Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » How to kill a child and get away with it (Page 18)

  This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  ...  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  23  24  25   
Author Topic: How to kill a child and get away with it
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Haha, i doubt it? since threads are not 'quality' moderated here (i.e., 'shut up you are making this thread suck') I wouldn't have called for any moderation here. Especially not if what was going on between aris and rakeesh apparently didn't count for the threshold.

You can read anything you like in my original comment, I was just stating my bewilderment that there was a ban to curb this type of behavior and communications between you and Aris were not included.
Posts: 5035 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, of course that's what you were doing. Expressing neutral bewilderment.

I'll be sure to be watchful for when I can express similar bewilderment in the future. When you begin to complain, I'll to on to express my hope that someday you'll be able to hear contrary opinions without claiming victimization, and I'll be sure to do this with all sincerity, too, as though it weren't thoroughly transparent.

Posts: 16181 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Man, can you just skip all the drama please? So tired of it.
Posts: 5035 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, you're really not. Again, there's a thoroughly effective way to avoid it if you really wanted to. Nowhere on the list of things included in that method is to take shots out of nowhere just for their own sake.

If you want to skip something, skip that, and stop behaving as though I'm reading something that isn't there when you make posts like that. I remember quite well your opinion about me-you expressed it in a pretty detailed, surprisingly honest (for this subject) post. Do you want me to go and find it?

No? Then skip the shots, or if you won't then for once quit whining.

Posts: 16181 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You put so many words in my mouth, and they are all negative.

You are so sure I'm saying all this crap, that for a second I wasn't sure so I went back and reread my initial post that upset you so, just to be sure, and sure enough, nothing of the sort was said.

You are so caught up in looking for negatives you are seeing things that aren't there.

But hey, you seem to enjoy the drama, so maybe fighting figments is it's own reward.

Posts: 5035 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not a figment that if the tone between Aris and myself were so objectionable, the way anyone would handle that would be to whistle it-unless they had something else they were after, too.

It's not a figment that the post was a shot.

And it's not a figment that you're personally antagonistic towards me, and have openly said so in very specific terms. You're only kidding yourself here. If the 'drama' were so tiresome, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now. If if started in the first place, which is unlikely, it would've stopped by now. Do you really think I don't recognize someone who wants to be seen to be right more than they want to just drop a tiresome conversation? Me? I've got virtues, but that ain't one of them. But I can fake it. Here, I'll show you.

Posts: 16181 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm sorry that you take it as a shot, I can only say that it wasn't meant as one.

Had I been trying to take a shot at you it would not have been something that was subjective, I would have said it in clear terms.

I don't like your antagonistic posting style, but that is hardly a secret. But that wasn't the point of my post.

I don't really agree with the way JB handled the situation in this thread, and feel it was vastly unfair to Samp, who was trying very hard to communicate with Aris.

I like JB, and he has a difficult job, but when I whistled capaxinfiniti's post on the previous page for swearing (which is clearly in violation of the ToS) and nothing happened, why would I think that whistling your post would have any effect at all, as your post is barely, arguably in violation.

You may not like to admit it, but it was not a shot at you.

I do understand that anything I say that might in anyway be taken as criticism of you will be instantly pounced upon with a whirlwind of accusations, putting words in my mouth and melodrama. Okay. I'll stop asking you to keep it to a low roar. Go ahead and blow the roof off, have fun.

I'm not going to curtail my comments just to avoid you throwing a hissy fit. I'm also not going to get dragged down into that particular bog.

Posts: 5035 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:

I dunno! Case manages to keep itself very interesting, because zimmerman is just not a smart person and he makes very bad decisions.

That's being very charitable, I think.

Guy with some violence in his criminal record ignores a dispatcher, pursues and shoots a kid who the police say wasn't doing anything illegal to begin with, lies to a judge, but deserves the benefit of the doubt? And the kid is the "violent thug?" Come on.

It's pretty amazing. It is almost kind of surreal, considering to what extent Zimmerman has amply demonstrated questionable behavior and a lack of credibility (far beyond what we can present and apply to Martin), to take the Zimmerman ostensible account of events and remain assured at this juncture that Martin was a "violent thug."
Posts: 13341 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Violnet thug Trayvon Martin: condemned as such by supposed Twitter posts of a cousin, the hideous crime of being suspended for pot, witness accounts at night (some of which report coaching), and most importantly...the word of the guy who later used deeply stupid lies to hide publicly collected money from the authorities.
Also, you know, by the fact of the very injuries on Zimmerman's head.

How much more evidence would suffice to you?

quote:
Also, Aris, I would love to hear how Zimmerman's behavior with respect to his finances factors into how credible his accounting of the events should be considered
I already answered that question of yours, WEEKS ago -- unlike you I tend to answer the questions you ask of me, and it's not my fault if you don't actually read my responses.

quote:
And the kid is the "violent thug?"
Are we back to people trying to wish away Zimmerman's broken nose, and his injuries both in the front and the back of his head? Trying to say he was never attacked by Trayvon?

And didn't those injuries get caused quite certainly BEFORE Zimmerman shot Martin?

How many people who aren't violent thugs have caused such injuries to another person in the whole of their goddamn lives?

I don't know any definition of "innocence" that allows you to bash a person's head in, just because they were lawfully following you.

Yes, Trayvon Martin was a violent thug, by all meaningful definitions of violent thuggery.

quote:
witness accounts at night (some of which report coaching),
You've said this before, but I don't think you realize that they tend to report coaching towards the direction of people coaching them to make Zimmerman look *guilty*. So keep speaking about "coaching" as if this discredits Zimmerman's side, but such reports of coaching have actually been in Zimmerman's favor.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And so that we don't misunderstand each other, Rakeesh, "How much more evidence would suffice to you?" is a real question that I'd like a real answer to, same way that I responded to YOUR question.

I'd also like people to explain to me something that I had thought commonly accepted by both sides: the fact that Trayvon spent some time hiding or waiting in the darkness, instead of keep on proceeding to his friendly house.

Is that now under dispute? Are people now claiming that Trayvon kept heading for his house?

Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
and feel it was vastly unfair to Samp, who was trying very hard to communicate with Aris.
Stone_Wolf, if Samprimary had been trying very hard to communicate with me, then pretty much every single post of his would be different. He wouldn't pretend to misunderstand me, he would answer to my questions, and he wouldn't say things like "Wow, rabbit really was right about the dunning-kreuger effect, wasn't she. I assume you think you are pretty good at psychoanalysis? Because this is pretty ... uh, profoundly wrong. Haha."

Perhaps you think "Haha" is a communication -- I see it as a attempt to status-lowering. As has been pretty much *every* response of his to me: to mock me for mentioning fanfiction, to mock me for using "know" instead of "guess" when I'm 99.9% certain of something, to mock me for pretty much everything.

He doesn't communicate, he mocks. There's nothing he has said to me that would meaningfully be said if it wasn't for the sake of audience to do his status-lowering games in front.

But in the end, the reason I called the moderator on him is because he first tried to indirectly use the moderator's voice against me at http://www.hatrack.com/cgi-bin/ubbmain/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=058858;p=15&r=nfx#000727

Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:


How many people who aren't violent thugs have caused such injuries to another person in the whole of their goddamn lives?

Probably more than have killed another person.
Posts: 10471 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:
and feel it was vastly unfair to Samp, who was trying very hard to communicate with Aris.
Stone_Wolf, if Samprimary had been trying very hard to communicate with me, then he'd have been able to read the several times throughout the thread where I clarified that my usage of the verb "know" doesn't mean literally 100% certainty -- and when he finally got it in his head, he wouldn't have mocked by saying that then my "know" means nothing more than "guess".

If someone's 99.9999% certain about something, they don't use the word "guess". Everyone knows that. For Samprimary to pretend to not know it, is an indication that he wants to mock, to play a status game, to waste my time and energy -- BUT CERTAINLY NOT TO COMMUNICATE.

If Samprimary had been trying to communnicate, instead of playing status games, he'd not have said stuff like "Wow, rabbit really was right about the dunning-kreuger effect, wasn't she. I assume you think you are pretty good at psychoanalysis? Because this is pretty ... uh, profoundly wrong. Haha."

If Samprimary had been trying to communicate, instead of playing status games, he'd not have said stuff like "Furthermore, I have reasoned that you murdered a young girl in 1990, much like a certain TV host, and that your guilt over this senseless murder drives you to post in this forum and that your posting is, in fact, a byproduct of that guilt"

If he wanted to communicate, then he'd have conceded that IN THE HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO WHERE my predictions are right, he should update upwards his estimations about my analytical capacity.

The attitude of someone who actually wants to communicate with someone else, is vastly different to what Samprimary was doing.

And for his repeated attempts to troll at me, I called moderation upon him, because he first tried to indirectly use the moderator's voice against me at http://www.hatrack.com/cgi-bin/ubbmain/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=058858;p=15&r=nfx#000727

I do not understand how there is any way this post does not blatantly and crassly violate the necessary intent of JB's do not address instructions. I expect that the whole mutual gag order idea is at this point now completely off-rails.
Posts: 13341 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Also, you know, by the fact of the very injuries on Zimmerman's head.

How much more evidence would suffice to you?

There is really only one thing which would determine whether Martin should (you know, have been) considered a violent thug: who started the altercation? And in what way. You persist in believing Zimmerman's accounting of how it began, despite him being shown to be a liar with incredibly poor judgment, when the truth is we just don't know who started it.

By your reasoning, if you give me a hard shove and grab me, and I punch you and we get into a fracas, I am to be classed as a 'violent thug' (though I'm not sure if I'd get the word 'thug').

quote:
I already answered that question of yours, WEEKS ago -- unlike you I tend to answer the questions you ask of me, and it's not my fault if you don't actually read my responses.
Wait, so it was known weeks ago that Zimmerman was a liar with terrible judgment under pressure weeks ago? I could be mistaken, but I didn't think the story was that old. But just humor me: how does it factor? Even if you are repeating myself, it's a nearly 20 page thread. People forget sometimes.

quote:
How many people who aren't violent thugs have caused such injuries to another person in the whole of their goddamn lives?

I don't know any definition of "innocence" that allows you to bash a person's head in, just because they were lawfully following you.

Oh, for pity's sake, are we back to this? Now the only thing Zimmerman did was 'lawfully follow' Martin? We know that how, exactly? Are there now eye and forensic to the *beginning* of things, before there was even any noise made?

Or is this more of your circular reasoning, wherein Martin was a violent thug (despite, yknow, no known other instances of violent thuggery in his life) because he attacked Zimmerman, and we know he attacked Zimmerman because of the wounds on Zimmerman's head, and we know Martin struck first because he was a violent thug?

quote:
You've said this before, but I don't think you realize that they tend to report coaching towards the direction of people coaching them to make Zimmerman look *guilty*. So keep speaking about "coaching" as if this discredits Zimmerman's side, but such reports of coaching have actually been in Zimmerman's favor.
Here's what it says to me: that witness accounts may be highly questionable, if there is coaching anywhere in any direction in the statements. That's what it *should* say to anyone attempting objectivity, but then you're not.

quote:
And so that we don't misunderstand each other, Rakeesh, "How much more evidence would suffice to you?" is a real question that I'd like a real answer to, same way that I responded to YOUR question.
I'm not sure you did actually-certainly not just now-but here are a few examples of evidence that would lead me to think Martin likely did attack Zimmerman: serious damage to Martin's hands, of the sort one would expect on someone who bludgeoned another human being many times with great violence with their fists; some sort of actual forensic evidence left on the scene that shows who attacked first, maybe some sort of blood spatter or something (I don't think we would find such a thing, but it's an example); documented history of aggressive violence on Martin's part, said documentation being a *hell* of a lot more compelling than a cousin's Twitter post about an event that may or may not have happened; an explanation for how Zimmerman could have called 911 so many times for such stupid reasons, or his uncertain record with police, or his court dealings, that would explain how he could have done such things without showing terrible judgment; video footage.

quote:
I'd also like people to explain to me something that I had thought commonly accepted by both sides: the fact that Trayvon spent some time hiding or waiting in the darkness, instead of keep on proceeding to his friendly house.
Well he was being followed at night by a stranger while he wasn't actually doing anything wrong. But whereas Zimmerman was 'lawfully following', Martin was apparently 'hiding in darkness'. What is new, though, is that Zimmerman claims Martin was waiting specifically to ambush him, and then when he did, told him he'd kill him.

As for thuggery...it's strange. The actual police investigator didn't seem to think Martin was a violent thug. I guess his experience and training, though, simply doesn't measure up to the prognosticatorial abilities of Aris. Shame. You should consult!

Posts: 16181 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aris: Samp's style can take a bit of getting used to, but from what I could see he was using kid gloves and trying to stay on topic as much as possible. My point was that for JB's ban for the benefit of this thread to have any effect at all, that communications between you and Rakeesh needed to be included in it. It was unfair to Samp who was trying harder to be nice then Rakeesh was (in my opinion) that he got singled out (of his own thread) when someone who was doing more got to continue on with immunity.

I'm not sure what exactly is the right solution any more, but it seems clear to me that a new round admin intervention might be required.

Posts: 5035 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Wait, so it was known weeks ago that Zimmerman was a liar with terrible judgment under pressure weeks ago? I could be mistaken, but I didn't think the story was that old.
You asked me and I responded on June 4 - that's almost 3 weeks ago, so yeah, it is that old.

Here, let me repeat the exchange:

quote:
quote:
Aris, if as is possible Zimmerman has lied, or permitted his attorney to deceive, or engaged in some shenanigans to hide money with his wife, I am positively on the edge of my seat as to whether that sort of behavior factors in to your 'predictive analysis' or if, after all, it will be chalked up to major stress.
It certainly is Bayesian evidence in favor of Zimmerman being generally prone to deceit, and thus Bayesian evidence supportive of his lying about other parts of his testimony -- I can hardly see how it would be evidence *against* the same, after all.
quote:
"There is really only one thing which would determine whether Martin should (you know, have been) considered a violent thug: who started the altercation? And in what way."
That's not an answer regarding WHAT EVIDENCE would convince you of these things.

DeeDee's own witnessing seems to indicate that Trayvon spoke first to Zimmerman, not vice-versa.

All the timeline only makes sense if Trayvon waited to encounter Zimmerman or headed back to find him.

There's no witness to who threw the first punch, but we know there was no non-bullet injury on Trayvon, and there was on Zimmerman.

So WHAT EVIDENCE would suffice for you?

quote:
You persist in believing Zimmerman's accounting of how it began, despite him being shown to be a liar with incredibly poor judgment, when the truth is we just don't know who started it.
Yes, I persist in believing Zimmerman's accounting, despite him being shown to be a liar with incredibly poor judgment; even liars can tell the truth when the truth is convenient enough for them. There are more liars than murderers in the world; there are many more people who commit fraud regarding their finances than who do wanton killing.

And so far his liar's/fraudster's account of what happened makes sense, in a way that the pro-Trayvon side hasn't been making any sense at all.

Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It was unfair to Samp who was trying harder to be nice then Rakeesh was
Rakeesh was attacking my *argument*, if often rudely and with contempt; but as I likewise tend to fail at politeness, it would be hypocritical of me to call the moderator on him -- Samp was *only* playing status games, and I don't even remember him attacking any point of my arguments at all, certainly he didn't do so in any of the last few pages before the moderator got called in.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I tend to disagree, but I'm sure your memory of recent events is more accurate then my own, as you were more then peripherally involved, like myself.
Posts: 5035 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well that's okay at least I can directly defend myself from these categorical descriptions of my behavior oh wait
Posts: 13341 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As Aris said things -about- you Samp to me, it seems only fair that you should be able to address those things that were said...to me, about Aris.

Turn about is fair play after all.

Posts: 5035 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
An eye for an eye makes the whole thread suck? No, in this case, turnabout is debasement. I have no desire to be matching behavior I am calling out as inappropriate and waiting on a response to.
Posts: 13341 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fair enough.
Posts: 5035 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
James Tiberius Kirk
Member
Member # 2832

 - posted      Profile for James Tiberius Kirk           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
I don't know any definition of "innocence" that allows you to bash a person's head in, just because they were lawfully following you.

Are we going to continue to pretend that Zimmerman is at all credible? Because the only evidence supporting Zimmerman's telling of events is Zimmerman himself. You know, they perjurer and violent thug who has every reason to try to make the guy he shot and killed out to be a "violent thug."

So you'll excuse me if I don't take his story on its face: that an unarmed teenager with no history of violence "jumped out of the bushes," unprovoked, at at a armed 'neighborhood watch' guy who has a criminal record. No, I'll reserve the term "violent thug" for his killer.

Posts: 3606 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
an explanation for how Zimmerman could have called 911 so many times for such stupid reasons
I don't see how Zimmerman calling the police lots of times makes him *more* likely to initiate violence. To me that makes him *less* likely: he is the type who calls the police instead of taking things in his own hands.

As a sidenote here is Martin fighting at his local fight club: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e73_1337581575 (EDIT TO ADD: Or not, I think Trayvon is actually the guy refereeing -- this changes the weight of the evidence some)

So, does such a video make it more likely to you that Martin might be the violent type? Even *slightly* more likely? Even *infinitesmally* more likely?

quote:
serious damage to Martin's hands, of the sort one would expect on someone who bludgeoned another human being many times with great violence with their fists;
If I remember Zimmerman's account correctly, Zimmerman speaks of one punch, and then of Martin slamming his head on the ground: not of repeated punches by Martin's fists.

Is this consistent with the scrape found on Martin's knuckles, and the injuries incurred by Zimmerman? It seems to me that it is, though of course I'm no medical examiner.

It seems to me that it if it wasn't consistent with the injuries, we'd have a much more clear smoking gun regarding Zimmerman *significantly* lying than fraud regarding his finances.

[ June 22, 2012, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Because the only evidence supporting Zimmerman's telling of events is Zimmerman himself.
And all the physical evidence. And all the witnesses' initial testimonies. And the fact that the timeline doesn't make sense if Trayvon *wasn't* either hiding for Zimmerman or heading back for him.

quote:
that an unarmed teenager with no history of violence "jumped out of the bushes" at at a random guy, unprovoked.
No history of violence on his *legal record* -- he had a youtube video fighting (or refereeing a fight), and he had a cousin twitting about Trayvon swinging on a bus driver (it'll certainly be nice if Zimmerman's defense manages to track down that bus driver)

And who said anything about unprovoked? Zimmerman was a white (Hispanic) guy that had tagged Martin as suspicious and followed him in his own neighbourhood when Martin was doing nothing wrong. That's like serious provocation, no?

Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk:
Are we going to continue to pretend that Zimmerman is at all credible? Because the only evidence supporting Zimmerman's telling of events is Zimmerman himself.

At all credible? He didn't disclose all his finances at a bond hearing therefore he's no longer credible and we should throw out his whole testimony and ignore the evidence and witness testimony we already have if they cast Zimmerman as anything but a violent thug? That seems drastic..

Remember, he's being charged with second-degree murder. You can't simply say, "You lie. You're guilty." You need evidence and proof the event transpired in a way other than Zimmerman's recounting. Because you don't find him credible doesn't mean he has a depraved mind and shows no regard for human life.

Posts: 532 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The physical evidence on the bodies of the two people involved *doesn't touch* on the most important question here, one way or another, so please, for like the tenth time, stop asserting that it does, would you?
Posts: 16181 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The physical evidence on the bodies of the two people involved *doesn't touch* on the most important question here, one way or another, so please, for like the tenth time, stop asserting that it does, would you?
If Treyvon had injuries indicating that he had been hit at all, you'd definitely use that as evidence against Zimmerman.

If Zimmerman didn't have injuries indicating that he had been hit, it would likewise definitely be used as evidence against Zimmerman -- AND back when people were deluded into thinking that he didn't have injuries, it was indeed REPEATEDLY used as evidence against Zimmerman, as can be seen from the very first posts of this very thread.

So, no, I won't suddenly do you the favor of accepting that the state of the bodies is somehow not evidence in favor of Zimmerman and against Treyvon.

As for the "most important" question, you're posing a question that can't be directly answered since there are no witnesses (e.g. whether Zimmerman shoved Martin before Martin punched Zimmerman).

Since there can be no evidence that can prove that one way or another, that's a convenient "most important" question for the people who want to drag this out.

But of course if that question is so damn important and so damn unanswerable, then Zimmerman would have to be acquitted on the basis of doubt alone. So that argument doesn't go really well for your side either.

Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
At all credible? He didn't disclose all his finances at a bond hearing therefore he's no longer credible and we should throw out his whole testimony and ignore the evidence and witness testimony we already have if they cast Zimmerman as anything but a violent thug? That seems drastic..

Remember, he's being charged with second-degree murder. You can't simply say, "You lie. You're guilty." You need evidence and proof the event transpired in a way other than Zimmerman's recounting. Because you don't find him credible doesn't mean he has a depraved mind and shows no regard for human life.

He did more than simply 'not disclose'. Characterizing it as such, the initial lie, the involvement of his wife, the speaking in code, and above all the willingness to lie in such a deeply stupid way about publicly gathered money like this, as just 'not disclosing'? Cmon, capaxinfiniti.

It doesn't mean that every single statement of his is immediately a lie regardless of what other evidence says, but to a reasonable observer it *does* point a very serious finger at terrible judgment in a crisis, and willingness to be deceptive when he should know he'll be caught. What it means is frankly, yeah, if his word is the balance that pushed you into believing something happened or not, you ought to remove that influence and see where you are. If you don't, well, clearly an axe to grind.

As for it not being enough to show he had some sort of depraved mind...heh. Strange, then, that his word is apparently enough condemn *Martin* to being a violent thug.

-------

Which should be held an indicator of stronger probability, I wonder? A cousin who we know nothing about Tweeting about an attack on a bus driver we know nothing about either? Or dropped resisting arrest charges and restraining orders?

This is a trick question: the answer is obvious to anyone who doesn't insist Martin was a violent thug on the word of Zimmerman and his *refereeing* of controlled fights.

To answer your question, though, Aris, Martin's involvement in a fight club-even if he did actually fight-doesn't signify one way or another to me. It could point to someone with a lust for violence, taking every opportunity to slams that thirst. Or it could point to someone who enjoyed physical struggle, but also a disciplined, scored struggle. I would have to see something of his record. Does it include lots of penalties? What's his reputation there? How long has he been a member, and how much fighting has he done? Etc.

It does, however, point to *skill* with violence-which still does nothing to answer the question of who started the physical element of the struggle one way or another.

As for your notion of the timeline supporting only Zimmerman's accounting...well, frankly, nonsense. Numerous events on this timeline are hotly disputed, so how it can be said to be so conclusive is a mystery to me. But then, I don't go into this thinking Zimmerman was a gun wielding maniac as you do Martin was a violent thug. I went into it thinking 'terrible judgment about what is an emergency', and now 'liar'.

Posts: 16181 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If Treyvon had injuries indicating that he had been hit at all, you'd definitely use that as evidence against Zimmerman.
If the physical evidence on the bodies was such that it strongly pointed in one direction as to this question...well, yes, that would certainly be relevant! Obviously.

quote:
Since there can be no evidence that can prove that one way or another, that's a convenient "most important" question for the people who want to drag this out.
Yes, clearly I'm just lying about the importance of who struck first because it convenient. Rather than it being, you know, very important. *snort*

As for an acquittal, yes in fact, as things stand if we cannot find conclusive evidence with respect to this question, I feel Zimmerman should be found not guilty on the 2nd degree charges-and have always, your accusations of bias notwithstanding, said so. That's one of the reasons we have trials.

Perhaps it will turn out he's lied about those events, though. Won't be the first time he would have lied in court, now would it?

Posts: 16181 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Numerous events on this timeline are hotly disputed, so how it can be said to be so conclusive is a mystery to me.
We know the timeline well-enough from the phonecalls. Martin had enough time to return to his house, if he kept heading for his house. That's not really in doubt.

The Martin side has to argue that terrified of Zimmerman, Martin chose to hide instead of running to the nearby house.

quote:
Yes, clearly I'm just lying about the importance of who struck first because it convenient. Rather than it being, you know, very important. *snort*
Well previously it was a very important question whether Zimmerman had injuries on him. It nowadays somehow no longer seems to be so very important, since it was resolved conclusively on Zimmerman's favour.

So, frankly, I'm not quite convinced that this new important question will actually *remain* an important question, if we find a magical way to determine that Zimmerman did *not* shove or otherwise assault Martin.

Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aris: I know I am on BB not JB right now but when I ask you not to address a poster talking about the poster and their posts is essentially asking them to engage you in conversation. It would be grating to be asked not to address a poster and then have them discussing you.

Stop please.

Posts: 13749 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Well previously it was a very important question whether Zimmerman had injuries on him. It nowadays somehow no longer seems to be so very important, since it was resolved conclusively on Zimmerman's favour.

So, frankly, I'm not quite convinced that this new important question will actually *remain* an important question, if we find a magical way to determine that Zimmerman did *not* shove or otherwise assault Martin.

It was never vitally important to me. The closest it came to that degree of importance for me was skepticism that whatever injuries Zimmerman had, if any serious ones at all, could have come from a beating so dangerous as to shoot someone.

So no, it was neither resolved conclusively in Zimmerman's favor (unless you mean the question of whether he had injuries at all), nor did it stop being relevant when the answer came back unfavorable-because for me, it didn't.

What it did do was force me to take a serious look at the question who attacked whom, and how badly were they being beaten when the shot was fired. The one question remains totally unanswered, and the other is inconclusive-his injuries could be from savage violence, or a single punch and his head hitting the ground.

quote:
We know the timeline well-enough from the phonecalls. Martin had enough time to return to his house, if he kept heading for his house. That's not really in doubt.

The Martin side has to argue that terrified of Zimmerman, Martin chose to hide instead of running to the nearby house.

Because hiding-if that's what he was doing-while being followed at night is supposed to be a wildly unlikely course of action? Again, I'd ask if you were listening to yourself, but I know what answer I'd get.

Here's a bit of a pivot from that question: if Zimmerman deemed Martin so suspicious on sight (because he knew who lived there and who didn't, but not what street he was on, etc), why did he go looking for this hulking, menacing stranger in the night when he couldn't see him?

The timeline as pieced together by secondhand sources doesn't say what you insist it says, but if it did, the courses of action you suggest are laughably unlikely simply aren't. That's all there is to it.

I wonder: if Martin's cousin's word is enough to point to his being a violent thug...goodness, what worth is the word of the lead investigator of the case?

Huh. It's almost like there's some incredibly obvious contradiction here or something...

Posts: 16181 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:
Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk:
Are we going to continue to pretend that Zimmerman is at all credible? Because the only evidence supporting Zimmerman's telling of events is Zimmerman himself.

At all credible? He didn't disclose all his finances at a bond hearing therefore he's no longer credible and we should throw out his whole testimony and ignore the evidence and witness testimony we already have if they cast Zimmerman as anything but a violent thug? That seems drastic..
Ignoring entirely the huge amount of narrative that you're cramming into the mouths of others here about what zimmerman's perjury affair should be used as in the upcoming case, it's like you don't even understand the full implications of what zimmerman & wife got caught doing. Hint: it is not just "didn't disclose finances."
Posts: 13341 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BB, okay.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ignoring entirely the huge amount of narrative that you're cramming into the mouths of others here about what zimmerman's perjury affair should be used as in the upcoming case, it's like you don't even understand the full implications of what zimmerman & wife got caught doing. Hint: it is not just "didn't disclose finances."
Either that, or maybe Clinton really did just make a mistake about the definition of 'is'!
Posts: 16181 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Because hiding-if that's what he was doing-while being followed at night is supposed to be a wildly unlikely course of action?
When there's a nearby house and safe-haven, and you're an able-bodied man that can run at least as fast as any pursuer?

Yes, hiding instead of running to your house, does seems unlikely to me. Not completely impossible but certainly *strange*.

quote:
if Zimmerman deemed Martin so suspicious on sight (because he knew who lived there and who didn't, but not what street he was on, etc), why did he go looking for this hulking, menacing stranger in the night when he couldn't see him?
I don't know that Zimmerman had tagged him as "hulking and menacing" instead of just suspicious.

It seems to me that he had seen him running away. He wanted to see where he had run *to* -- away from the neighborhood, or hiding behind someone's backyard, etc.. So that the police would know where to search.

And I don't understand what alternate explanation you're insinuating -- can you PLEASE make it explicit for me? Are you saying that Zimmerman did NOT consider Martin suspicious, or are you saying that Zimmerman didn't follow Martin? Neither makes sense to me. So what ARE you saying?

It seems to me that the parts of the story you consider strange isn't actually in dispute by *either* side.

Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's the more full reenactment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4
Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
When there's a nearby house and safe-haven, and you're an able-bodied man that can run at least as fast as any pursuer?

Yes, hiding instead of running to your house, does seems unlikely to me. Not completely impossible but certainly *strange*.

The line between the things you find likely or nigh-certain and the things you find unlikely or strange or all-but-impossible is, man. It's like an EKG. If someone was being followed at night by a stranger while they were doing nothing wrong, I wouldn't consider hiding the best or wisest course in many instances, but if someone *did* I wouldn't deem it even remotely strange. That you claim it as such frankly says a lot more about your prejudgment of the situation than it does about hiding vs fleeing.

[quore]I don't know that Zimmerman had tagged him as "hulking and menacing" instead of just suspicious.[/quote]

Oh, I figured surely he must have. It's so clear from pictures of Martin that he was a hulking scary (nothing to do with black, surely not, we're all over that in America) teenager. Alright, so he couldn't tell how big and scary Martin was...because it was dark (which begs the question of how reliable eyewitness observation ought to be, no, never mind, that's silly).

So Zimmerman sees Martin running away, but he doesn't manage to see him hide, and is then ambushed. Let's see if I understand this: Martin realizes he is being followed, and flees...a short ways. Then he hides, waiting to ambush Zimmerman. Then he attacks Zimmerman from ambush, and either before or during decides to murder him.

Clearly Martin wasn't just a violent thug, he was some sort of sociopath. Violent thugs only rarely concoct plans to murder strangers just for the hell of it. Why? Was he going to steal something? Zimmerman's car, maybe? Perhaps expand his violent, nefarious high school pot empire? Or travel to other towns to set up new fight clubs nobody is supposed to talk about? Or...what, exactly?

I'm sure I don't know, but we *do* know Martin was a violent thug. Not might be or could be shown to be, but actually was. Man. How many others might Martin have murdered, before Zimmerman protected all of us?

quote:
And I don't understand what alternate explanation you're insinuating -- can you PLEASE make it explicit for me? Are you saying that Zimmerman did NOT consider Martin suspicious, or are you saying that Zimmerman didn't follow Martin? Neither makes sense to me. So what ARE you saying?
I'm saying we have at best dubious, poor reasons to believe Zimmerman's account of the stealthy (but tall, large) teen who ambushed him and then told him he would murder him. The closest you've actually come to lending support to that is 'the timeline', since the injuries don't, and Martin's incredibly thin history pointing to such behavior certainly doesn't, or if it does, Zimmerman's is much more suspect. And we've got some very, very good reasons to disbelieve Zimmerman: one, he is known to lie for selfish ends under lressure; two, he is known to show extraordinarily bad judgment; three, his reading of an emergency situation is demonstrably poor (911 calls); and four, by lying he could avoid a murder sentence.

Would love an answer to my question about the lead investigator, btw, since you've repeatedly lauded your own diligence on answering questions.

Posts: 16181 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Rakeesh, first of all, your constant sarcasm makes it really REALLY difficult for me to understand what exactly you're trying to communicate, what exactly you are stating, and what exactly you are asking.

Perhaps in your world, sarcasm is a really efficient way for communication, but it's REALLY REALLY not in mine.

quote:
Let's see if I understand this: Martin realizes he is being followed, and flees...a short ways. Then he hides, waiting to ambush Zimmerman.
Want me my really big guesswork, to which I don't assign anywhere near certainty, and possibly less that 50% probability? Martin may have had marijuana on him -- being followed, and fearing it was a cop, he ran out of sight and ditched it somewhere. Then he doubled back to see who it was who was following him -- and when he saw it was some lame neighbourhood watch guy, instead of cops, he was angry at this dude causing him to panic.

Another scenario which I've seen hypothesize is that Martin's phone call with DeeDee caused him to want to sound tough infront of her, instead of admitting he ran away from a confrontation. This doesn't require him to have ditched anything, and it allows Martin to have been truly scared of Zimmerman at the beginning of the scenario -- and yet be super-macho aggressive at the end.

But just look at the map of the recreation, and look at the timeline, and you'll see it doesn't make sense for Martin to be hiding in fear of Zimmerman.

quote:
Would love an answer to my question about the lead investigator, btw, since you've repeatedly lauded your own diligence on answering questions.
The question you asked about the lead investigator seems meaningless to me "what worth is the word of the lead investigator". Character witnesses are character witnesses. Lead investigators investigate. How can I compare the words of a witness about Trayvon's character, to the word of a lead investigator? What exactly am I even supposed to compare? His word about what?

Just cut the sarcasm, and ask me in plain words whatever it is you want to ask me, I may understand your question better.

Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Rakeesh, first of all, your constant sarcasm makes it really REALLY difficult for me to understand what exactly you're trying to communicate, what exactly you are stating, and what exactly you are asking.

Perhaps in your world, sarcasm is a really efficient way for communication, but it's REALLY REALLY not in mine.

Fair enough. In return, perhaps you could cut the remarks as though it were proven that Martin was a 'violent thug' and such a claim were unassailable. It makes it quite difficult to believe you're actually someone who can be talked to about this topic. Or perhaps just clarify: do you believe it is as obvious as you've repeatedly suggested that Martin acted as a 'violent thug', or was your dander just up?

quote:
Want me my really big guesswork, to which I don't assign anywhere near certainty, and possibly less that 50% probability? Martin may have had marijuana on him -- being followed, and fearing it was a cop, he ran out of sight and ditched it somewhere. Then he doubled back to see who it was who was following him -- and when he saw it was some lame neighbourhood watch guy, instead of cops, he was angry at this dude causing him to panic.
If the first, where did this marijuana end up, exactly? And also, why wouldn't he have run like hell if he thought it was a cop? Hiding vs fleeing actually *is* strange in that scenario. As for the second, were we to accept Zimmerman's word on what Martin said, which for whatever reason you're doing, he was quite a lot more than 'super macho aggressive' and well into psychotic murderous rage territory.

So...it's good you don't assign much certainty to either scenario, because-and I say this not intending sarcasm, but to convey a measure of their imperfection-they're laughable. They're just absurd. They either rely on events that simply don't make sense with each other at all-the thought he was police scenario-or rely on Zimmerman's word.

quote:
The question you asked about the lead investigator seems meaningless to me "what worth is the word of the lead investigator". Character witnesses are character witnesses. Lead investigators investigate. How can I compare the words of a witness about Trayvon's character, to the word of a lead investigator? What exactly am I even supposed to compare? His word about what?
Nothing any witnesses as to Martin's character point to him being a 'violent thug'. Not the drug suspension, not the reffing or participating in the fight club, and not even the cousin's supposed recounting of an attack. That last, if it were in any way corroborates, might. Yet you've persisted for weeks in labeling Martin a violent thug, on 'evidence' so flimsy it really does beg the question of whether it's actually evidence or pretext.

Which is why my question about the lead investigator. He actually walked the scene, and has experience investigating crimes and evaluating suspects and witnesses. So-why does a cousin's tweet help to stick that label to him, but the lead investigator's read be 'meaningless'?

Like it or not, the reason is pretty clear: if we *don't* say Martin was a violent thug, so much of Zimmerman's accounting falls apart. It is *vital* to that story that for whatever reason, Martin was a violent thug that night. But when we actually look at what we know of his life...the label doesn't seem to fit. Only the most reaching of looks gets us to that label.

What is needed for Zimmerman to be lying, on the other hand, to have started the altercation...when we look at his life, that is a much, much, much less difficult sell. Bad judgment, lying in court, misjudging emergencies, all of it.

I've looked at four different timelines, though two were almost identical, and one of the themes running through all of them was simply this: gaps. Uncertainties. The timeline doesn't say what you claim it does, leaving us almost where we started with respect to the most important question.

Why didn't Martin flee the rest of the <180yds remaining to his home? Why did Zimmerman call him a 'kid' if he posed such a fearsome figure? On a dark, rainy night exactly how reliable should we regard witness accounts? If Martin did behave as Zimmerman said...why? And why can't we find any signs of such behavior in his past? And so on and so forth.

Martin may very well have made some really bad decisions that night-in fact almost certainly he made at least one, not running as fast as he could for his father's fiance's house. But *every* bad decision Martin could've conveivably made that resulted in his death were only options because of Zimmerman's own terrible decision making-and for him, we've got a documented history before, during, and after of really stupid, even dangerous decisions Zimmerman made. And now we've got a history of deceit under foolish circumstances. Plus, you know, the kid-Zimmerman's word-armed with tea and candy, shot to death a football field away from his home because a neighborhood watch 'captain' started off not thinking he belonged there.

Posts: 16181 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In return, perhaps you could cut the remarks as though it were proven that Martin was a 'violent thug' and such a claim were unassailable
I'll clarify for your sake that 'violent thug' is my *conclusion* about Martin, and I don't expect any of you to take it as an unassailable claim.

Your saying that repeated suspensions/drug usage/possible jewelry burglary/fight club participation/Plzz shoot da #mf dat lied 2 u! don't all point to the type of person that Martin was, is the fundamental difference between your analysis of the situation and mine. I accept all these slight non-conclusive-by-themselves evidence that KEEP PILING UP -- you on the other hand just tend to go "well, this doesn't tell us anything one way or another", which if you realized a bit more about conditional probability, you'd perceive that it tends to be really really rare for something to be literally *zero* evidence towards a conclusion one way or another.


quote:
Which is why my question about the lead investigator.
WHAT is your question about the lead investigator? Can you state it again in full?

quote:
Plus, you know, the kid-Zimmerman's word-armed with tea and candy
And his fists, man. Being merely *armed* with more than tea and candy is a constitutional right in America. But hitting people with your fists is NOT such a right.

And btw, honest question: were the tea and candy actually found at the scene -- has the crime scene report been released? Because if they were not found there, that's evidence he may have actually reached the house (as he seemed to imply in the DeeDee phonecall) and doubled back after leaving them there. If they *were* found at the crime scene, that's evidence that he didn't so reach it.

quote:
What is needed for Zimmerman to be lying, on the other hand, to have started the altercation...when we look at his life, that is a much, much, much less difficult sell. Bad judgment, lying in court, misjudging emergencies, all of it.
No. You don't get to use that double standard. If Treyvon is absolutely required to be a violent thug for Treyvon to have started the altercation, then by the exact same standard you need to assign the same label to Zimmerman -- and the *only* thing you have in that regard is that he *shoved* an undercover (plainclothes) police officer in a bar several years ago (which he hadn't recognized for a cop), and that he and his former wife both put restraining orders on each other. Treyvon has more worrisome signs regarding crime-or-violence in the space of a few months.

Calling the police many times doesn't make Zimmerman *more* likely to be a violent thug, it makes him less likely -- it was his type to use the police constantly, instead of getting into fights himself.

That he started violence when *expecting* the police to be there any time soon, that's what's an unbelievable scenario.

[ June 23, 2012, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: Aris Katsaris ]

Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Your saying that repeated suspensions/drug usage/possible jewelry burglary/fight club participation/Plzz shoot da #mf dat lied 2 u! don't all point to the type of person that Martin was, is the fundamental difference between your analysis of the situation and mine. I accept all these slight non-conclusive-by-themselves evidence that KEEP PILING UP -- you on the other hand just tend to go "well, this doesn't tell us anything one way or another", which if you realized a bit more about conditional probability, you'd perceive that it tends to be really really rare for something to be literally *zero* evidence towards a conclusion one way or another.
I understand a bit about conditional probability, though I am almost sure less than you. It's just...well, for one thing, other people whose judgment I tend to trust have in this thread repeatedly claimed you're misusing the ideas here. And I don't need anyone else to know that when you weight the things you've mentioned to conclude he was a 'violent thug', you're not using any sort of scientific analysis-you've simply made your mind up already. Do you have some idea how many people would be 'violent thugs' if their Twitter feeds and whether they had pot in school? I don't either, but I know both are incredibly common so until I know more it's irresponsible to apply such weight to them as you do.

The jewelry theft, if it happened, *would* be a serious indicator, though. The Twitter feed is so innocuous in terms of how many people actually talk on the Internet to be, by itself, utterly inconsequential to any sort of reasoned analysis. His fight club participation *could be* an indicator, but then depending on the nature of that participation could actually count *against* him having been a violent thug, so it gets added to the pile...why, exactly?

quote:
WHAT is your question about the lead investigator? Can you state it again in full?
What weight to the conditional probability Martin was a violent thug that night (and I've reread, your language goes quite a lot further than 'it's just my conclusion', but alright) does the lead investigator's analysis of the crime apply, and in what direction? He didn't think Martin was a violent thug that night, so I'm asking you, does that add weight to your 'analysis' and in which direction? If none, why not, if his cousin's Tweets about events that may or may not have happened *do* add weight?

quote:
And btw, honest question: were the tea and candy actually found at the scene -- has the crime scene report been released? Because if they were not found there, that's slight evidence he may have actually reached the house (as he seemed to imply in the DeeDee phonecall) and doubled back after leaving them there. If they *were* found at the crime scene, that's slight evidence that he didn't so reach it.
I don't know if they were found on the scene-I think we've got a few more days before the next big information dump. As for getting home and doubling back...heh. Zimmerman's own word about what happened apparently carries some weight. If anyone else, his father or father's fiancé, were home and said Martin never arrived, I suppose that would be dismissed, right?

quote:
No. You don't get to use that double standard. If Treyvon is absolutely required to be a violent thug for Treyvon to have started the altercation, then by the exact same standard you need to assign the same label to Zimmerman -- and the *only* thing you have in that regard is that he shoved a police officer several years ago, and that he and his former wife both put restraining orders on each other. Treyvon has more worrisome signs regarding crime-or-violence in the space of a few months.
But it's not what would've been needed for Zimmerman to have started an altercation that night. For him to have done so, all that is necessary to believe is that Zimmerman, after following a 'suspicious kid' at night in the rain, after exiting his car after being advised not to, grabs this kid from behind to start demanding an accounting of himself. If Zimmerman did as little as that, if he so much as laid a finger on Martin first...then it's night and after being followed some lays hands on Martin, who then attempts to defend himself.

And for *that*, evidence of Zimmerman's past life actually adds up in a compelling way. It's not violent thuggery, but it IS incredibly bad judgment coupled with a sense of entitlement to require answers from 'punks'. I use two different standards because Zimmerman himself has set the bar so much higher with regards to Martin's behavior.

quote:
Calling the police many times doesn't make Zimmerman *more* likely to be a violent thug, it makes him less likely -- it was his type to use the police constantly, instead of getting into fights himself.
Oh, I agree. But as said above, not necessary for Zimmerman to have been a violent thug initially. And one tbjnf we DO know from his past is that involving the police should not be held as a sign that after the call, Zimmerman's judgment would be good-that he would be calm and level headed, not jumping to conclusions or taking unwise action. One of his first actions aside from speaking after calling police is to disregard what he's told.

quote:
That he started violence when *expecting* the police to be there any time soon, that's what's an unbelievable scenario.
He needn't have expected to be 'starting violence' at all. Which is why the bar is different for him than Martin, who apparently lay in ambush with the intent to murder Zimmerman.
Posts: 16181 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"For him to have done so, all that is necessary to believe is that Zimmerman, after following a 'suspicious kid' at night in the rain, after exiting his car after being advised not to, grabs this kid from behind to start demanding an accounting of himself"
The DeeDee testimony itself indicates that Martin spoke to Zimmerman first, then Zimmerman answered, then there was a physical altercation.

That's consistent with Zimmerman's testimony -- and neither is consistent with Zimmerman grabbing Martin from behind while Martin was hiding from Zimmerman.

quote:
And I don't need anyone else to know that when you weight the things you've mentioned to conclude he was a 'violent thug', you're not using any sort of scientific analysis-you've simply made your mind up already
There's a big range between "scientific analysis" and "simply made your mind up already". Human brains aren't built in such a fashion that we can easily hold hundred-variable equations in our heads.

So yes my estimation of every bit of evidence is QUITE INFORMAL and QUITE INTUITIVE; and if this was a case where evidence piled up in different directions rather than almost all in a single direction, it might have been quite hard for me to reach as definite as conclusion as I've reached in this case.

But that's not the same thing as "simply made up my mind already".

quote:
He didn't think Martin was a violent thug that night, so I'm asking you, does that add weight to your 'analysis' and in which direction?
Any analysis by an informed person that Martin wasn't a violent thug is obviously Bayesian evidence towards the direction that Martin wasn't a violent thug -- since it can't be possibly Bayesian evidence towards the different direction.

But did this guy really use the words "Martin wasn't being a violent thug"? They seem a bit unprofessional, so I'm guessing he said something different which you're interpreting in this fashion.

quote:
Which is why the bar is different for him than Martin, who apparently lay in ambush with the intent to murder Zimmerman.
I don't think anyone is saying that he lay in ambush with intent to murder. Personally I don't think Martin was intending to murder even if/when he said "You're going to die tonight mother****er".
Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If anyone else, his father or father's fiancé, were home and said Martin never arrived, I suppose that would be dismissed, right?
I'm not one of the people here who dismiss evidence, so no, I wouldn't "dismiss" their words.

I've not yet dismissed any witness's words -- though when they *change* their testimony, I do indeed assign more weight to their earlier testimony than to the later one; as is appropriate according to all studies on the matter of whether earlier testimonies are more credible than later ones.

Posts: 668 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
So yes my estimation of every bit of evidence is QUITE INFORMAL and QUITE INTUITIVE; and if this was a case where evidence piled up in different directions rather than almost all in a single direction, it might have been quite hard for me to reach as definite as conclusion as I've reached in this case.
Except of course it doesn't. You've been given examples and explanations dozens of times now why it doesn't, and while you don't quite outright dismiss evidence, bits and pieces which slant to your own conclusion-Martin as a violent thug-are weighted, over and over again, significantly higher than bits and pieces which slant towards Zimmerman being a terrifically stupid liar as far as crises and emergencies are concerned. Example: Martin's cousin Tweets about an assault Martin supposedly committee. "Bayesian probabilities so on so forth highly reliable predictive ability shows an uptick towards 'violent thug'." Zimmerman's lying in a deeply stupid way about his money in court. "Even liars can tell the truth sometimes, when it's convenient."

That is not a rational way of looking at things, if a significant portion of your take on events relies on Zimmerman's word-which it does. A rational person would see the deeply stupid lie and reason, "Huh. Well I know Zimmerman will lie when it's convenient to his interest, even when he should expect to be caught. Therefore his word carries very, very little weight with me when a lie would be very helpful to him."

quote:
But did this guy really use the words "Martin wasn't being a violent thug"? They seem a bit unprofessional, so I'm guessing he said something different which you're interpreting in this fashion.
His remarks can be found, I believe it's about halfway down the last page. He doesn't specifically remark one way or another on Martin's supposed (well, by you) thuggery-he says Martin wasn't doing anything wrong. If he thought Martin was behaving in a violent, thuggish way that's not the sort of remark he would've made.

quote:
I've not yet dismissed any witness's words -- though when they *change* their testimony, I do indeed assign more weight to their earlier testimony than to the later one; as is appropriate according to all studies on the matter of whether earlier testimonies are more credible than later ones.
'More credible' doesn't equal credible. If you say there are studies to the effect you describe, I don't doubt you. But do they say, for example, that an initial statement receives, for simplicity's sake, +10 credibility, and when changed that statement receives +5 credibility? Because that's how you're treating things. The changed witness reports don't seem to count at all towards events happening differently, they only seem-in your analysis-to slightly lessen the weight of the initial statement, still totaling an overall complete positive in Zimmerman's favor.

quote:
I don't think anyone is saying that he lay in ambush with intent to murder. Personally I don't think Martin was intending to murder even if/when he said "You're going to die tonight mother****er".
According to Zimmerman, Martin was going for his gun when he said that. Zimmerman is certainly claiming Martin proclaimed his intent to do murder.

[ June 23, 2012, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]

Posts: 16181 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Boy I can't wait till I can participate in my own thread again
Posts: 13341 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm just lucky *I* can, and grateful for it, since Aris's own judgment of how badly I have treated him is apparently dubious;)
Posts: 16181 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Samprimary: Not being able to address one poster does not mean you cannot participate in the thread. I understand in this case there are not many people advocating for Mr. Zimmerman, but that's how it goes.
Posts: 13749 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOL....Sorry Sam. Most of what I was saying earlier still stands, but I was mainly arguing for people to own up to the fact that a lot of the speculation at that point was plain wrong.

There is evidence of a physical fight. There is fairly decent proof that at least some of what Zimmerman said during the call happened, pretty much as he said it.

It was never my point that there was no evidence against Zimmerman, that he was completely reliable, or that he was innocent.

A lot of what I saw earlier in this case was bull...edited videotapes, edited phone conversations, people claiming that Martin was a great kid never in trouble, and of course the cute as a button picture of him in the news, over and over, from when he was 14.

All of that has been proven false, pretty much, and anyone paying attention should know that, so there isn't much more to debate as far as I am concerned. [Big Grin]

All of this proves Zimmerman got a raw deal once the investigation picked up, but none of it means he is innocent. At beast, some of it may be enough to be reasonable doubt, but we won't know that until the trial.

Posts: 14956 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 25 pages: 1  2  3  ...  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  23  24  25   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2