Glad to see you still don’t understand the nature of evidence or the concept of a crime having several element :smack:
How do you account for conviction when there’s no evidence that there was a crime?
And I am sad to see that you still jump in with both feet, assuming you understand everything perfectly, without a single question or concern or even the slightest interest in acquiring more information before rendering your Perfect Truth.
And it’s interesting to see that your Flawless Understanding Of Everything extends to the elements of the crime of coin flipping in Brickerville. My understanding doesn’t, but it seemed clear in the context that Bricker wasn’t putting the question out to test the question of elements of the crime, but rather of the role of juries in assessing evidence.
It’s a toughie mostly because of the weirdass nature of the crime and the fact that we don’t know on what basis Ed was accused.The coins landing criminally doesn’t leave any evidence that can be brought into court if it isn’t actually captured on film.
But Ed is accused, first of all, which doesn’t mean that he’s guilty, but it does lend itself to the idea that something happened or someone said something to cause the Brickerville prosecution to have a good-faith belief that someone pitched coins that came up heads. So I’ll fill in that there was at least one unnamed witness who told the cops that Ed pitched coins that came up heads, and that was why Ed was on trial in the first place. So there’s that, which I assumed for the sake of Bricker’s scenario making any sense and because I don’t think Bricker was posing a trick question.
But again, it doesn’t make* Ed *guilty, of course.
There was a videotape showing Ed in the location where the crime was alleged to have taken place, with Sean.
Sean testified to the following (presumably, based on what Bricker gave us):
- He was in location where the crime was alleged to have taken place (corroborated by the tape)
- He was there at the time the crime was alleged to have taken place (corroborated by the tape)
- The defendant there at that same time and place. (corroborated by the tape)
- He saw the defendant engaging in the only possible activity that could lead to the crime having taken place, and he was also engaging in that same uniquely prerequisite activity.
- That the coins never landed heads up.
The defendant also testified, denying every being there in the first place.
So there is definitely evidence supporting the possibility that Ed committed the crime.
I believe Bricker gave us Sean because he meant for Sean to confirm the simple fact that coin pitching did occur. That’s crucial. If Sean hadn’t testified that coins were pitched, only that he and Ed were in the alley, and the videotape showed them in the alley, then there couldn’t be any conviction (assuming the original accusation wasn’t testified to by some other unmentioned person…again, going with “no trick question” from Bricker) because there was no evidence at all that any crime happened. It would be the prosecutor trying to get a conviction for coin flipping based on two guys standing in an alley, and that really is no evidence. (Although rape is kinda like this…if we assume Bricker’s unnamed accuser, then it might still be possible to convict based on that testimony, in the same way it can be with sexual assault)
But Sean said the coin flipping DID happen.
And that’s why (I believe) Bricker specifically chose coin flipping: for the binary nature of it. One of those extremely rare situations where if A didn’t happen, then B must have.
So there needs to be sufficient evidence that Ed was in the alley pitching coins at all, and there was, in the form of tape and testimony from Sean.
The only remaining question is whether any of the coins landed criminally. I think it was interesting that Bricker chose to limit the coin pitches to only three, rather than a whole bunch, probably to make it a little more questionable for the jury to conclude that Ed HAD to have had at least one heads up coin.
Basically he set it up to show how a jury could view and weigh the evidence a certain way, a way that isn’t a slam dunk obvious choice, but it could still be a sustainable conviction anyway, especially since, as I said in my reply and is legally the fact, evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict. That is crucial to understanding how the conviction is upheld. So long as legally sufficient evidence can be found in what was submitted, then game over. The jury in this case found it. That the appeals court might not have found as the jury did doesn’t matter, because they do not substitute their judgment for the jury’s.
I do not deny that evidence of that flavor was introduced. But I do not agree that it had the substance necessary to allow a sentient and fair jury to find guiklt. Not even close. Yes, there was evidence. But I do not think the evidence had the necessary weight to conclude that Zimmerman was lying, never mind impeach his credibility in totality.
Yes. To be clear, the third item in his list is what my comment was directed to:
[QUOTE=Stoid]
[ul]
[li]We find he’s full of shit.[/li][li]What’s he full of shit about?[/li][li]The exact things that make a difference in determining whether he killed Martin wrongfully.[/li][li]Therefore: he’s full of shit deliberately, he’s shoveling the shit to cover up his wrongful actions, indicating he knows exactly what he did wrong.[/li][/ul]
[/QUOTE]
It’s a nice convenient (and necessary catch-all) that predetermines that Zimmerman is guilty. Kinda like, "You know all that evidence that played a role in Zimmerman’s acquittal? Now let’s look at it in Opposite Land.
Okay. And?
You are certainly entitled to disagree that the evidence is compelling enough to come to that conclusion, and there is nothing wrong with that.
But it remains true that intelligent, reasonable, fair people see it entirely differently than you do. And there’s nothing wrong with that, either.
What is truly clear to genuinely fair-minded, unbiased people looking at this situation is that the nature of what we genuinely know for sure about what happened that night is such that equally intelligent, reasonable, fair-minded people can come to radically different conclusions about the underlying truth of what happened that night.
And by “know for sure” I mean genuine facts… The things was about which everybody can absolutely agree:
George Zimmerman was legally carrying a concealed weapon that night.
Traybon Martin was legally walking home from purchasing candy and soda at the market.
George Zimmerman saw Traybon Martin and had some degree of concern about who he was and why he was there.
George Zimmerman called the nonemergency dispatch, and we know the precise contents of this conversation.
We know that Martin and Jeantel were on the phone off and on most of that time.
We know Martin was uncomfortable, and at one point ran towards his father’s house, and that George Zimmerman lost sight of him for some period of time.
We know that George Zimmerman got out of his truck to follow Martin.
We know that Martin spoke first to Zimmerman.
We know that there was an altercation between the two men that happened on the path between the townhomes.
We know that at one point for a few moments at least Martin was on top of Zimmerman.
Will know that someone was screaming virtually continuously for at least a minute or two and they were screaming help and they sounded very scared.
We know that George Zimmerman shot Traybon Martin.
We know that the screaming stopped at the moment of the shot.
We that George Zimmerman had scrapes on his head.
We know that George Zimmerman was on top of Traybon Martin’s body after he shot him.
We know that Traybon Martin did not have any scrapes or cuts except for a small one on his hand.
(I am on my iPad dictating, sorry about the misspellings…)
I may have missed one or two things, but I am fairly certain that that is a correct representation of the facts that all of us, no matter what else we believe beyond this, can agree are true.
Everything else that we know, think we know, the inferences we make, the things we believe, etc. is debatable and has been debated. So without going outside the lines of the facts above, in any way, it is very hard to state honestly that only one conclusion is possible for reasonable, fair-minded people.
And here is the problem with your whole approach, both to this hypothetical and to the very real case with Zimmerman.
If you don’t like the evidence available, or the laws that exist, you add your own stuff until you get the answer you want.
Yes, there may have been an unknown witness, but it also may have been a malicious, politically motivated prosecution. You simply cannot know - and assuming that there’s evidence for guilt simply because of an accusation is terrifyingly dangerous.
In Bricker’s hypothetical, there is zero evidence that the coins landed heads up. That is a necessary element of the crime. So, zero evidence for a crime.
As always, like a fine Swiss watch, you are making a false statement. And, as always, not backing it up. Because, like always, you can’t.
Obviously Bricker will clarify his intention for us at some point. I certainly hope. And if your interpretation of Bricker’s hypothetical is correct, that the only evidence presented to the jury is Sean and the videotape, then I tend to agree with you, that there’s no evidence at all for Ed’s coin’s landing head’s up, which I said…but of course then there’s the problem of how and why Ed was ever put on trial to begin with, if there is no one accusing him? Where did the charges come from? Thin air? If Sean is the only one speaking to the issue of coins being pitched at all, it makes the charges nothing less than bizarre, and it’s difficult to envision how Bricker would have intended that, but it’s certainly possible. (And you’ll note that this was the first question I asked, among many. Because of course, you are the only one around here who just Knows and Understands Everything Automatically. The rest of us have to learn and question and ask and think.)
I look forward to his return and clarification about what he intended.
Nope, again I am correct about both your statement and your intentions. You follow this up by, once again, assuming things that you can’t know - such as whether there is actually other evidence in the hypothetical. But yes, the charges could have come from “thin air” - if it’s supposed to be an analogy to the Zimmerman case, that would be perfectly apt.
You speak of “my interpretation” of the hypothetical. This, as usual, is where you fall down. I am not interpreting, I am observing, and reasoning. There is no interpretation necessary, as all the facts are clearly laid out, and they admit of only one reasonable conclusion - innocence.
Let’s speak again of reasonable conclusions. For someone to be found guilty by a jury, that jury must consider that the evidence leads to only one reasonable conclusion, and that is guilt. If there is any possibility that reasonable people could disagree, then the defendant is not guilty. Not “must be found” not guilty - “is” not guilty. You consistently fail to do this. You argue that, as there exists a reasonable conclusion that there is guilt, then it is acceptable to find guilt. That is wrong, it is false. You (as hypothetical juror) may not do that, you have sworn an oath not to. That’s ignoring the fact that your conclusions in both the hypothetical and real cases under discussion are not reasonable.
And to speak further of interpretation, the jury must be extremely careful of doing too much of that. They may either accept the witnesses statement that the coins fell tails up, or reject it, and say they gain no information about the coins from his statement. They may not interpret it to mean the coins fell heads up.
That’s what you fail to do. You may either accept the evidence, or discard it. But, having discarded it, you may not then interpret it again to make your case.
To go back to Bricker’s hypothetical, evidence that the coins landed heads up would be evidence that the witness was lying. Evidence that the witness was llying would not be evidence about the coins at all.
You left out:
- Zimmerman had his nose broken
- Zimmerman had cuts on the back of his head (an important distinction)
- Zimmerman’s eye-witness testimony as to what transpired
- that an investigation into a racial motivation by Zimmerman concluded that there was none (actually, I’m not sure if the jury was made aware of this)
- that the starting point for the jury was that Zimmerman was innocent
It seems to me that the only piece of evidence that points to things not going down as Zimmerman stated is the claim (I forget by whom) that Zimmerman was on top of Martin during the fight. Personally, I find that questionable, at best. Certainly not enough for a reasonable jury to conclude that things didn’t transpire as Zimmerman testified. It seems that the jury agreed with that.
So, what other piece of evidence indicates that Zimmerman was guilty?
As a juror, you don’t get to know that. The evidence you see is what the prosecution presented at trial, period. The indictment is not evidence.
They think he’s a complete liar and don’t trust a single word out of his mouth. He might accidentally tell the truth but basically they don’t trust a single word he says.
Yes. It shows them making motions that look exactly like pitching coins. The video just can’t show the faces of the coins; the resolution isn’t good enough.
Exactly. He says on appeal that the record is devoid of any testimony that would allow the jury to find that any coin landed “heads.”
But the law doesn’t criminal all acts of pitching pennies – just those in which the coin lands “heads.”
I was clear about exactly what I was doing and why, which was assuming.
You said:
False.
Untrue.
Lie.
And if you think otherwise, SHOW.
Every single word of mine is here. Go get the ones that demonstrate that I didn’t like the evidence or laws and added “my own stuff” until I “got the answer I wanted”.
Oh, and quoting my words out of complete context and/or quoting my words and then Announcing that they mean something other than what they plainly mean isn’t showing. Get my words, in context, and break down exactly how they demonstrate your assertion.
When you do that, I will pay attention to you. Until then, I am bone-tired of your Announcements, your complete lack of intellectual honesty, and your inability to retain information that’s more than half a post old.
Added.
No, this is not what everyone agrees is true, it doesn’t qualify.
The other things are not part of the facts about that night.
That’s my whole point. :smack:
But I’m not a juror… I’m somebody answering the question of whether the conviction will be held up on appeal, so I am considering what the appellate court would be considering, and they would have to complete record, including what led to the indictment.
No, we don’t know that. And the fact that you believe this has been established is telling. You and the rest of the presumption-of-guilt crowd have told each other this until you believe it.
Regards,
Shodan
Bollocks.
I, and others, have repeatedly done this, for 18 months. You have been shown, usually, with the citations that you bring, and which you wildly misinterpret.
Ultimately, though, the burden is not on me or others to show that there is no evidence against Zimmerman (or for that matter against our hypothetical tosser) - it is on you to show that there is. Something that, despite repeatedly being challenged on, you refuse to do. Bricker’s wonderfully illuminating hypothetical has shown your actions clearly - when the evidence you want doesn’t exist, you simply declare it must do, as you’ve presumed him guilty, and can’t countenance that you’d be wrong.
Here.
You are assuming guilt based on no evidence. That he was charged is not evidence of guilt. Neither, for that matter, is the fact that you think he lied. Same with Zimmerman.
Have done, probably hundreds of times. It’s not my fault if you can’t understand English, even your own written words.
I have been doing that for 18 months, and at no point have you come up with a rebuttal for my arguments. You want to show Zimmerman, or the hypothetical tosser, guilty, you need to do these things.
- Presume them innocent.
- Provide evidence that would allow a reasonable person to believe them guilty of the crime.
- Show that the evidence you rely on for your argument of guilt cannot be used by a reasonable person to support a belief that they are not guilty.
It is my opinion that you have failed at all 3 steps. It is an unarguable fact that you have failed at the last step, as people have brought reasonable arguments that he’s not guilty, that you have not refuted. Magellan01 did it less than a dozen posts ago. You dismiss his opinion as irrelevant, missing the point that a single reasonable opinion that he might be not guilty means he is not guilty.
This is not a level playing field. It is not about who scores the most points. Those who believe in guilt must win with a crushing, unanswerable argument, or they have lost. Not only have you not achieved that, you do not appear to have even attempted it.
Nope, they don’t either. The indictment is not evidence, and for an appeal for sufficiency of the evidence, the appellate court considers only the record the jury saw. The indictment is only relevant insofar as it lays out what the charge was, and whatever evidence led to it is of no consequence to the appellate court.
Yes, yes it is. by which I mean you and your tiresome crap. I still cannot decide whether you are conscious of what you do or not, but it doesn’t matter, because you just keep doing it.
You deny the existence of anything and everything … Well, everything you want to deny the existence of for whatever reason. Maybe the reason is that you really are incapable of seeing past your own blocks, maybe the reason is you just want to be a pain in the ass. I don’t know. What I do know is that It absolutely does not matter what I say, you will not acknowledge it if you don’t want to. Everything you ask me for what tell me I have not produced I have produced multiple times in multiple ways. You’re blind to it, Or you pretend to be blind to it. Either way the result is the same.
And, of course, you are incapable, consciously or not, of comprehending things outside your worldview. You see it a particular way that’s the only way it can possibly be seen. Again, total waste of time.
If by chance these deficiencies of yours are not conscious, all I can do is invite you to open up your head and go back and read because everything is there. In multiples.
You’ve had ample opportunities to prove me wrong, and I’ve even told you what’s required to do so. Instead, you are still saying that, because I can’t magically see the things you claim exist but won’t reveal, I have some sort of mental block. Well yeah, I’m not telepathic…
But, see, I don’t believe you will, because I don’t believe you can. Because I think I comprehend your worldview very well. It is, ironically but unsurprisingly, what you are constantly accusing me of - you claim what you want to be true by fiat, and then base your arguments on that, refusing to acknowledge any discussion of the flaws in the premises.
The case in point is you refusal, in both the Zimmerman case and the recent hypothetical, to presume either defendant innocent. That despite the pages and pages of links you have provided over the last 18 months explaining said presumption, and how a jury need apply it.
I’ll grant you this, you’re a pretty damn good researcher. I’ve actually learned a great deal from your cites. It’s just a shame you haven’t. I see that, now Bricker has, yet again, showed you where you are wrong, you’re ignoring it. Perhaps you’d care to explain where he’s wrong, or admit that you were?
Whoa there, Cochise. We’re not quite there yet. She hasn’t said anything wrong yet (except about whether the indictment is evidence, which is not germane to the issue we’re discussing). Why don’t you wait until she answers the question before announcing her guilt?
Because she is, yet again, starting from a false premise, which invalidates any conclusion she might draw. That premise being that, because the defendant is charged with a crime, there must be evidence that he’s guilty, even if such evidence has not been produced.
ETA She has stated that the appeal court will uphold the conviction - in post 800. Are you saying she’s correct there?
:rolleyes: