't see that as physically threatening.
I want to know how it went from "he ran away" to a physical confrontation. If Zimmerman did stop following him, then I'd say he has a real case, because that means Martin returned and confronted him.
And for the record, no one claims to have seen Zimmerman brandish a gun, or threaten Martin with the fact he had one, so odds are Martin had no idea until it was pulled. At least as far as we can tell right now.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:"1 What will it take to persuade you the experts we've heard from so far actually are clear it's very unlikely it's Zimmerman's voice?"
I'm now already convinced that they've stated they're clear on this. And that the article misquoted them.
But now it seems like he's no longer convinced of this?
Maybe he forgot? I mean, if you really want to believe something, it's surprisingly easy to forget inconvenient details.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's say for the sake of argument that Zimmerman did get out of his car, look for Martin, return to his car without seeing him and then Martin attacked Zimmerman as he was getting back to his car. Martin, attacking from surprise, gets the drop on Zimmerman, and breaks his nose, and creates the injury on the back of his head by hitting it on the ground. Zimmerman calls for help, and then shoots Martin.
To be clear, I'm -not- saying that's what happened, I'm saying, -what if- that's what happened?
Should Zimmerman be convicted -if- that is the case?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course not. I'd still say he made a disastrous mistake when he decided to follow Martin, but obviously in that case it would actually be self-defense.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit is saying that following someone is sufficient provocation to initiate physical violence...so, does that mean you disagree Destineer?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In some situations it might be, not sure, but returning to the car would probably amount to a "retreat," which would take away any presumed threat. There might be some relevant legal mumbo-jumbo I don't know, though.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Rabbit is saying that following someone is sufficient provocation to initiate physical violence...so, does that mean you disagree Destineer?
You do not get to prescribe The Rabbit's view to a specifically enumerated situation of your choosing for the sake of impeaching it.
Particularly given that the situation you describe goes rather *beyond* having simply followed someone. In the situation you describe, as a hypothetical, the person who has followed the other person has retreated to safety. Thus, I think you should think twice before stating that as The Rabbit's opinion of things.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But now it seems like he's no longer convinced of this?
Back when I was saying I was convinced the article had misquoted the experts, or else the experts were idiots or liars -- Rakeesh and MrSquicky and all the other bozos here just kept insulting me for claiming to know better math than "experts".
Now, what, in the intervening pages you've all miraculously come to agree to my own point of view, that the stated probabilities of the article don't actually match and that there must a mistake or a lie somewhere?
I was actually using your own argument against you. Too bad people here changed said argument in the meantime.
Thank you very much for *eventually* coming around to my point of view, after first thoroughly insulting me on the issue.
Since all *subsequent* evidence however have shown Zimmerman to have been telling the truth on all other issues that had so far been under dispute, and since I've then found out that Zimmerman's acquaintances recognized the voice, but Martin's father didn't recognize his son's voice on the the tape; then the probability weighs heavily on this being Zimmerman's voice, since it'd be the first lie he'd have told about the whole story otherwise -- and it then becomes correspondingly more likely that the so-called "experts" are just making shit up if they say that it's not his voice. And for all I know it's not certain that they've not pulled different numbers out of their asses at different points in time.
It seems other forensic experts aren't so sure as those self-called experts that were hired by a newspaper.
But really, if it makes *sense* to you, that the person shouting for help was the one who had the *upper hand* and who was inflicting all the violent injuries - then fine, believe what you want, you're too mind-killed for words to describe.
Does it really seem a plausible visual to you? Person A being on top of Person B, punching B, A receiving no injury in return, *and* yet it's A who's shouting for help?
That makes sense to you, only if you've already determined that it *must* make sense to you. The rest of us must however find said scenario highly implausible.
When it's proven beyond even the power of your doublethink to deny that it was Zimmerman who was shouting, I expect you will *all* just refuse that this fact is remotely significant.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good point Orincoro. Of course I shouldn't speak to Rabbit's views beyond what she has clearly stated.
I do agree with her that if someone was in hot pursuit of me I would likely take that as a threat. Not sure I would initiate combat on that alone, but I can see how a reasonable person could.
And of course as both you and Destineer point out, in this scenario (that is exactly what Zimmerman is claiming right?) the armed man stopped pursuit and returned to his vehicle.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Back when I was saying I was convinced the article had misquoted the experts, or else the experts were idiots or liars -- Rakeesh and MrSquicky and all the other bozos here just kept insulting me for claiming to know better math than "experts".
No, this isn't actually what happened. What happened is that you leaned heavily in the direction, "This article is stupid, therefore these 'experts' can be disregarded," and when it was pointed out to you that, in fact, only a small part of the article was misleading...you didn't take that well. You're still not.
quote:Since all *subsequent* evidence however have shown Zimmerman to have been telling the truth on all other issues that had so far been under dispute, and since I've then found out that Zimmerman's acquaintances recognized the voice, but Martin's father didn't recognize his son's voice on the the tape; then the probability weighs heavily on this being Zimmerman's voice, since it'd be the first lie he'd have told about the whole story otherwise -- and it then becomes correspondingly more likely that the so-called "experts" are just making shit up if they say that it's not his voice. And for all I know it's not certain that they've not pulled different numbers out of their asses at different points in time.
First of all, no it doesn't! Much of the subsequent (though before, huh, timing wasn't something that you were talking about, speaking of changeable arguments) doesn't contradict Zimmerman's story, which isn't the same thing as substantiating it. You've been given multiple examples of this-when you began talking about injuries, people pointed out to you just how little force might've been necessary to cause those injuries. When you talked about the conditions of bodies, Martin's extremely minimal physical injuries, aside from the fatal gunshot, was glossed over on your end, despite the supposedly savage, violent beating he administered. When you talked about witness reports, reference was made to the fact that many witness stories have changed-and that eyewitness accounts even under the best circumstances can be unreliable sometimes, much less at night.
So no, the evidence doesn't say what you claim it does. This isn't a matter of opinion, either: it's inconclusive. Not just from an academic perspective, either. But perhaps now, since you seem to conveniently start believing voice expert witness reports, let's see if we can get what you're actually saying pinned down here. I doubt it, but I'm just a bozo, so I could be wrong.
Are you claiming that the experts hired by the Sentinel aren't, in fact, respected voice expert analsysts and that their credentials are self-created? That they have simply made it up?
I'll bet you won't answer that question. I'll bet you'll keep on sticking to the trivia that is whether or not the newspaper reported accurately, when that was only ever a secondary issue. I'll bet you'll continue your convenient, self-serving pattern of believing witnesses when they say something you agree with, but disbelieve them if their story changes; of disbelieving a given voice expert, but then believing another when he casts doubt; of insisting we look at physical injuries on Zimmerman, but glossing aside the extremely minor injuries on Martin.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yet he says, in the same call, that he stopped, and would return to his car.....and no one here seems to give that any credence at all. We DO know that Zimmerman didn't immediately approach and threaten him, because if he had it would be on the call.
This is incorrect. You can see the full transcript of Zimmerman's 911 call here
He does not at any point in the recorded call say that he stopped following Martin and returned to his car. Towards the end of the call, the dispatcher suggests he meet the police by the mailboxes, Zimmerman says "Actually, have them call me and I'll tell them where I am at". Which implies he did not intend to wait in one spot until the police arrived. Eighteen seconds after making that request, Zimmerman hangs up the phone. One minute and 57 seconds after he hangs up the phone, he shoots Martin. Twenty seconds after that, the police arrive.
I think we can say with near absolute certainty that if Zimmerman had just waited in his truck with the doors locked for the 2 minutes and 20 seconds it took the police to arrived, no fight would have occurred and Martin would still be alive.
[ May 25, 2012, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let's say for the sake of argument that Zimmerman did get out of his car, look for Martin, return to his car without seeing him and then Martin attacked Zimmerman as he was getting back to his car. Martin, attacking from surprise, gets the drop on Zimmerman, and breaks his nose, and creates the injury on the back of his head by hitting it on the ground. Zimmerman calls for help, and then shoots Martin.
I agree that if Zimmerman retreated as you described, it would be self defense but based on the timeline of events and the map, I don't think that is a very likely scenario. [/quote]
I just wanted to add a qualification to my previous answer. If Zimmerman retreated and then Martin attacked from behind, it would likely have been self defense. If Martin attacked as Zimmerman retreated but then tried to stop the fight and escape and was in fact screaming for help, then it would not have been self defense.
I think the converse is also true, if Zimmerman started the fight by assaulting Martin but then tried to stop the fight and was the one screaming for help, then I think it was very likely self defense. I say very likely only because Zimmerman was carrying a gun. If during the course of the fight, Martin became aware that Zimmerman was carrying a gun, I think he would have been justified in using deadly force to prevent Zimmerman from using the gun even if Zimmerman was crying for help and trying to get away.
[ May 25, 2012, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And of course as both you and Destineer point out, in this scenario (that is exactly what Zimmerman is claiming right?) the armed man stopped pursuit and returned to his vehicle.
The difficulty I have with this argument is that argument is that Zimmerman has an obvious motive to lie about what happened so it I don't think it should be considered "evidence" of anything. And his testimony appears to be the only evidence for the claim.
I understand that the stand your ground law places the burden on the state to prove Zimmerman isn't telling the truth but I think that's absolutely crazy. It makes perfect sense to say we should presume a man innocent of killing someone until he is proven guilty. It does not make any sense to me to say we should presume that killing a person was justified until it can be proven unjustified. That's just horribly wrong.
Killing a person is almost never morally justifiable. The default assumption has to be that killing a person is unjustified unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary.
[ May 25, 2012, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have been directly and criminally assailed by individuals who have ended up with 100% of the injuries, merely through me reactively defending myself.
Did they call 911 in advance, before they attacked you? Were they armed with guns?
Do either of these create a situation wherein when they shoot and kill me, they are guaranteed not to be at fault as long as they have injuries when they get around to showing up at the doctor?
The answer is, of course, no. But it will be interesting at least to see how you try to spin this. Will you claim I'm just the latest to be "playing dumb" when I pick out massive flaws in your reasoning?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just wanted to add a qualification to my previous answer. If Zimmerman retreated and then Martin attacked from behind, it would likely have been self defense. If Martin attacked as Zimmerman retreated but then tried to stop the fight and escape and was in fact screaming for help, then it would not have been self defense.
Just a note: I haven't read the Florida statutes to be absolute sure, but it's likely that neither one of the scenarios would allow Zimmerman to claim self-defense at trial. One of the basic elements of the legal defense of self-defense in pretty much every state is that the action you take in defense of your life/health must be proportional to the harm you're threatened with. A non-deadly threat (like Martin attacking Zimmerman with his fists alone) could only be met with a non-deadly defense. As soon as Zimmerman pulls his gun, he is responding to non-deadly force with deadly force and is making a disproportionate response. In order to claim self-defense at trial, Zimmerman would have to show that Martin not just attacked him but attacked him with deadly force.
The Stand Your Ground laws, like the one in Florida, maintain the requirement that the force threatened would cause 'imminent death or great bodily harm' before it will allow deadly force to be used in response. Whether a court/jury in Florida would think being physically assaulted met those requirements is, honestly, completely up in the air.
If Florida allows, Zimmerman might claim 'imperfect self-defense,' which is a mitigation defense--if he were charged with 2nd degree murder, imperfect self-defense would reduce the charge to involuntary manslaughter. But even in the above scenarios, if the facts were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, he'd still be found guilty of at least involuntary manslaughter.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: The difficulty I have with this argument is that argument is that Zimmerman has an obvious motive to lie about what happened so it I don't think it should be considered "evidence" of anything. And his testimony appears to be the only evidence for the claim.
There was not argument of evidence Rabbit, I was asking a hypothetical question.
Sphinx: Zimmerman is claiming that Martin was bashing his head against the ground, I'm not sure (if evidence shows his claim to be true) that this type of attack would be considered "Martin attacking Zimmerman with his fists alone". I think once you try and bash someone's head in (again, assuming that is the case) that deadly force might indeed be warranted.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Let's say for the sake of argument that Zimmerman did get out of his car, look for Martin, return to his car without seeing him and then Martin attacked Zimmerman as he was getting back to his car. Martin, attacking from surprise, gets the drop on Zimmerman, and breaks his nose, and creates the injury on the back of his head by hitting it on the ground. Zimmerman calls for help, and then shoots Martin.
To be clear, I'm -not- saying that's what happened, I'm saying, -what if- that's what happened?
Should Zimmerman be convicted -if- that is the case?
Not a chance. But I don't think that even if this happened....which we have no proof other than circumstantial to date....that he is bright, or that he acted responsibly. i just don't agree that he was automatically wrong to wear a gun to leave the house.
In that case, even if he was stupid being there he was justified in defending himself. He had every bit as much right as Martin to be in the neighborhood, and out and about.
First thing I would have said is "I called the cops, they are on their way now." then got in my car and drove away, possibly keeping him in sight....if I was sure he was suspicious. I would have also stayed on the phone the whole time, so I'd be covered if he attacked me and I had to defend myself.
I've actually done that a few times.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sphinx....you don't know about the paw if that is your belief. I've seen 2 people die from "only a fist fight". Personally.
If you attempt to flee and are attacked, you have the right to defend yourself up to and including deadly force. You don't have to think "Gee, I wonder if he is only trying to half beat me to death" while being attacked.
If (big if!) Martin attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman pretty much gets off, plain and simple. There are a few situations...like if he attacked, then tried running away and got shot, which is why the distance between him and the gun was so important....where Zimmerman may be found guilty, but they are far less common, and a bear to prove.
Rabbit....are you saying that we should treat everyone as innocent until proven guilty EXCEPT for people accused of murder? I am not trying to shark you, or trap you.....but that is what it seemed you were implying above, so I thought I'd let you claify. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do either of these create a situation wherein when they shoot and kill me, they are guaranteed not to be at fault as long as they have injuries when they get around to showing up at the doctor?
No event in the real universe is "guaranteed" 100%, nor can be assigned a 0% probability either. But at some point people of reasonable minds realize what is a reasonable and credible scenario and what is an unreasonable and non-credible one. That's why the courts use the phrase "beyond all reasonable doubt".
quote:Will you claim I'm just the latest to be "playing dumb" when I pick out massive flaws in your reasoning?
I think you're most definitely playing dumb when you demand absolute certainty (something that never exists in our universe for *any* event) for Zimmerman to be innocent of wrongdoing, while the slightest remotest chance otherwise is given credibility by you. That's called
The so-called "experts" people here babble about claimed >90% chance that it wasn't Zimmerman's voice. Even given that they trust the findings of said experts this supposedly meant "practically no chance it was Zimmerman" (though ofcourse 90% just means "one chance in ten for the opposite scenario") -- you on the other hand produce outrageous scenario that are probably not encountered one chance in ten thousand -- and yet you still mumble "it's still not guaranteed it didn't happen that way".
Tell me, Samprimary, do you think that the article you linked to in the first post of this thread is *still* a fair summary of the situation?
Described in the text you linked as "An A/B student", what is somehow not mentioned is that Martin was on his third suspension from school; one for vandalism, one for being found with a flathead screwdriver and a dozen items of women's jewelry, one for a baggie with marijuana residue.
Or that his twitter account, had Martin's cousin send him a twit saying "yu ain't tell me yu swung on a bus driver."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
