posted
The really bad part is that all this crap has muddied the waters of what should be fairly straight forward. The edited call, the picture, the misrepresentations, etc, all have unfocused the case, which is really really simple:
You don't go on neighborhood watch with a gun because some law abiding citizen might end up shot dead because of a misunderstanding!Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* Zimmerman did get a crummy deal in terms of media coverage...as you say, once the outcry started. On the other hand, of course, the actual police involved didn't want to just drop it which is what happened for quite some time, either.
But in this scenario, Zimmerman getting unfavorable and in a couple of cases misleading (well, the edited call and the picture, I don't recall any videotape) media coverage isn't exactly special. An unarmed kid (Zimmerman's word, not mine) was shot to death a hundred yards from home. Unless he turned out to be a *cannibal* or something, Zimmerman was going to get bad press.
I'm not saying it's right, or that we should just be blasé about it, just that it's not a special sign of media conspiracy or something.
So I don't see how Zimmerman can be said to have been treated badly, when he should've been arrested immediately. Ironically it would've been better for him had he been-the outcry against him wouldn't be as bad, and when he claimed indigence in his hearing, it would've been true, and he likely would've been out until trial.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You don't go on neighborhood watch with a gun because some law abiding citizen might end up shot dead because of a misunderstanding!
Let's assume the counterfactual world for the moment in which Zimmerman didn't have a gun, and therefore didn't shoot Martin. The police arrives and finds both people alive, with Martin not having a scratch on him (except the scrape in his knuckles), and Zimmerman with a broken nose, bleeding from the back of his head, etc. Namely the state of the bodies, minus gunshot.
Would there be much likelihood that this situation would end up with Martin not getting some mention of being guilty of serious violence on his record? And therefore not actually being law-abiding during the night in question?
Even if Martin claimed that Zimmerman pushed him first, it'd be strange to see how he could prove the same or justify the level of response when he had no sign of injury on him; and therefore it would be strange to see how Martin would avoid trial and conviction.
So law-abiding? Law-abiding at the moment where he started being followed by Zimmerman. Probably not law-abiding at the moment he was actually getting shot.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
He would be alive, even if he would be in a pickle with the cops for roughing up the neighborhood watch captain.
I think he might prefer a bit of trouble over being dead.
Considering that Zimmerman went against the 911 operator and followed him, and if he claimed Zimmerman started the physical confrontation, they would likely -both- be in trouble with the cops, or both be released with a warning.
But the real point here is, they would both be alive.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Even if Martin claimed that Zimmerman pushed him first, it'd be strange to see how he could prove the same or justify the level of response when he had no sign of injury on him; and therefore it would be strange to see how Martin would avoid trial and conviction.
It really depends, though in that sort of no-witnesses scenario, an initial arrest doesn't necessarily mean much-in many situations, police will simply arrest who looks guilty. If they both had injuries from fighting, they might both be arrested for example.
As for a trial, though...well, in a trial Zimmerman's ignoring of dispatch, and his scores of 911 calls, and perhaps even his history with the police, might have come up. A jury might indeed think there was reasonable doubt as to whether Zimmerman shoved or grabbed him or not.
Your larger point does stand, though perhaps not in the way you intended: had the scene not included an unarmed kid (and again, I use Zimmerman's word) who had been shot to death very close to home, Martin would indeed look pretty bad!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: So I don't see how Zimmerman can be said to have been treated badly, when he should've been arrested immediately. Ironically it would've been better for him had he been-the outcry against him wouldn't be as bad, and when he claimed indigence in his hearing, it would've been true, and he likely would've been out until trial.
Exactly. Right up until Zimmerman perjured himself and was caught in the money-moving and story-waffling, I considered him the sideshow to the police department's incompetent bagging of the whole case. So much immediate investigation was not done. Many clearly absolutely required things just NOT done. In combination with the department's history of similarly suspect acts, it was what made this whole thing look as much a wanton breach of justice as it is.
However, though, I've upgraded zimmerman from sideshow to Dumbass Prime of the event. Given what he has proven about himself so far — from codewords to a re-enactment video that prosecutors already know contradicts the 911 call and other accounts, the whole thing — a friend of mine who works with the county prosecutors mused that one can't even reasonably trust that his wounds weren't self-inflicted after he freaked and shot martin, because apparently that's pretty common when someone's whipping up a story of self-defense, and zimmerman now seems the perfect profile for the kind of person who does that. Proper investigation at the scene and at initial booking is vital to provide for zimmerman's account plus his wounds, but we don't have that, because the police response was a bagging.
Instead we have: Savagely Beating Head Against Concrete In Black Thug Beating versus the minor wounds he did actually have, which, well.
Anyway at this point I think what the prosecution is doing is designed around the intent to show Zimmerman's actions following Martin would qualify as "culpably negligent." Because of Zimmerman's prior legal history, under the 10/20/Life law he would be subject to a 25 to life term.
Also every one of the beagles I know who has been following this case have told me so far that Zimmerman's re-enactment video is going to be even worse for him than the perjury, because now the prosecution has a veritable gold mine of sketchy details and contradictions including getting out of the car to look at street names.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Question: in the video from the link in Samp's post above GZ says he called the "non-emergency police number"...it's always been reported that he called 911...is he lying or are the reports incorrect...or did I just hear wrong?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zimmerman's "911" call that night was to the SPD non-emergency number. It's usually reported as such but often times 911 call is used as nomenclature since he did end up speaking (I believe) to the same dispatch pool.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*snort* So it was his friend's house, too, and he still didn't know what street he was on? That is certainly possible, if it was a friend's home, but also does make it less likely.
I'd be interested in your analysis of the likelihood that he didn't know what street he was on, Aris;)
Also, I think we can dispense with anything that would've made Martin reasonably appear suspicious except standing in the rain. It's apparently quite common for foot traffic right there, and in any event he was close to home.
There are, of course, plenty of unreasonable reasons he might've been considered suspicious.
I wonder if he actually believes he was asked to follow Martin?
I do love his reasoning, though. "He's got something wrong with him," because he's 'checking me out'. I guess Martin didn't know Zimmerman was the guy who followed residents around at night when they weren't doing anything wrong. I don't know why on Earth that would make Martin behave strangely-if he was.
"These assholes always get away." Yeah, those goddamned pedestrians, always getting away!
-------
The numerous lapses between the reenactment and the call, much of that I have no problem attributing to ordinary memory failings. It was a lot of small details that people often don't even try to remember, much less forget.
What seems very, very bad for Zimmerman to me are the things that simply don't make sense within his own account, and that can be flatly contradicted from the call. Such as the house numbers bit-clearly lit from a point he says he couldn't see them would've been a number, right where anyone would look. Which bushes, exactly, did Martin hide behind? How did Martin walk so quickly to arrive in such places?
I'm curious to see how much can withstand defense scrutiny, since I'm sure those problems will come up elsewhere. But quite a few points seem unambiguous.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:"I'd be interested in your analysis of the likelihood that he didn't know what street he was on, Aris;"
Since I personally don't know the name of more than half the streets in my neighborhood, and just a week ago for my tax statement I had to look at Google Maps to determine the name of two out of four streets that surrounded the block of my apartment -- and since I assume I'm not unique in the world regarding such ignorance of street names in my neighborhood, I'd call such likelihood quite damn high.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't asking the likelihood of *you* not knowing, Aris, and that's a poor standard to use given the question. You're not (correct me if I'm wrong) a neighborhood watch member, you have more than three streets in your little area, and the location isn't near both the neighborhood clubhouse nor is it right in front of a friend's house.
It is *certainly* possible Zimmerman didn't know the name of the street. I don't suggest he's lying for that-I don't need to anyway, since he's condemned as a liar elsewhere. But 'damned high' likelihood he wouldn't have known? Nonsense.
What would you say is the likelihood he forgot so much, and said so many things in the reenactment that simply don't make sense?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:and said so many things in the reenactment that simply don't make sense?
Throughout the thread we've had vast disagreements about what things make sense and what things don't make sense, as I'm sure you can remember.
So frankly, if you want me to answer a question, you'll have to ask it in a more factual way.
Btw, I have never required Zimmerman to have been telling the full and complete truth about the encounter in order to believe him innocent of wrongdoing in shooting Trayvon Martin. He could have been deliberately trying to keep on following Trayvon Martin and lied about wanting to check out the address -- that doesn't really pertain on his guilt of other matters; though it certainly hurts his credibility, as you say.
But thankfully his personal credibility is far from the most crucial evidence in his favor.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Zimmerman's "911" call that night was to the SPD non-emergency number. It's usually reported as such but often times 911 call is used as nomenclature since he did end up speaking (I believe) to the same dispatch pool.
This calls into question the previous "911 calls" for dubious emergencies.
Was he calling "911", the really real emergency number to report open garages and pot holes, or just letting the police know in general.
I myself have called the non emergency local police number for such mundane issues (it was a sensor in the road which let the light know to change that wasn't working, so the light -never- changed).
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a sidenote -- having recently reread the first couple pages of this thread, it reminded me of how you were the one who *repeatedly* refused to answer my questions.
As such, I think it's shameless of you to keep asking me question, when you never answered that first one of mine: "If Trey *was* bashing Zimmerman's head on the ground, would you consider Zimmerman's shooting a justifiable act of self-defense, and therefore Zimmerman would be innocent of any criminal wrongdoing?"
You never answered that one.
And btw, in the spirit of full disclosure about our feelings, rereading that first page has currently made me very very angry at the way you were mocking me for BEING RIGHT ABOUT ZIMMERMAN'S INJURIES.
So I suggest you don't sin the same sin twice, and try to tread lightly with your mockery of me now.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
In the whole of 2011 and 2012, the only 911 call was "Zimmerman requested an officer meet him regarding a pit bull in his garage" All the other were non-emergency calls.
In 2010 and 2009 there are a couple of 911 calls about "disturbance" and fire-alarms, but most of them are still non-emergency calls.
Prior to 2006, all of them were 911 calls (perhaps he didn't know to use a non-emergency number back then or something?)
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aris, you demanded I rebut an absurd claim I never made and then declared 'BULLSHIT' when I didn't reject it but rather pointed out it was a strawman. I just checked-I said as much at the time. So I think you know what you can do with your anger, and your 'suggestions', if you persist in holding onto them.
But, I'm fine with chalking that up to anger at the time. No problem: if it could be shown that Martin *did* attack Zimmerman first, and then was bludgeoning him into the pavement, then of course that makes a decisive difference.
I called it a straw man because it was. Obviously if Zimmerman were being beaten to death, he had a right to defend himself, even with lethal force. But frankly? I didn't believe then and don't believe now that you ever actually thought, even for a second, that my answer would be otherwise. If you did, your self-vaunted predictive ability is utter hogwash. If you didn't, the question was as I said it was.
So complain all you like about how much you've been victimized, though for pity's sake there's enough of that around here lately anyway. Or not. But I'm certainly not going to apologize for refusing wrapping my arms arms around the position you built for me, to reject it at your amazing insight. It was a transparent ploy.
'Very angry' indeed. This from the man who has claimed, over and over again, that it's been proven Martin was a 'violent thug' on the flimsiest of pretexts. Please.
---------
The non-emergency number bit does mitigate questions of Zimmeran's (provably bad) judgment. It's a downtick in the reasons why it's bad-though one relevant factor would be why he changed his calling style. Did he realize, "Wait, 911 needs to be free for real, pressing emergencies?" Or was he asked? Don't know. Will be interested if it comes out.
Left in the bad judgment column, though, are the ignoring the dispatcher, following Martin at all, taking a gun to go grocery shopping, and lying about his finances in court. The log of ridiculous 911 calls could be taken out, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Left in the bad judgment column, though, are the ignoring the dispatcher, following Martin at all, taking a gun to go grocery shopping, and lying about his finances in court. The log of ridiculous 911 calls could be taken out, though.
I agree with most of this with this change;
....taking a gun to go grocery shopping...
into
...taking a gun on neighborhood watch...
and the addition of:
...getting out of his vehicle...
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aris: I would recommend you sit this thread out for some time if you are "very very angry". I don't think I've ever seen a poster write their best material in that frame of mind.
Mind, I'm not telling you to stay out, but I am saying that option is on the table if you start doing the things that are characteristic with angry posting.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Taking a gun on NW is, in fact, almost universally condemned by police and NW groups. Not at all the sort of thing any responsible cop or NW leader would want done.
But for some reason, to some people, that's not supposed to be a sign to sit back and take a good hard look at how much we want to trust Zimmerman's judgment, just because it's legal. Frequent random unprotected sex is legal. Gambling away one's savings is legal. Eating cereal out of a lead bowl is legal. Marrying a known repeat adulterer with no prenup is legal.
Anyway, as for the gun to the grocery store-unless it's a response to some sort of specific threat or danger, or unless he had training beyond the appalling little needed to get a concealed permit, yeah, it was simply bad judgment to take a gun grocery shopping.
Yes, something bad could happen anywhere anytime. Who knows where the next crazy axe murderer will appear? Perhaps it will be hungry zombies, or even an ordinary mugging. Why, then, is the whole 'potential of deadly mistake or accident with firearm' not thrown into account here? Particularly for people without careful training, good judgment, and discipline, or at least some of those, that risk is always there. The likelihood of needing a gun, on the other hand, varies.
I've tread this ground before without success, but very, very few people are ever even harmed much less killed going to the grocery store. In terms of people we know, it's an incredibly tiny number, despite what our fear driven society tells us-there are many other ways one can protect one's self and others that are more useful, more reliable, and less likely to lead to tragedy than a gun-you're something of an impassioned advocate of one of them.
Hell, how many times did Zimmerman actually go out *looking* for trouble (to report as NW), and never need a firearm? But it's supposed to not be a sign of bad judgment to feel he needs one to get eggs and milk?
No. We'd be safer if the sorts of people who felt endangered (without a specific threat or danger) by grocery shopping had cell phones and pepper spray rather than firearms. Good luck selling that in this gun/fear culture, though.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:We'd be safer if the sorts of people who felt endangered (without a specific threat or danger) by grocery shopping had cell phones and pepper spray rather than firearms.
I do agree with this conclusion, while I don't categorize those who shop armed as a sign of having bad judgement.
On the other hand I -do- classify those who take a gun on neighborhood watch as having bad judgement. Want to patrol the streets with a gun? Go sign up to be a police officer. Because if you are not carrying a badge of some sort (I have an exposed carry permit as a security guard) then you have no business patrolling with a firearm.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we would all-including the carrier-be safer if they didn't, how is it not bad judgment? It endangers everyone to a greater degree than it protects anyone.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. You still have a right to defend yourself, up to and including the used of deadly force, when attacked. IF (not saying this happened) Martin attacked him, he had a right to shoot him in self defense. You don't have to accept a beating, and making a call about how bad they MIGHT hurt you WHILE a beating is happening is not a good idea.
I know that most NW frown on carrying a weapon, but they don't ban it......and most of their objections come from liability issues rather than anything else.
It would be a rare situation where you are safer unarmed.
I'd rather worry about how I felt killing another person after being attacked than not survive a beating by a person who jumps me. I know I am not going to be threatening anyone, or breaking the law. I can't say that of them.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nope. You still have a right to defend yourself, up to and including the used of deadly force, when attacked. IF (not saying this happened) Martin attacked him, he had a right to shoot him in self defense. You don't have to accept a beating, and making a call about how bad they MIGHT hurt you WHILE a beating is happening is not a good idea.
Who has said otherwise?
Though personally I would rather take a beating than kill someone, *if* I knew that was the choice.
quote:I know that most NW frown on carrying a weapon, but they don't ban it......and most of their objections come from liability issues rather than anything else.
First of all, attributing it to liability issues amounts to the same thing: they 'object' to it because more often than not, when someone in the NW were to use it, it turns out not to have been necessary.
Second, it is irrational to plan for the most dangerous scenario by carrying around a degree of force that carries its own dangers, and then not factoring in those dangers into the overall question. It's just bad thinking. And anyway, there is more to consider than whether you, personally, will be safer.
quote:I'd rather worry about how I felt killing another person after being attacked than not survive a beating by a person who jumps me. I know I am not going to be threatening anyone, or breaking the law. I can't say that of them.
I wonder how many of the thousands of gun owners each year whose firearms were used in illegal or accidental ways would've said the same thing prior to that accident or crime? You can't shoot someone by accident or in a fit of rage or drunkeness with a gun you don't have, and we've got quite a lot of those in our fear-ridden society. Quite a lot less muggings or murders completely out of nowhere while getting eggs and milk at the store.
It is an incredibly rare, in our society, scenario where deadly force might actually be called for, and in a majority of those scenarios, there are many steps before carrying a gun just because 'it's dangerous out there' that would be more effective.
--------
As for looking up stats, there's really not much point. It's inevitable that someone will bring up the dog that didn't bark, so to speak-all of the countless and uncounted (but certainly there, or so says the gun rights advocate) crimes that were prevented by gun ownership. No number of accidental or heat of the moment gun deaths can overcome such a number, because it will rise to the occasion if the fear is great enough.
But you know, I don't feel safer knowing that people can strap up just to go shopping, and that's about the only justification they need. And I know which organization will be absolutely sure to stand up and fight for that right against any challenge. It ain't the 'Let's Stay Calm and Talk About This Association', either.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Nope. You still have a right to defend yourself, up to and including the used of deadly force, when attacked.
Well sorta. this is not a categorical across-the-board right. Escalation to deadly force can be negligent manslaughter or homicide based on a number of mitigating circumstances. Things like stalking, threatening assault, property invasion and "terroristic threats in close proximity" can create situations in which someone can attack you but you're still pretty on the hook for potential criminal liability based on what led up to the initial physical altercation.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just wanted to reiterate, since it was apparently an unknown: if you're being attacked, I think you do have the right to defend yourself. I even think you have should have the right to defend yourself with lethal force, if you're fearing for your life.
But damnit, we've got to have some constraints, some limits somewhere. If I come up out of nowhere and punch you in the face, an EMT killed my father or something and I just can't stand `em anymore, do you have a right to pull out your piece and shoot me in the head?
Well, maybe, but we've got to at least look at my death when it happens to make an attempt to see what happened. Was I about to deck you again when you shot me? Did I draw back to declaim my reason for vengeance in a passionate voice? Was I eighty pounds lighter and a foot shorter than you? Did I unclench my fist and sneer at you as you were drawing your gun to shoot me? If it laid you out, was I drawing my steel-toed boot back to kick you in the ribs? Did you spit on my face because you saw me litter?
If we don't do that sort of thing-and to be clear, I'm not suggesting anyone is claiming we are, but with some of the remarks in this thread, I'm not really sure if that's not what some people think-it would be really, really easy to get away with murder. And I don't just mean easy in that nerd sense where us nerds like to wonder if we could outsmart the authorities and get away with murder, I mean really easy as in a guy shoots another guy in a drunken brawl and is able to come up with this defense while still plastered level of easy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd have to say that while I am generally for issuing carry permits (with a list of prereqs) I strongly feel that there should be a no drinking conditional. That is to say, you drink, and your legally carried firearm becomes a crime. You want to drink, leave the heater in the safe at home. Simple as that.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you are advancing after hitting me, or even threatening to hit me as I back away, I get to shoot. I don't care if you are 100 lbs soaking wet. I've seen someone die in a fight like that, and it wasn't the little guy.
I don't care if you hate nurses. I don't care what you weight, what color your skin is, or even if you are armed. If you are threatening me, and I try to get away and you don't let me (in FL there is no legal need for me to try and flee, BTW), I have a right to defend myself, plain and simple.
I personally try and run. But it isn't right to make someone try and flee, the person could pull a gun and shoot them in the back.
IRL, it depends on a number of factors, and would probably come down to a split second decision on how likely violence would be to my person.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I can't mine myself shooting somebody who was 100lb soaking wet. I mean, that person would have to be pretty expert at martial arts to defeat the natural advantage I would have in height and bulk. And there's no amount of training that can teach you to manhandle 250% of your mass with a reach longer than yours and a high center of gravity. But that's always been interesting to me, since I kept growing through my late teens and early 20s. I wasn't exceptionally large in high school, and I did get in a few fights. But since my early 20s, nobody has ever showed me physical aggression.
The idea that violence finds people has been something hard for me to accept, but almost certainly because I don't have to worry about it, and nobody wants me to be worried for my safety in their presence.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My karate sensei's sensei was a 8th degree black belt, and was 4'11" and probably weighed 90 lbs. He was from Okinawa I think, and at least 70 years old. I was 16 and a green belt and about 6' and 220 lbs, and I thought, "I could take this guy."
He was instructing a class, showing how to side kick. He had his body turned to the class, and just lifted his leg and in slow motion demonstrated the steps of the kick, leaving his leg extended in the air while he talked to the class. And just left it there.
Sometimes size and age are not the deciding factors. That guy could have killed every person in the room with his bear hands without breaking a sweat.
You could tell he loved working with children, he was very nice.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, sometimes size and weight and physical strength aren't the decisive factors, I certainly agree. In a minority of cases. To the extent you're discussing, an incredibly small minority of cases.
There's a disconnect here. The harshest possible response, justified only by the worst case scenario, is eagerly defended as just and moral even though the worst case scenario is only ever going to happen a very, very, very small amount of the time.
Well, alright, but don't let's stand in the way of the authorities taking a good hard look at the person standing over the body with a smoking gun when all is said and done. If we're going to permit the worst-case scenario response to violence that only *might* have risen to that level, well, alright. If you're going to respond with lethal force because you genuinely fear your life *might be* in danger, there need to be different consequences than if you respond with lethal force because your life *definitely is* in danger.
Not an automatic conviction, or an assumption of guilt, but we shouldn't just take the shooter's word for it-we should check. It's rather in the state's, and everyone else's by the way, interest to prevent murder from being *really really* easy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The harshest possible response, justified only by the worst case scenario, is eagerly defended as just and moral even though the worst case scenario is only ever going to happen a very, very, very small amount of the time.
I'm not sure who this comment is aimed at, but surely it is not me...as I am an advocate of carrying pepper spray, not hand guns.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
"Dispatcher: Alright, what address are you parked in front of? [3:21] Zimmerman: Um, I don’t know. It’s a cut-through so I don’t know the address. [3:25]"
So, since Zimmerman said that he didn't know an address BEFORE he had shot anyone -- does this increase the likelihood for you that he really didn't know the address?
And later on he says: "Zimmerman: Could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at? [3:49]"
This seems to imply that he doesn't know the address, but he's about to go and check it out.
Not proof indisputable, no -- but it's certainly CONSISTENT with what he claimed.
Gee, yet another part of Zimmerman's testimony that is completely consistent with recorded evidence.
What a surprise.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh , my freaking god, Aris. Are you seriously going to simply flat-out ignore the several-like, half a dozen-contradictions between Zimmerman's reenactment and the actual audio record?
Because we just went over quite a few of them, recently. This isn't something I can just chalk up to difference of opinion, either, if this is going to be your tack.
Just here, for example, you fail to take note that the house he was standing right in front of had a plainly lit address on it. Now, i can't remember exactly, but was it earlier in events that Zimmerman saw Martin in front of a friend's house? Or was it the hoise he exited his truck (unprompted) in front of?
But he didn't. Did he just not think to look right where every home in the neighborhood has their house number plainly displayed?
What bushes was Martin hiding behind, exactly? How did Martin *walk* so quickly to be in the places Zimmerman reported him earlier in the calls? Why just a day later were there numerous contradictions between what the dispatcher said and Zimmerman claimed he was asked?
Now, I'm not sure if it's simple eagerness which caused you to seize on this one detail (that doesn't actually say what you claim) or if you've not watched the reenactment, or what. But no, Aris. You don't get to point to one supposed (but not, in fact) corroboration and dismiss the many other contradictions, and still be taken seriously.
Oh, and just for fun: "The assholes always get away." Zimmerman 'knew' Martin was a would-be burglar before he ever even got out of his truck. Im sure that's in a NW handbook somewhere, too: that anyone they suspect is an asshole who will get away, and that it is their job in the NW to stop them from getting away. Another sign of terrible judgment and a nod to vigilantism that you're sure to ignore.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, since Zimmerman said that he didn't know an address BEFORE he had shot anyone -- does this increase the likelihood for you that he really didn't know the address?
Also, no. It seems clear Zimmerman *wanted* a confrontation with Martin, whose only 'suspicious activity' to this point was to be a pedestrian in a high traffic area while it was raining, and to look askance at someone following him. He was an asshole who would get away before that part of the conversation.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a quote from Zimmerman. But I'm sure you mentioned that out of genuine surprise and concern for community standards, and no other reason. Even though mild swearing particularly in quotes has been done before.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Another big surprise. Your respond is to mock yet again: Try to mock reality away, Rakeesh. When you've mocked all reality away, perhaps then Zimmerman will actually be guilty.
quote:Are you seriously going to simply flat-out ignore the several-like, half a dozen-contradictions between Zimmerman's reenactment and the actual audio record?
Oh, you're changing the subject? Up to now the biggest "contradiction" you found was supposed to be that he didn't know the address, that's what you challenged me on, and that's why I focused on it.
Now that you're challenging me on the rest of the supposed contradiction, here's what I think: I suspect that of the supposed "contradictions" you claim most of them are about as big contradictions as the supposed contradiction between Zimmerman saying he was injured, and him supposedly *not* being injured.
Didn't I tell you not to sin the same sin twice?
quote:Because we just went over quite a few of them, recently.
Not really, "went over" implies a bit of discussion, not just linking to a youtube video and assuming that anything that it says is a contradiction actually is one.
quote:What bushes was Martin hiding behind, exactly?
Zimmerman doesn't say anything about bushes in the reenactment.
quote:How did Martin *walk* so quickly to be in the places Zimmerman reported him earlier in the calls?
How quickly was it? Are you telling me you actually discussed Martin's speed in this thread? Link me to the post where you discuss this amazing contradiction, and I'll let you know what I think about it.
quote:"Why just a day later were there numerous contradictions between what the dispatcher said and Zimmerman claimed he was asked?"
Wow such amazing contradictions like him being asked "Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?" and him remembering "Would you still like an officer." -- or remembering that he said Martin was "circling" his car, while he actually only said that he was "checking him out".
Such terrible contradictions in his memory of events. But frankly they all seem to within the range of actual plausible error.
quote:Did he just not think to look right where every home in the neighborhood has their house number plainly displayed
It was the street name he said he wanted to see, not the house number, no?
quote:
quote:So, since Zimmerman said that he didn't know an address BEFORE he had shot anyone -- does this increase the likelihood for you that he really didn't know the address?
Also, no
Really? So it's literally ZERO or even negative evidence towards that conclusion for you? I've explained to you already that relevant things are rarely of ZERO evidence.
A scenario that previously was A:"Zimmerman lied after the shooting about not knowing the address" has just by necessity transformed (for it to retain validity) into B:"Zimmerman lied both after AND before the shooting about not knowing the address" -- and yet you treat these two different statements as of equal probability; though the latter is a conjuction that is necessarily of less likelihood than the former.
You don't understand the laws of probability; and therefore you don't understand the meaning of logical evidence.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, when I whistled cussin' a few pages back -nothing happened- and so I figure there has been a change...
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, of course, Stone_Wolf. Very high-minded of you. Whyever did I wonder if there might be another motive?
----------
Aris, you're lying about what I said. I didn't say Zimmerman lied about not knowing the address. In fact I specifically stated I *didn't* know that he was lying. I guess they didn't cover putting words into people's mouths when you took that class on predicting fanfictions and obvious financial crises? And before you whine some more about mockery, do kindly remember that you did just lie about what I said, intentionally or not.
Just for fun, though, since you can be pinned down about as effectively as a blob of jello, which aspects of the flaws in Zimmerman's account linked above do you dispute, exactly?
quote:Really? So it's literally ZERO or even negative evidence towards that conclusion for you? I've explained to you already that relevant things are rarely of ZERO evidence.
You're not in a position to explain these things to anyone in this discussion. Even when you were citing your own authority to do so, the examples you used were laughable. Anyway, relevant things are often of *unknown* influence on the probability.
*snort* Changing the subject indeed. The subject was, actually, the numerous contradictions in his reenactment, not your own very narrow 'Zimmerman is innocent, Martin was a violent thug' careful cherry-picking that doesn't even serve to illustrate what you claim.
But hey, lecture me about sin some more. Assume that position of authority which you haven't earned. Proclaim your own superior understanding of probability. You've either worn out or seen banned from the discussion others who would disagree, including experienced scientists. Perhaps I'll be next, if Stone_Wolf has his way.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Yes, of course, Stone_Wolf. Very high-minded of you. Whyever did I wonder if there might be another motive?
Bored? Assuming the very worst in people is a hobby of yours? Not sure. Don't really care.
quote:You've either worn out or seen banned from the discussion others who would disagree, including experienced scientists. Perhaps I'll be next, if Stone_Wolf has his way.
If I had -my way- individual posts which were problematic would be addressed by authority, and not whole posters banned from speaking to each other. But hey, given how numerous your negative assumptions are, why should I expect you to find out my actual opinion before putting words in my mouth?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Well, when I whistled cussin' a few pages back -nothing happened- and so I figure there has been a change...
I don't always swoop in and tell somebody to edit their post when they swear. If it's got enough of it in one post then I do. If a poster is starting to swear regularly I'll tell them to stop. If the board would be better served were I to stamp out every single instance of vulgar language I would. But I don't think that is the case.
Edit: That said, could you dial it back a little Rakeesh? Thanks.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course. Though I would like to point out I was done with that bit of mild profanity before the issue was even raised-I was making a point using Zimmerman's own words, that was all. I believe I did so...two or three times, no more.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:A scenario that previously was A:"Zimmerman lied after the shooting about not knowing the address" has just by necessity transformed (for it to retain validity) into B:"Zimmerman lied both after AND before the shooting about not knowing the address" -- and yet you treat these two different statements as of equal probability; though the latter is a conjuction that is necessarily of less likelihood than the former.
I didn't say he lied, I used your own standards. I specifically stated, at least once, that I couldn't be sure he was lying-but that we had several reasons to doubt him. Nowhere did I state any kind of certainty that he lied, but unlike you with your 'probabilities' (chiefly Martin the violent thug, which sometimes you outright stated as proven), I copped to it at once.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
And I didn't say you said that he lied, I spoke about the scenarios "Zimmerman lied after the shooting" and the scenario "Zimmerman lied both before and after the shooting" -- and that you effectively treated them as both having the same probability.
And for that you accuse me of lying? You accuse me of calling you "certain" that he lied? Burn in hell.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: Burn in hell.
Aris, Rakeesh can be a little much at times, I of all people should know, but this response is a good indicator that you might want to step out of the thread (or at least talking to him) for a while and cool your jets.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
