It should seem patently obvious that the foot dragging in this case was not due uncaring investigators and prosecutors, or racial disparity, that was alleged when this case came into the public consciousness.
It was due to the fact that the ugly truth is, even if the authorities thought a crime had been committed, they lack the sufficient evidence to secure an indictment, by normal means, and present a case that would result in a conviction.
For that, they were vilified. When now it appears they were right.
The most blatant case of malicious prosecution, purely for political cover, I’ve ever seen.
I thought when the prosecution made the statement in opening that George Zimmerman “did not shoot Trayvon Martin because he had to.” “he shot him for the worst of all reasons—because he wanted to” that they would be able to prove it. That they had a case.
I agree with you. I won’t claim to be a Vulcan, a blank slate when I first heard, because I don’t need to be: whatever opinion I start with isn’t written in stone, I have nothing invested in keeping it static. So yes, I certainly thought “Hey, What the fuck?” because that’s my go-to response when one “average” American human being shoots and kills another “average” american human being who, by all the evidence we had out the gate and which never changed, did not the slightest thing in the world wrong to have ended up like that. (By which I am not referring to what may have passed between the two, I’m referring to how it began.) All he was doing was walking back from a snack run in the rain, talking to a girl. And because of another man’s paranoia (yeah, that’s my take bigtime, backed up by plenty of evidence. You don’t have to agree with my conclusion, but it’s hardly based on air.) he’s dead.
But unlike some, I never had and still don’t have any kind of underlying political agenda going that finding Zimmerman guilty would somehow fulfill. Yes, I am liberal, and yes, I absolutely abhor guns…but I long ago accepted that this country is fucking insane, we are a bunch of gun nuts, and it’s never gonna change, so I just run my own life in such a way that guns are not necessary or present and the rest of you can do what you’re gonna do anyway, there are things I care much more about. Statistically speaking the odds are vanishingly small that it’s going to be an issue in my life.
I always want to know the truth, all of it, in my personal life as well as the rest of life. I never ignore it, for the simplest of reasons: I don’t have any reason to - there’s nothing to gain and plenty to lose. Ignoring the truth doesn’t get me one single thing that is of interest to me.
According to DD, Trayvon was near his fsther’s house, the phone disconnected, twenty seconds later the phone reconnected, and two minutes later the confrontation begin. Zimmerman was on the phone for four minutes and than add the time until the incident. That’s well over five minutes.Omara stated on WFTV that he was a minute by minute run down planned for the confrontation. (wonder if it contains Z’s ping logs)
no, the correct way to express what I said is what I said. If you don’t have proof that he lied then you’re not being objective.
interestingly I’ve never once suggested Zimmerman never lied. I’ve consistently said the evidence available is consistent with his story and the meaning of that has been explained so many times it’s scary you don’t understand it.
Give one cite that I said he never lied. When you’ve finished with that, cite a single lie you can prove he told.
If you can’t look at evidence objectively then how does that differ from a lynch mob that “just knows” the victim is lying?
Please give a specific definition of "proof"as you understand it and intend it to be understood in this sentence. Please. If necessary offer examples. Anything to make perfectly clear what you understand to constitute proof of intentional falsehoods.
To be clear, I am NOT asking you to refer to any evidence specific to this case, one way or another. I am asking you to describe what kind of evidence would rise to the level of actually proving prevarication about anything.
It’s not a set up. It is a genuine attempt to find out what you mean when you say it does not exist, when to my eyes it has been set before you repeatedly. This suggests that you do not recognize it as being proof the same way others may, and what you recognize as proof may not be the same as what I do. I suspect there must actually be some overlap, but it is what outside that which interests me.
Reason begins with an accurate representation of the subject being discussed, an area where you have demonstrated real challenges.
In this instance, I was specific:
Talking about his head injury. Specifically and directly, and in connection with the claim that his head had been slammed by martin into the ground.* Nothing else. And yet you are here:
Which has nothing to do with what I said at all, it’s just you repeating yourself. Again.
So, if you are going to hold forth as an authority on reason, you might want to try harder to actually track the conversations you are engaged in and commenting upon, rather than wandering off into yet another chorus of What Is.
*And from the way Zimmerman tells it, Martin must have sprouted a couple extra pairs of limbs: the repeated punches (somewhere between 4 and 24 at last count), then head grabbing and slamming, then nose and mouth covering and smothering, then gun grabbing… the kid was a real octopus.
If a person stated he walked to the store and a video exists showing he drove to the store then that would constitute proof an intentional lie was made.
this is actually childish. There is no claim that all of this happened simultaneously. He stated his nose was punched. he struggled with Martin and was brought to the ground with Martin on top. He immediately starts screaming for help at which time Martin tries to shut him up. His head was bashed on the cement repeatedly until he was able to wiggle off the cement and additional blows ensued. 25 punches in 38 seconds would be a slow pace and that doesn’t include the time it took for people to react to the screaming and then calling 911.
How about another one: If a person stated he got out of his truck to look for a street sign after being asked for the address he was parked in front of, and there was audio proof that he was out of his truck long before being asked for the address he was parked in front of, that would constitute proof that an intentional lie was made.
So should I take that to mean that an audio visual media capture of facts different than those put forth in the lie is the only thing you will accept as sufficiently compelling to be considered proof of the lie? Or will you also accept other kinds of evidence as well? And if so, can you say what they are?
And in the same vein, do you have different standards of proof for different kinds of things? In other words, will you only accept that a person has been proven to have told a lie by an audio visual recording, but to prove something else, something unrelated to proving or disproving someone’s truthfulness, you will accept different kinds of evidence?
Again, I am asking these questions with complete sincerity because I am trying to understand your point of view.
Well, I’ll insist you re-state this as, “That’s not how it read to me.”
Fair point.
Your reference to sports is actually on the money. As a passionate Philadelphia sports fan, I have witnessed all kinds of taunting, in both directions. That’s actually the type of taunting I was thinking of, and naturally think of when someone says “taunting.” (Stupid Mets / Giants / Penguins fans…:mad:)
So my comment was not intended as “In your face! Your side sucks and is losing, you losing losers!” (<–A taunt.) It was meant as “Dude, stop it. If these ‘lies’ are so obvious, important and relevant, you might want to ask yourself why the prosecution’s case is driving off a cliff. Enough with the endless blather about lies.” Not that I’m above the occasional taunt. Sometimes it’s irresistible, and my character defects are many.
That was my point about “sides.” The only way the taunting in my frame of reference is actually taunting is if there’s 2 sides, both of them committed to winning, details be damned. I’m not on “Team Zimmerman.” The only “side” I have in this case is hoping it’s fair. It looks to me like the prosecution has squat. If they come up with something real, good for them, and fuck Zimmerman–off he goes to prison. In that scenario, “my side” hasn’t lost. Hope that clarifies my explanation for “non-taunting.” Shouting, “God almighty, open your eyes, the Emperor has no clothes!” is not a taunt, even if he appears fully clothed to someone else.
Well, you might want to take the point a bit less gingerly. I read most of the two Zimmerman threads, though I came to them late. I could absolutely see the digging in and emotion and indignation firming up like cement as the threads progressed, and it looked so familiar because I’ve been there when I was part of the “from the beginning” ensemble in an interesting, divisive thread topic. I want to win, I parse posts, and can’t let a single comment pass when in the throes. Sometimes I look back and think, “What the @#$% was I so worked up over?” So, this is someone without the “long-term thread investment,” at least this time, offering a more dispassionate perspective, for what it’s worth. A lot of this is pretty funny when you’re not one of the lot getting in a lather over it.
Ha! Good on me for sussing that out with virtually no information at all. Really… my standard line about myself is that I am at least a little bit interested in almost everything with the exception of team sports and cars, which all look pretty much alike to me; it never ceases to amaze me when people rattle off: hey, did you see that Chevy/Honda/Ford vehicle over there with the mag wheels and the…hell, I can’t even think of anything. How the hell do you people know this shit? Most of em are just boxes with doors on wheels to me. Especially now that I’m BikeWoman.
I know what you mean…obviously… but this does call my attention to a big difference between the way I approach both casual debate for entertainment (for lack of a better way of describing it) as well as real life arguments with people I care about: in both cases I am less about “winning” per se than I am about “winning” by, at the very least, being clearly understood. I honestly have very little problem with people disagreeing with me on matters of opinion, if they are disagreeing with the actual opinion I hold. I know this sounds goofy, but I don’t know how else to say it: what I want is to be understood. No, no, no, not in some ridiculous existential way, just in a completely straightforward way: show me that you’re listening and you heard and you understood. After that, everything else is gravy. Because it means we are actually communicating (because I want to know that I have heard and understood you as well) effectively. Not by necessarily changing the other person’s ultimate point of view, just by actually knowing what it truly is.
My best friend and I are constantly amazed at the way so many people fight with their spouses (primarily) and others, the way some people, including some people I love with all my heart, just have absolutely no ability to disagree effectively, and turn all disagreements/fights/arguments into battles about who can be shittier to whom, who can say the most awful stuff they dont’ really mean in some weird need to simply wound the other person. Huh?? What??? When I’m hurting and angry, the last fucking thing on earth I want to do is escalate by cutting loose with my cruelest remarks…that would just make the whole thing a thousand times worse. If you’re hurting me or making me angry or upsetting me, why would I want to just hurt you back? What have I “won” doing that? No…what I want, what I desperately try to do (and which can make things worse in itself…it’s a chick/guy thing as old as forever) is to get you to listen, hear and really understand whatever my position is. I want to communicate, connect, and overcome/repair the problem, I don’t want to just lash out…
Anyway, I’m trying to say that it’s all of a piece. I don’t want to hurt, wound, shame, humiliate, “win” that way with anyone I’m at any kind of odds with, whether deeply personal or public and shallow. What I want is to communicate. And that is why it gets under my skin so much when people are clearly not on that page with me, because they are all so busy coming up with ways to snark at each other while committing every logical fallacy in the book and steadfastly refusing to ever admit or concede a fucking thing no matter how glaringly obvious it might be. And that doesn’t even consider how much of the talking past each other might actually be sincere, in that, for whatever reason, sometimes people really, truly are not understanding what the other person is saying but really believes that they are. And how can you tease it all apart? it’s just infuriating as fuck.
Which is why one of the simplest, most effective tools I ever learned from a therapist was this: when you are in a disagreement/heated conversation/whatever with someone, first really listen to what they say. (“The opposite of talking is not listening. The opposite of talking is waiting.”- Fran Liebowitz) Then, before you say anything else, tell them what you just heard them say. Repeat it back to them as you understood it and ask them if you have it right, and give them a chance to correct anything you did not understand. And keep doing that until you get agreement that you have understood them. And just keep doing that. It can be annoying, but it is extremely effective because SO much stuff is just a result of people assuming, inserting, filling in the blanks, interpreting, etc. and this prevents or overcomes that to get to…the truth. My favorite thing in life.
One last addition to emphasize how this all comes back to my truth fetish.
In the same way that I really am okay with people disagreeing with my opinions as long as they are disagreeing with the actual opinions I hold, I am also 100% okay with people disliking me, if they dislike me for who I really am, as opposed to untrue invention about who I am. Hate me for being arrogant or pedantic or condescending…okay. But if you hate me because you are convinced that i torture puppies for kicks, then that I have issues with. As long as we are dealing in truth, I’m good with it, no matter what it is.
I actually think she does, in a weird way, and not the way she thinks. She is determined to make everything conform to some “truth”, despite the fact that real life is messy, confusing, and we very often lack the knowledge to determine any sort of truth - but despite this, Stoid will insist that firstly there is a clearly determinable truth, and secondly that she is able to determine it, regardless of how many people tell her she’s wrong, and how convincing those arguments that she’s wrong are to outsiders.
The best example of that in this thread are the numerous occasions where she has determined the truth about what the law says and what it means, despite having been told by every lawyer who’s participated that she’s wrong. That’s not the first time she’s done this about legal matters, either. She has decided that there is A TRUTH about the law, and is twisting all the evidence to match it.
That is despite the fact that the law is so complex that people have vast amounts of training and education to understand it, yet in working with it still disagree much of the time, and spend thousands of hours and millions of dollars deciding what it actually says, and means. The only “truth” there is how a court interprets it at any given time, and to some extent that is in constant flux.
“Truth”, ultimately, is not something that seekers of knowledge and education are going to find. “Truth” is for the religious, for conspiracy theorists, and for those who want to escape the messy uncertainty of real life. And logicians.
I’m exceedingly hooman, by the way…in that I am a deeply, deeply flawed organism. But part of my truth fetish is being truthful about that, too. It’s just so much easier to be real about everything, I honestly don’t know where some people get the energy to construct facades, live lies, keep secrets, compartmentalize… it’s exhausting to even think about.
And that is truth. Frustrating, annoying truth, but definitely truth.
So is the fact people have their own truth, a truth that has validity because it is their experience, and it may conflict with another’s truth, or objective truth.
Truth is a tough thing to pin down, but I think it’s (almost) always of value to try, and to never consciously contribute to obscuring truth.
It’s funny that one claim, somewhat prevalent in the early days of this controversy, seems to have been abandoned without much comment on its apparent error:
Now that the prosecution’s case in chief has ended without a single prosecution witness adverting to the use of “coon,” does anyone who carried the “coon” argument flag wish to revisit their belief?
