The future George Zimmerman Acquittal Trial Megathread!

[Razgovory]

And to be honest, Joan's description of events may be entirely accurate. The problem is, the only evidence we have is some scant physical evidence and a few ear witnesses that don't clarify much. Other than that, we have Zimmerman's story. Zimmerman's story paints a substantially different picture from what Joan is saying, and there was no real alternative story put forward.

It may be accurate, as any alternate universe may be accurate.  I'm just noting the fact that we have a large number of positive assertions about what happened that have no basis in actual fact.  People just believe what they want to believe, and present their beliefs as facts.  Things like "the fact that race was a relevant factor in the incident."  That isn't a fact at all.  It is an assumption.  But, since it is an unexamined assumption, it is, in some alternate universe (which may be our own universe - we don't know) an actual fact just like facts that are really facts.

We will likely never know the truth.  We certainly won't ever know the truth if we simply through out unexaminined assumptions and call them "facts."

So which part of this is just stuff you want to believe?

[alfred russel]

The dispatcher did give clear direction: "we don't need you to do that."

I love this shit, especially when it comes from somebody normally smart enough to avoid saying such stupid things.

I don't understand that as being clear either...I could easily see it as being a part of a call script for a 911 dispatcher simply because whatever public entity the 911 dispatcher reports to wants to make very clear and for the record that they are not directing a citizen to put himself in harms way.

[The Minsky Moment]

It may be accurate, as any alternate universe may be accurate.  I'm just noting the fact that we have a large number of positive assertions about what happened that have no basis in actual fact.  People just believe what they want to believe, and present their beliefs as facts.  Things like "the fact that race was a relevant factor in the incident."  That isn't a fact at all.  It is an assumption.  But, since it is an unexamined assumption, it is, in some alternate universe (which may be our own universe - we don't know) an actual fact just like facts that are really facts.

We will likely never know the truth.  We certainly won't ever know the truth if we simply through out unexaminined assumptions and call them "facts."

Quite so grumbler, we will never know The Truth.  And it is also true we cannot talk about "facts" as in matters that can be reasonably established through a firm chain of reasoning when drawing conclusions about matters in the real world outside the laboratory where evidence is incomplete and ambiguous.  For example, the apparent fact that according to an eyewitness he saw (shortly but not immediately before the shooting) a man in a "strattle" position throwing punches "MMA" style on a "guy in a red sweatshirt" needs to be considered with the apparent fact that another eyewitness was "adamant" that "there was no physical fighting at the time the when the gunshot rang out."

But many questions of considerable interest are not so obliging as to accompany themselves with sufficient quantities of unequivocal, objective evidence.  In fact virtually all questions that are contested in courts of law -- civil or criminal -- are such, or else they wouldn't be there.   Thus we must either confine ourselves to saying nothing at all about such matters, or accept the evidence that does exist for what it is, and use our powers of inferential and probabalistic reasoning to put together an account of what is the most (or more) likely explanation.  Of course any such construction is prone to bias.  But bias can and does infect even the most rigorous of scientific efforts as well.  Bias is inherent in a human subject exercising mental faculties.

With that: take the statement "the fact that race was a relevant factor in the incident."  Whether race was a relevant factor is a datum, a fact.  What is uncertain is whether it was or it wasn't.  My conclusion that it was is not an untethered assumption.  It is a conclusion based on evidence - in particular Zimmerman's own account that a factor that made Martin suspicious to him was that 2-3 weeks prior he had seen a black man look into the same house he claims he saw Martin looking into.

[Berkut]

Is gender an issue as well, since Zimmerman said it was a "man" he saw a few weeks ago?

[The Minsky Moment]

Do you believe Zimmerman followed Martin after being told "we don't need you to do that?"

I think it more likely than not that he attempted to do so, in light of Zimmerman's comments about the "punks" always "getting away," in light of a witness report that states that a chase preceded the physical altercation, and in light of the fact that the biggest inconsistency with Zimmerman's statement to Serino was his attempt to claim that he never ran after Martin.

[The Minsky Moment]

Is gender an issue as well, since Zimmerman said it was a "man" he saw a few weeks ago?

Actually no - Zimmerman didn't say he saw a "man".  He saw "someone".

[The Minsky Moment]

What did he think was going to happen when he decided to follow someone in his car and then running after an individual who was fleeing? They'd have a prayer circle?

That is yet another of the possible altnernate outcomes.
I would say that it seems implausible to me but I am biased.  I don't have a lot of prayer circle experience.

[Berkut]

Is gender an issue as well, since Zimmerman said it was a "man" he saw a few weeks ago?

Actually no - Zimmerman didn't say he saw a "man".  He saw "someone".

He said he saw a "black someone"?

[The Minsky Moment]

He said he saw a "black someone"?

He said he saw someone and then confirmed the race in response to a question from Serino.

[derspiess]

He said "He looks black" when asked, which btw MSNBC hilariously edited to make it sound like Zimmerman volunteered that info without being asked by the dispatcher.

DISTORT WE MUCH

[Berkut]

He said he saw a "black someone"?

He said he saw someone and then confirmed the race in response to a question from Serino.

I am talking about what he said about seeing a "black man" previously.

Sometimes a description is just a description.

[The Minsky Moment]

I am talking about what he said about seeing a "black man" previously.

Sometimes a description is just a description.

I am being facetious.   
Of course gender is a factor.  Had a young woman been doing the same thing at the same time, Zimmerman's reaction would have been different.  Of course I cannot prove that, nor can I prove that Zimmerman would have reacted differently had it been Angela Merkel in Captain America underoos.

[Malthus]

I am talking about what he said about seeing a "black man" previously.

Sometimes a description is just a description.

I am being facetious.   
Of course gender is a factor.  Had a young woman been doing the same thing at the same time, Zimmerman's reaction would have been different.  Of course I cannot prove that, nor can I prove that Zimmerman would have reacted differently had it been Angela Merkel in Captain America underoos.

In the latter case: the only possible verdict would have been justifiable homicide. 

[Razgovory]

He said "He looks black" when asked, which btw MSNBC hilariously edited to make it sound like Zimmerman volunteered that info without being asked by the dispatcher.

DISTORT WE MUCH

It's only all right to edit videos and audio if it's for a good conservative cause.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think it more likely than not that he attempted to do so, in light of Zimmerman's comments about the "punks" always "getting away," in light of a witness report that states that a chase preceded the physical altercation, and in light of the fact that the biggest inconsistency with Zimmerman's statement to Serino was his attempt to claim that he never ran after Martin.

Yeah, I don't necessarily take issue with any of your theoretical stories about Zimmerman. I think those are also reasonable possibilities as to what happened. To me the key point is there are several reasonable possibilities, none really definitively suggested by the evidence. Most importantly is none indicating legal guilt could be appropriately arrived upon by a jury to the point that they could clear the reasonable doubt hurdle. I guess I'm not terribly interested in what really happened, this story became national news because of the legal case and my interest in it was mostly shock that the NAACP and the deMoney faction of the world combined with effete liberals like yourself (not you personally, who should know better) somehow thought by invoking the Civil Rights movement and writing a bunch of articles about how terrible it is to hear a car door lock when you walk by would somehow override what the law says should have been done in the case.