The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Moderators: Mick, TheGingerMan

Forum rules
IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Tigerman » 29 Apr 2012, 21:51

bileduct wrote:Oh, I get it. You want me to believe that Zimmerman had no awareness of Trayvon's skin colour until he was asked, even though he was able to immediately respond that Trayvon looked black.


I couldn't care less what you believe or do not believe... :lol:

But, if he knew TM was black, I would have expected him to reply: He is black rather than he looks black.

bileduct wrote:In every audio recording of Zimmerman reporting suspicious persons in the neighbourhood the person is black.

So what?


bileduct wrote:Seems to be a bit of a recurring theme... Black guy, Zimmerman doesn't know who it is, calls police....


Not necessarily.

Anyway, what are you trying so desperately to prove? What do you think this goes to show, with respect to the elements of 2nd. degree murder, which the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt?
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Forumosan avatar
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17257
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
221 Recommends(s)
135 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Tigerman » 29 Apr 2012, 21:52

bileduct wrote:Something interesting I just noticed on one of the other phone calls that George makes to the police.

He is calling to report that he and his wife are currently watching a suspicious person in the neighbourhood whom he believes was responsible for an earlier crime.

At one point his wife can be heard in the background saying that the person has disappeared between the houses and George responds "shoot". There is a pause, and then there is this exchange:

George: "I'm gonna..."

Wife: (unintelligble)

George: "Why not?"

Wife: "No, don't go out there"

George: *sigh*

The call then ends shortly after.


Why is this interesting?
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Forumosan avatar
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17257
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
221 Recommends(s)
135 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby bileduct » 29 Apr 2012, 21:55

Tigerman wrote:
bileduct wrote:Something interesting I just noticed on one of the other phone calls that George makes to the police.

He is calling to report that he and his wife are currently watching a suspicious person in the neighbourhood whom he believes was responsible for an earlier crime.

At one point his wife can be heard in the background saying that the person has disappeared between the houses and George responds "shoot". There is a pause, and then there is this exchange:

George: "I'm gonna..."

Wife: (unintelligble)

George: "Why not?"

Wife: "No, don't go out there"

George: *sigh*

The call then ends shortly after.


Why is this interesting?

Because I find it interesting.

Why do you care that I find it interesting?
bileduct
Càiniǎo
Càiniǎo
 
Posts: 31
Joined: 27 Apr 2012, 13:13

6000

Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby bileduct » 29 Apr 2012, 21:58

Tigerman wrote:Anyway, what are you trying so desperately to prove? What do you think this goes to show, with respect to the elements of 2nd. degree murder, which the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt?

Why should what I said have anything to do with the elements of 2nd degree murder?

I didn't bring it up. Why are you bringing it up?
bileduct
Càiniǎo
Càiniǎo
 
Posts: 31
Joined: 27 Apr 2012, 13:13

6000

Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Tigerman » 29 Apr 2012, 22:28

Tigerman wrote:Anyway, what are you trying so desperately to prove? What do you think this goes to show, with respect to the elements of 2nd. degree murder, which the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt?


bileduct wrote:Why should what I said have anything to do with the elements of 2nd degree murder?

I didn't bring it up. Why are you bringing it up?


Because GZ is accused of 2nd degree murder. We are discussing the events that led to the charge of 2nd degree murder. I'm sorry if I mistakenly believed that you might have something relevant to post.

bileduct wrote:Why do you care that I find it interesting?


Again, because I thought that you might think it relevant to the issues. Sorry for mistakenly thinking that you had something relevant to post. My bad... :)
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Forumosan avatar
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17257
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
221 Recommends(s)
135 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby bob » 29 Apr 2012, 22:42

Tigerman wrote: I don't think the photo of his bloody head looks like a few scratches.


They are long and skinny. How on earth could you get long skinny scratches on your head from having it pounded on the concrete? You wouldn't get long "skinny" scratches on your head if the guy was scraping it back and forth on the concrete. I think that the terminology we shoud use here is "injuries consistent with having your head pounded on the concrete but only if you are incredibly credulous (and probably biased.)"

I mean if someone showed you a picture of his head out of context and you had to choose..

1) He had his head pounded on the pavement.

2) He got in a fight with a cat.

Which would you choose?

Honestly.
bob
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
 
Posts: 8625
Joined: 14 May 2004, 14:11
Location: sunk
21 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Tigerman » 29 Apr 2012, 22:53

Tigerman wrote: I don't think the photo of his bloody head looks like a few scratches.


bob wrote:They are long and skinny. How on earth could you get long skinny scratches on your head from having it pounded on the concrete? You wouldn't get long "skinny" scratches on your head if the guy was scraping it back and forth on the concrete. I think that the terminology we shoud use here is "injuries consistent with having your head pounded on the concrete but only if you are incredibly credulous (and probably biased.)"

I mean if someone showed you a picture of his head out of context and you had to choose..

1) He had his head pounded on the pavement.

2) He got in a fight with a cat.

Which would you choose?

Honestly.


I like to speculate as much as the next guy. However, we have an eye witness who states that TM was atop GZ. That same witness states that GZ was screaming for help. We have police and EMT statements that say GZ had a bloody nose and a bloody head. We have a photo taken 3 minutes after the fight showing a bloody head.

And... we have a law that states that a defendant is entitled to use deadly force if he reasonably fears imminent serious bodily injury and or death. Imminent does not mean that the serious bodily injury or death has already occurred.

GZ also, according to police and EMT statements, had contusions on the back of his head. Contusions, as you are aware, do not bleed (outside the skin). But, they are usually caused by some force applied to an area of skin.

So, honestly, do I think that GZ had his head pounded on the pavement? I sure think its a possibility.
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Forumosan avatar
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17257
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
221 Recommends(s)
135 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby bob » 29 Apr 2012, 23:11

I'll take it then that you think it more looks like he got scratched by a cat than that he had his head pounded on the pavement.

I mean, it's all about the evidence right? You got an eyewitness. You got the accused and his statements. And you got injuries. If the injuries are not consistent with his statements then there is evidence that the he is lying and if he is lying about this his credibilty in general is suspect, right? Maybe we can't believe anything he says.

(I'm enjoying the heck out of this whole thing btw and appreciate the law course you are teaching here. Thing is, I'll argue about "anything." Anyway, thanks.)
bob
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
Golden Lotus (huángjīn liánhuā)
 
Posts: 8625
Joined: 14 May 2004, 14:11
Location: sunk
21 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby JMcNeill » 29 Apr 2012, 23:21

Mother Theresa wrote:
JMcNeill wrote:
bob wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong but following someone around for no reason (assuming he had no reason - maybe MT was casing places out) is against the law.


You are wrong :)


Oh, really?

Florida
Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person, and makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or bodily injury, commits the offense of aggravated stalking


http://www.esia.net/State_Stalking_Laws.htm


Ok, GZ was willfully following TM for a period of time, but I don't think that you can argue that he was malicious and definitely not repeatedly following TM or making a threat of death or bodily injury. Please understand the use of the word AND.
JMcNeill
Chinese Class Dropout (Zhōngwén kè zhōngchuòshēng)
Chinese Class Dropout (Zhōngwén kè zhōngchuòshēng)
 
Posts: 752
Joined: 06 Jul 2004, 10:35
Location: bouncing between Japan, Taiwan and the US
2 Recommends(s)

6000

Re: The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

Postby Tigerman » 29 Apr 2012, 23:22

bob wrote:I'll take it then that you think it more looks like he got scratched by a cat than that he had his head pounded on the pavement.


Doesn't matter what I think. But, no, I think it looks like he had his head pounded on the sidewalk. Maybe the word pounded means something different to you? But, as I have posted repeatedly, the defense of self defence only requires that GZ reasonably feared imminent serious bodily injury or death. Maybe GZ was able at the time to resist some of the force used by TM to pound his head against the sidewalk. But, maybe GZ felt his neck muscles tiring. Maybe he felt that he would soon be unable to resist TM's force?

Remember the standard of proof.

bob wrote:I mean, it's all about the evidence right? You got an eyewitness. You got the accused and his statements. And you got injuries. If the injuries are not consistent with his statements then there is evidence that the he is lying and if he is lying about this his credibilty in general is suspect, right? Maybe we can't believe anything he says.


Blood and contusions on the back of the head are consistent with having the head pounded against the side walk. Because of the imminent aspect of the self defense right, we don't need to argue about how much blood was flowing from GZ's head. Some people will look at the photo and think that there isn't much blood. Others will look at it and faint!

bob wrote:(I'm enjoying the heck out of this whole thing btw and appreciate the law course you are teaching here. Thing is, I'll argue about "anything." Anyway, thanks.)


Always a pleasure talking to you, bob! :)

But, I'm not teaching anything! The jury could very well decide that GZ is guilty of 2nd. degree murder.
As it is, we seem to regard it as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has taken one side or the other. We regard it (in other words) as a positive objection to a reasoner that he has contrived to reach the object of his reasoning. We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end.

From: All Things Considered - The Error of Impartiality
Forumosan avatar
Tigerman
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 17257
Joined: 17 Sep 2002, 12:09
221 Recommends(s)
135 Recognized(s)

6000

PreviousNext




 
 
 x

Return to International Politics



Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: No Forumosans and 1 visitor

Live as you will wish to have lived when you are dying -- CHRISTIAN FURCHTEGOTT GELLERT