Yeah. It’s the easiest thing in the world to say, describe, invent, accuse, manufacture, misrepresent anything you please. It means nothing, in he same way that you declaring what things are facts and what is true…
“… is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” W. Shakespeare
So Bricker made an honest mistake*, but when I reply to it on its face (I actually thought he used the header for the hyperlink and didn’t compare for differences), there* must* be some sinister motive?
Someone’s ass is obviously still burning. Which is going to get tired and creepy real fast.
*Actually, if Bricker so easily misread the header, it just furthers my point that it was misleading.
I’m posting this here cuz I happens to be here… I just did a search for the keyword “Zimmerman”…259 threads!:eek:
Apparently it’s not an exact quote, and now somehow it’s my problem.
No, I think yours was an honest mistake as well. Honestly, I don’t care about past exchanges. It’s just message board stuff. If I see a post I find interesting or requiring my brilliant response, I post.
But Saletan’s header, ISTM, was not misleading. How else should it have been headlined, given his point? And if he’s full of shit in his interpretation, he should be taken to task. But even if that header was confusing (again, I don’t think it was), I don’t see it as remotely analogous to the sort of edited bullshit painting this entire affair as some sort of racist conspiracy.
I don’t “declare” things to be facts, to be true. I either observe them to be so, or I show them to be so, using such things as evidence, reason and logic.
Facts, you see, are not things that are unique to one person, and are not affected by declarations. They simply are, despite your protestations to the contrary, and your shrill ramblings.
Take the Zimmerman case. It was a fact, before the trial, that no honest jury could have found him guilty based on the evidence that was in the public domain, and, since the trial, it is a fact that he is not guilty. The first fact is one that was shown to be true, again and again, by reason and logic from the laws and evidence - no declarations or opinions necessary. The second is a simple observation. And nothing you can do can change that.
I know it must hurt to be wrong, especially for someone as arrogant as yourself, yet too stupid to realise *why *you are constantly wrong. I might have some sympathy for that, were it not for the fact that you are using the things you are wrong about to try to show that an innocent man should be punished for a “crime” that never was. Frankly, it should fucking hurt.
Perhaps inadvertently, you bring up an interesting point. We are given to believe that Z was felled by a single, Hammer of Thor like blow to the nose, WHAM! (As one who has both had his nose broken by a fist and has delivered the same, I personally find that unlikely. But I digress…)
Down he went, and then Martin leaps upon him, pinning him.
Which would strongly suggest that his head landed on the sidewalk, yes? Unless Martin dragged him to the head banging locus, and then pinned him down? I think we can agree that this scenario is…unlikely.
Now, of course, it should be noted that we have only Z’s word for this exceptional string of events, but, if we accept that, it is entirely likely he had one direct impact with the sidewalk, when he fell back upon it. This is underscored by an injury the reflects a single impact, but not multiple impacts. (See expert testimony, referenced above).
Z was somewhat educated in the legality of self-defense law. Who’s to say he didn’t exaggerate the extent of Martin’s assault in order to support a premise of self-defense from a potentially fatal attack?
That would be the expert testimony that said the injuries were consistent with multiple blows, yes? Because all the experts at the trial said that…
You can say what you like. Proving it, on the other hand, you can’t. So, for legal purposes, it didn’t happen.
Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!
How many times have you read recently about men found guilty of dreadful crimes, sent to Death Row, and then proved to be innocent by unimpeachable evidence?
The jury verdict is a legal fact. That is not always the same as an actual fact, it is simply the extent to which our legal system can determine. If you are to place legal fact as having the same truth as actual fact, then those men should have been executed anyway, because the truth has been altered by a verdict. Which is, of course, absurd.
When did you change your mind about that? Because this is what you said:
My emphasis.
I’d like to take you at your word, but it’s hard to do that when you let the original “mistake” slide (Bricker posted that yesterday), but were quick to jump on it when I posted (and insinuate the above motive). Even message boards have a sense of etiquette. I read a mistake from you in this very thread earlier, and let it slide, because - here’s the irony - I didn’t want you to think I was pulling a “gotcha”. It wouldn’t have been sporting to do so, under the circumstances. No one is “required” to post.
*All *of the experts? How many were there, outside of the one I cited? And IIRC, on cross examination she accepted that the injuries were not inconsistent with multiple blow, which is clearly true. They were, in her opinion, minor injuries, and they surely could have been the result of a series of minor impacts. So, Martin banged his head on the concrete, but lightly? Really?
But, please do bring on your parade of testifying experts, that we may compare.
In which case, we should drag those convicted murderers back to face the needle, truth be damned, their guilt was a legal fact! A point as vacuous as your argument.
In the case of a “not guilty” verdict, the legal fact is the actual fact. If you read the whole of my post, you’d see I mentioned two different facts. One, the “actual fact” that you refer to, is that the evidence could not convince an honest person beyond reasonable doubt that he’s guilty. The second, the “legal fact” in your terms, that he is actually not guilty, as determined by the actual jury.
If you really want a discussion of ontology, go for it, but bear in mind that it will have no relevance to either legal or historical facts, which are the ones we are discussing with respect to Zimmerman.
Depends on how you interpret the word “facts”. I am not on a jury, I am not obliged to pare my opinions to fit legal technicality, and your arguments are not bolstered by them, they merely offer you a trapdoor to escape.
And while you are crafting your blistering response, perhaps you have time to bring us citations for that parade of experts, as above? I wait with bated breath…
No, we shouldn’t. Again, you simply show you don’t understand what “fact” or “truth” mean. They were never factually guilty, a mistake was made. A mistake that cannot be made in the case of a not guilty verdict - that verdict is absolute, and not subject to change.
So, whilst in the case of OJ Simpson or Emmett Till’s killers we can say it’s a fact that any honest jury in possession of the evidence we have could and should find them guilty, it is also a fact that they are not guilty.
So define “fact”, then. But if you are going to discuss guilt or innocence, then the only useful definition is a legal one, as the only useful definitions of guilt or innocence, in the context of an alleged crime, are legal ones.
When you offer these arguments in person, do you find that people tend to back away slowly, their eyes darting about for the nearest exit?
Well, I would hope so, if I was defending myself from a stalker with a gun. But scary black teens in hoodies are not allowed to stand their ground in Florida.
Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but it was a fail, based on what you said was an honest mistake, and I believe you. That’s not the same as saying it was a deliberate attempt to mislead, or at least that’s not how it was intended. I make mistakes all the time, feel free to correct. That’s what I was trying to do here, since so many inaccuracies are tossed out in these threads (I’m not saying by you) that just hang there till they crystallize into “facts” that get quoted as gospel.
Anyway, I don’t agree with most of your takes on this topic, and I did react to what I perceived as snarkiness in kind in our original exchange, but your posts have at least triggered a reaction worth posting. Something other than “that guy is an idiot.” In fact, my first question to you was honestly because I couldn’t follow you, and I was interested in your logic.
So, take me at my word or not, I’ll get over it either way. My M.O. is to find a topic I like and follow that thread, responding when I think it’s worth the minute it takes to make a post. If it’s in response to one of yours, it ain’t because of any hard feelings.
No. For two reasons. Firstly, the only time I’ve regularly been called on to discuss ontology apart from here has been in philosophy classes (many years ago) or with acquaintances who study it, and secondly because my friends aren’t retards. Couple of lawyers among them, actually, who would no doubt agree with me on this.
When you join a group of people, do you suddenly find an awkward silence descends, and when you leave, do you sometimes catch the hint of a relieved sigh at the edge of your hearing?
Sometime, like when I ask for cites on expert testimony and the askee pretends he didn’t hear me. Then I just wait with bated breath…