Wow. So every single one of the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people who view it differently are fundamentally unreasonable? Dayum… however do you contain your perfection?
To your mind. But not even the jury sees it that way, to the extent that they have shared their thoughts. They merely believe the prosecution was unable to provide enough evidence to make it possible to convict. Different.
No, he was intentionally engaged in self defence, not killing. That the death occurred was, whilst predictable, not the purpose of the shot. Therefore, unless you can prove it wasn’t legitimate self defence, it was legal. Also in my opinion both moral and rational.
Stoid - I don’t care if you think Zimmerman’s story is bullshit. I care greatly that you claim someone is guilty of manslaughter or murder based on that feeling, in defiance of evidence, reason and law.
Which you believe, as you have every right. But the only evidence for this being the underlying truth of what passed between the two men is Zimmerman’s word, which you find worthwhile, and others find worthless. As far as the independent evidence goes (independent of Zimmerman’s assertions), it is very easily interpreted to be proving and suggesting something very different than his version.
Excellent news! Since I do not and have never claimed Zimmerman is guilty based on ANY “feeling” at all, but rather the actual evidence produced at trial, reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence, and the law, as our most active legal eagle has repeatedly confirmed and reminded you as recently as today.
So you can chill out now! Yay!
You have not done that, and he has not done that. Your argument, that you linked to again and restated, starts from the premise that, as Zimmerman is a liar, he is guilty. That is false, and discredits your entire argument.
The evidence at the trial was insufficient to convince the reasonable people asked that Zimmerman was guilty. That it may have been legally sufficient to find him guilty does not mean that he could actually be found guilty based on that evidence - clearly a distinction you do not get.
For him to be found guilty, a reasonable person would have to conclude that the totality of the evidence provides for no other reasonable conclusion than guilt. It is impossible that a reasonable person could conclude that from the evidence. Anyone who claims to so conclude is doing so in defiance of reason.
Here’s the thing, and where your whole house of cards fails. You have no fucking idea what a reasonable inference is, you constantly draw unreasonable inferences from the evidence, and even then have to illegitimately stack those inferences to reach your conclusion. Even if your argument were reasonable (which it is demonstrably not), it still would not support the conclusion you claim.
In conclusion, to make it exactly clear what I see. I see a few individual pieces of evidence that, taken out of context, suggest but cannot prove guilt. Put into context - that is, by not cherry-picking evidence but observing the totality, it is clear that Zimmerman is not only not guilty of any crime, he was the victim of an unprovoked attack, that Martin is solely responsible for his own death, and that Zimmerman is furthermore the victim of a political witch hunt lead by idiots like you and elucidator who think everything revolves around race, and that self defence is an evil act.
The true tragedy in your case is that, for all your posturing as a victim, whether of the evil court system and your evil ex, or being a slave to your unusually inactive metabolism that will not let you lose weight no matter how much lard and pie you eat, you have no fucking clue how to see an actual victim, and no fucking empathy for someone forced to fucking kill or be killed.
That you think someone in that situation is wrong for doing what they were forced to do is, to use a phrase I’ve used several times in these debates, fucking disgusting. If you are against Zimmerman, you are on the side of bullies, thugs and vandals everywhere. You are what’s wrong with society, and it’s people like you that allow a society where people - kids, ultimately - like Martin can grow up thinking that petty crime and bullying are acceptable ways to conduct themselves, because no-one has the balls to stop them before it becomes serious.
I’ll “chill out” when you accept that Zimmerman is guilty of nothing more that trying to protect his neighbours and himself - something more people should do.
I do not now, nor have I ever believed either of those two things.
I believe that even good people can be unaware of the impact race has on their thinking, and, perhaps more importantly, how they react without thinking.
And I think vengeance is an evil act, but not self defense. If it requires you to break someones nose to stop an attack, you are obliged to. But if you break his arm as well, then you are not much better than he. Some better, but not enough.
Of course, as a master of Cringing Mantis Kung Pao, I hardly have a need to carry a weapon. My Cry Like a Little Girl and Beg Mercy style is strong!
Last I heard, it went like this:
You carry, you carry loaded
You aim, you plan to shoot
You plan to shoot, you aim to kill
Zimmerman was charged with the wrong crime. That’s why he was found not quilty.
There is no question that he killed an unarmed minor and there is no question that he put himself in the situation.
False. Again. ZZZzzzzzzzzzz…
You have lots of special little distinctions in your own head… none of which have anything to do with the real world, so the fact that I don’t get them is ok, I don’t have to live with them.
Let me help you out with that statement, “It is impossible that a person who thinks like I do could conclude that from the evidence. Anyone who claims to so conclude is doing so by not thinking the way I do.” There. Much clearer and truer.
So you think, but who are you? No one. What is your expertise? Nothing. Where do you get your information? Your butt. All of which accounts for the limitations you have in grasping things outside your own worldview, and for why it doesn’t matter how much you stamp your feet and pout…
[QUOTE=Bricker]
but the fact remains that she laid out a series of inferences which the jury would be permitted to make that allowed a finding of guilt for manslaughter.
None of them (except the ones I struck at the time) were flawed.
[/QUOTE]
Your opinion is just foundation-free noise, coming from nowhere, backed by nothing except a freakishly ironclad conviction that your personal thought processes represent the standard by which all thought processes must be measured. Which is pretty damn funny.
Man, it must be rough not being able to retain any information for longer than what, a day at most? Fuck, man, if I had your sieve for a mind I’d be frustrated as hell. (I refer to the fact that race has never been an issue for me, something that has been proved and confirmed since the earliest days of these threads.) Making the same mistakes over and over and over again, never able to retain the facts…damn… harsh. My sympathies. I understand how it drives you to lash out, and it’s ok. No worries.
Have some cocoa, put your feet up, relax… tomorrow will be better.
By the way, Steophan, that unattractive little meltdown you had a few posts back pretty much answers the question “who’s got an agenda?”, and the answer is definitely not me. See, That’s why I’m very confident and comfortable with my view of what happened: I do not see this through any political prism at all. Most other people do, on both sides. But for me this was and is about two specific individuals, nothing greater than that. I have absolutely no emotional investment in it at all, whereas you obviously have a pretty significant one. And that colors your perception. Profoundly.
Of course I have an emotional investment. When I see people trying to distort the law to punish innocent people, and to deny people the right to defend themselves against thugs and bullies, I have a strong negative emotional reaction. That doesn’t mean I’m unable to reasonably analyse the evidence - it’s that very reasonable analysis that let me to conclude, contrary to my initial assumptions, that Zimmerman is innocent, and was the victim of both an assault and a witch hunt.
That you don’t care about such things says a great deal about you, none of it positive.
Also, continually saying I’m false when I accurately describe what you’ve just written is ridiculous. I can only conclude that you don’t actually know what reason is, and that you have no idea how to construct a logical argument. If your premises are false, the entire argument is invalid.
Its almost scary how you believe this. But i am pretty sure you know better, because you carefully avoid actually parsing my sentences… You just Announce…the way you do with everything else you ever say, so…yeah, bullshit.
If you ever have the balls to back up your Announcements with actual reasoning, parsing, data, authorities, well, it should prove a much more interesting discussion. But I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for you to break away from your " It is so because I said it" style of “argument”.
You begin your argument by saying that, because Zimmerman is not a convincing or trustworthy witness, you may assume his statements are false, and further assume consciousness of guilt. You may not do that. Your argument is built on false premises, and as such is invalid. You have failed to make your case.
Make your argument again, starting with the necessary firm belief that he’s innocent, and we’ll see if your hypothetical jury can find him guilty.
Stoid, at this point, if you are “confident and comfortable” about any point of law, it is safe to assume that you are wrong.
Again, this is false, and remains false no matter how often you assert it. There is lots of other evidence which does not rely on Zimmerman’s word for anything.
But here is the problem which you will never be able to overcome. Six people considered the case. Unlike you*, they did not assume Zimemrman’s guilt, and also unlike you, they considered the evidence apart from Zimmerman’s word. And they did not find Zimmerman guilty of any unlawful activity.
As previously occured, a court of law considered the evidence and the law, and repudiated you in toto.
Regards,
Shodan
*No, you are lying when you claim that you ever seriously considered if Zimmerman were innocent.
You appear to be trying. Cool. I’m happy to help you refine and practice some new skills. First we must be certain that you are correctly understanding my position and correctly paraphrasing, without changing meaning.
Close, but incomplete, fuzzy. After carefully listening to all the evidence, examining all the documents and statements, debating, discussing, etc, my jury made four (4) separate, but related findings:
You went on to say the same thing you have said several different ways already, and which you have been told is wrong. You asserted:
Now…FULL STOP… You cannot keep ignoring the corrections you have been given and then repeat yourself and expect to be taken seriously. On what basis, by what logic, using what authority, in what respect do you say that my jury “may not do that”?
Start by clearly and correctly identifying what you intend by “that” - are you saying that my jury may not find that Zimmerman is not credible, that they may not reject his statements? Because if that is what you mean, you are wrong:
Wikipedia:
From US Legal on factfinders:
From Casebrief.com
From http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1527&context=vulr
HOW: In a survey conducted by Professor H.Richard Uviller of fifty-six federal judges studying the standards by which
fact-finders determine the credibility of witnesses, prior inconsistency and contradiction were used most often. n
http://www.juryinstruction.com/article_section/articles/article_archive/article41.htm
And of course, Bricker hastold you repeatedly: the jury can believe or disbelieve whomever and whatever - that is their job.
If you have an argument against that, you must make that argument, you must produce some kind of case law or other legitimate authority to support your argument, you must explain how, in spite of all, you have some special knowledge of how and why the jury “may not do that”.
What you cannot do, if you expect to be taken seriously, is simply announce that in this instance, because you say so, this particular jury can’t determine that Zimmerman is a liar and his statements false, because that’s just goo.
So if you recognize the jury’s rights as outlined above, then you might be referring to the issue of consciousness of guilt. I direct you to my earlier post, with cites no longer available to me as I got them during a trial subscription.
And I’d just like to note that that particular post, back on July 7, I was correcting you about your incorrect assertions…the same ones I’m still correcting!:
PLEASE try harder to retain things, please!
And this:
is a pathetic attempt to spin my jury’s post-trial, found-via-deliberation findings about Zimmerman’s credibility into some pre-existing mindset held prior to trial which led to everything else and therefore invalidated it (Because why, I can’t imagine…his credibility deficiency was plain via the trial). But that is, of course, silly spin you’ve desperately put together to try and hang on to your position, so we can just kick it to the curb. <whack>
If by chance that is the only thing you’ve got to back up your Announcement, then great, you’ve been straightened out and we can call it day.
And nowhere does it say that, if the jury consider the defendant to be a liar, they may assume his guilt. They must presume his innocence, until they are convinced beyond reasonable doubt otherwise.
His own (false) statements cannot do that - all those could do, if believed, would be to convince the jury to disregard evidence of his guilt.
I don’t even know how to provide a cite for this, it’s basic logic… One cannot determine a conclusion from a falsehood. If the premise is false, then the truth value is undetermined.
So, defendant says “I did not kill the victim”. You, as juror, consider him a liar and not a credible witness. So, you do not know if he killed the victim. So, you must retain your strong conviction that he is innocent until you receive evidence otherwise.
You are not doing that. You are concluding from your belief that he’s lying, and your belief that he is lying about certain subjects, that the opposite of his claims about those subjects is true. You may not do that. It is unreasonable, it is illogical, it is in violation of the (hypothetical) oath you swore as a juror.
Sadly for you, you don’t actually have any evidence that Zimmerman is a liar, you merely have your feelings. Similarly, you have no evidence that his statements are false, you simply have your beliefs. That is not sufficient to claim you have reasonable belief in his guilt, as you have no reason.
If you wish to show that a jury could have reasonably found him guilty (something Bricker has not claimed they could do, only that such a finding would not automatically be overruled), then you need to restate your argument starting from the presumption he’s innocent, and showing how the evidence make you overcome that presumption.
Your distrust of him cannot be evidence against him. You may not speculate without foundation. You may not create endless chains of inferences. Just explain clearly how the evidence can make you so certain he’s guilty.
Let’s make a concrete example that may help.
In Brickerville, a town ordinance prohibits pitching or flipping a coin as part of a game of chance or skill, but only if the coin comes up heads. (The Brickerville Town Council wanted to be sporting about it, and penalize the act only half the time.)
Ed is accused of violating this ordinance.
One witness called by the prosecution is Shifty Sean, who admits that he and Ed were pitching pennies in the alley. But, he says, Ed’s three pitched coins all landed tails.
The jury absolutely and completely disbelieves Sean. They are certain he is lying. And, they reason, since he is lying, and since coins can only come up heads or tails, the coins, at least one of them, must have come up heads.
The other prosecution witness introduces a video that shows both men clearly in the alley.
Ed testifies in his own defense and denies even being in the alley, saying the video was faked by the CIA, who have been persecuting him for years. Needless to say, the jury disbelieves him as well.
They vote to convict.
What are Ed’s chances on appeal?
You are quite right: nowhere does it say that. **Including in anything I’ve written. **
Again…FULL STOP… if you are going to try and argue this (Brand new!) thing, you can’t simply Announce that I said that. You have to pull out my statements and show where I said it. Parse my sentences and prove that I said that. Which you cannot do, of course, since I never said it. You are inventing again. (Who was it that turned it into a verb? “Strawmanning”? Very silly…)
They started with the presumption, then the evidence convinced them otherwise.
Pardon?
Maybe that’s your problem, then. We are talking about very straightforward ideas, words, concepts…most of which have been set down in case law, treatises, etc, by experts who explain exactly what everything means and how it works. So no need to go all esoteric about it, speak plainly, and if you make a statement about what I have said, you must produce the statement and show how it says what you claim.
Yes we are. I think the problem you are having is that you are hitting that wall in your head where only your perception is correct and reasonable. So because the pieces don’t fit in your head the way they do in ours, you are substituting your bullshit for the simple facts which we simply saw differently than you. And your head starts to melt when you consider the possibility that your perception and processing isn’t the One True Way For All Reasonable Humans To Think, therefore conclusions which differ from yours can only be arrived at by some other strange route you’ve dreamed up to stop the melting.
But really, it would serve you to consider taking in some actual information sometimes. Try reading some of my many, many, many, many, many cites for the things I say. Like this one that you must have skipped right over:
but since you don’t read the cites, I’ll repeat what is contained in the quotes here, where you stand a chance of reading it. It says: “The jury is given considerable discretion even when evidence regarding the same fact conflicts to the extent that opposite inferences could be drawn. This discretion even extends to cases in which the facts are undisputed; different inferences could still be found by a rational jury. - See more at: http://courts.uslegal.com/jury-syste....XkH0xAPX.dpuf”
See that there? Unlike you, the legal system understands that reasonable people can come to differing conclusions! Wow!
Aside from the fact that the above is not true, there’s the fact that (again, try reading the cites, learning stuff! Hell, just read Bricker!) jurors don’t have to give anyone, even each other, any explanation for why they think someone is lying. They may just think his shifty eyes tell the tale, and that’s legally legitimate. So your harping about how he’s not a liar and I can’t prove it and blah blah blah… whatever. Doesn’t matter. So there’s that.
Already done, as you know.
And it’s not.
I haven’t even speculated WITH foundation.
Again, haven’t done it, and you just saying it doesn’t mean I have. If you think that’s the case, SHOW IT. BREAK IT DOWN. Your Announcements are horseshit, steamy and everything. But you sure are good at selling 'em… I could never. though it would be fun to try… let’s see: Steophan, you have been claiming that OJ Simpson is the real killer of Trayvon! You cannot do that!
Yeah, I suck at it.
I already have, as you are well aware, you just can’t comprehend or see or understand or envision or hell, even tolerate anything that is different from your point of view, so you keep making things up to explain it away.
No, you have not. You presented an argument that started with your assumption that Zimmerman is a liar, and built on unacceptable conclusions from that.
That the jury may, in practice, get away with drawing unreasonable conclusions, does not mean that they have not violated their oath by doing so, and does not mean that any reasonable person could find them guilty.
There is no evidence the coins came up heads, so no evidence of guilt. The judge should overturn the verdict and, if not, the appeal court should.
False.
Deliberately so? Hard to say. Test yourself. Show it. Parse it. Break it down. Quote me and show how the words mean something other than what they clearly say. Can’t? That tells you something, if you just let it in…
1+1 = 2, no matter how many times you Announce that it’s 37, and someday you might even manage to deal with the knowledge that you are not the One True Measure Of Rational Human Thought, The Man Who Knows All Truth. I promise your head won’t break.
By whom? What was the evidence that led to the indictment?
What about? Everything? Then they weren’t pitching pennies at all. Or do they think he was telling the truth about pitching pennies and lying about how they fell?
I guess they believe the pitching pennies part, which means this is one of those vanishingly rare binary situations I referred to in my earlier post.
But does it show them pitching pennies? Does it show them doing anything similar to or suggestive of pitching pennies?
What is the basis for his appeal? I assume he’s claiming insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction, since that’s all we have to work with. 
There is evidence that the men were in the alley in the form of the video.
There is evidence that they were pitching pennies, in the form of Sean admitting it.
The only evidence against it is wholly without any credibility, thanks to the video.
Therefore the court of appeal would consider the evidence in the light most favorable to verdict of conviction, decline to substitute their own judgment for that of the jury, and uphold the conviction.