George Zimmerman shot

Belz... said:
Are you suggesting that Zimmerman is the victim in every one of those cases ?
Click to expand...
Skepticism and critical thinking means you ignore evidence if it doesn't lead to a conviction. It's like all of those people who thought OJ killed his wife. To think OJ a murderer you can't be a skeptic. To be a skeptic you cannot form opinions until a verdict is rendered. At that point your opinion can only match the decision of the jury. Some people think skepticism is the ability to forgo assumptions and critically analyze data to form an opinion. It's really to adopt what others, like a jury, tell you.

sarcasm
 
RandFan said:
Skepticism and critical thinking means you ignore evidence if it doesn't lead to a conviction. It's like all of those people who thought OJ killed his wife. To think OJ a murderer you can't be a skeptic. To be a skeptic you cannot form opinions until a verdict is rendered. At that point your opinion can only match the decision of the jury. Some people think skepticism is the ability to forgo assumptions and critically analyze data to form an opinion. It's really to adopt what others, like a jury, tell you.
Click to expand...

Thanks for telling me that. I've been so wrong all those years !
 
Belz... said:
Thanks for telling me that. I've been so wrong all those years !
Click to expand...
If you thought that while Michael Jackson was alive that it would be risky to let him watch young children then you were wrong about that also. Conviction or it didn't happen.
 
"I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the deputy."
This is an untenable position here I guess.

GUILTY ON ALL COUNTS!!111!!
 
PhantomWolf said:
Yup the where there is smoke there must be fire fallacy.... perfect example of critical thinking.
Click to expand...


How about "Where there's smoke there's smoke."?


Giz said:
Ideology trumps skepticism on this forum.
Click to expand...


It isn't ideology to take note that smoke keeps popping up in the same place over and over again and wonder why that might be happening.

OTOH, it is ideology to make the knee-jerk assumption the the smoke is always caused by something different each time because not to would contradict earlier positions that you are too invested in to let go of.
 
quadraginta said:
How about "Where there's smoke there's smoke."?





It isn't ideology to take note that smoke keeps popping up in the same place over and over again and wonder why that might be happening.
OTOH, it is ideology to make the knee-jerk assumption the the smoke is always caused by something different each time because not to would contradict earlier positions that you are too invested in to let go of.
Click to expand...

I'm going to guess faulty wiring. It's almost always faulty wiring.
 
http://aattp.org/irony-alert-man-who-shot-george-zimmerman-to-use-stand-your-ground-defense/


Man Who Shot George Zimmerman To Use Stand Your Ground Defense
Such a defense would entitle Matthew Apperson to a hearing, ahead of his trial, during which a judge would decide if he deserves immunity from prosecution because he feared imminent death or bodily injury. Apperson was charged earlier this month with aggravated assault and battery for firing a gun into Zimmerman’s car during a traffic run-in. Zimmerman had minor injuries.
Click to expand...
 
Since Zimmerman is alive the shooter will have to, in the least, come off as more credible than GZ. From what little I know the shooter is a flake. If I had to place odds I'd have to place on GZ at the moment. He's a flake but not as much as the shooter. Now, had GZ died, IMO, no indictment.
 
Belz... said:
Are you suggesting that Zimmerman is the victim in every one of those cases ?
Click to expand...

I'm suggesting that you have no way of actually knowing what the real truth in each case is because you weren't there and the facts have never been investigated and the truth determined, and thus joining a bunch of unproven dots together is nothing more than speculation and jumping to a conclusion. Actually, no, I'm not suggesting it, I'm stating it.
 
quadraginta said:
How about "Where there's smoke there's smoke."?
Click to expand...

Problem is, that people aren't stopping at the smoke, they are assuming that there is something else beyond that. A smoke grenade can produce just as much smoke as a real fire, if not more.

It isn't ideology to take note that smoke keeps popping up in the same place over and over again and wonder why that might be happening.
Click to expand...

But posters aren't "wonder(ing) why that might be happening" they are declaring that they know why it is, and do so because it fits their previously created image of the man, something that they already mostly made from whole cloth anyways.

OTOH, it is ideology to make the knee-jerk assumption the the smoke is always caused by something different each time because not to would contradict earlier positions that you are too invested in to let go of.
Click to expand...

It's a knee jerk reaction to say that we don't have the information to determine the facts? Wow, just wow.
 
Belz... said:
Are you suggesting that Zimmerman is the victim in every one of those cases ?

PhantomWolf said:
I'm suggesting that you have no way of actually knowing what the real truth in each case is because you weren't there and the facts have never been investigated and the truth determined, and thus joining a bunch of unproven dots together is nothing more than speculation and jumping to a conclusion. Actually, no, I'm not suggesting it, I'm stating it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I'm confused. Belz has "no way of actually knowing what the real truth in each case is..."

But you do?
 
RandFan said:
Since Zimmerman is alive the shooter will have to, in the least, come off as more credible than GZ. From what little I know the shooter is a flake. If I had to place odds I'd have to place on GZ at the moment. He's a flake but not as much as the shooter. Now, had GZ died, IMO, no indictment.
Click to expand...

I disagree, consider if GZ's gun was located in his glove box. Currently we don't yet know where it was, but I am suspecting that for the police to declare that the shooting was unprovoked, that it was somewhere that wasn't immediately accessible. So if it was in the glove box, and GZ was killed, then the claim that he was waving a gun would be rather easily falsified, simply because the odds of a person being lethally wounded, then putting the gun they were "waving about" into the glove box is tending towards nil.

What will determine the case, as in other cases is the evidence, and as of yet, we don't have all of it, so speculating is pointless.
 
RandFan said:
I'm confused. Belz has "no way of actually knowing what the real truth in each case is..."

But you do?
Click to expand...

No, what I'm stating is that "Belz has 'no way of actually knowing what the real truth in each case is...'". I'm not stating anything in regards to the cases, other than "we don't have the facts to determine the truth."

To explain further, since you obviously missed it. My posted started which... "I'm suggesting that you have no way of actually knowing what the real truth in each case"

I then ended it with, no actually I'm stating it.. "that you have no way of actually knowing what the real truth in each case"

Does that make sense to you now?
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
I disagree, consider if GZ's gun was located in his glove box. Currently we don't yet know where it was, but I am suspecting that for the police to declare that the shooting was unprovoked, that it was somewhere that wasn't immediately accessible. So if it was in the glove box, and GZ was killed, then the claim that he was waving a gun would be rather easily falsified, simply because the odds of a person being lethally wounded, then putting the gun they were "waving about" into the glove box is tending towards nil.

What will determine the case, as in other cases is the evidence, and as of yet, we don't have all of it, so speculating is pointless.
Click to expand...
I'm happy to concede that there will always be exceptions. Sure there could be some detail that could determine the case. In the case of Einstein here (Apperson), the odds are a bit higher he would make a mistake and indict himself. Still, if GZ had died it's unlikely there would have been an indictment IMO and I think that is quite reasonable. One only need convince others that one is legitimately in fear of one's life.
 
PhantomWolf said:
No, what I'm stating is that "Belz has 'no way of actually knowing what the real truth in each case is...'". I'm not stating anything in regards to the cases, other than "we don't have the facts to determine the truth."

To explain further, since you obviously missed it. My posted started which... "I'm suggesting that you have no way of actually knowing what the real truth in each case"

I then ended it with, no actually I'm stating it.. "that you have no way of actually knowing what the real truth in each case"

Does that make sense to you now?
Click to expand...
The snark was unnecessary. You were not clear at all.

FTR: When someone asks you a direct question about what you think and you don't answer the question directly but instead you answer an unasked question, you are bound to be misunderstood.
 
Last edited:
IIRC, from amny pages back, didn't GZ make a U-turn to avoid confrontation, but Apperson followed? Is that SYG? Sounds like Apperson was the belligerent, for reasons only the voices in his head know?
 
RandFan said:
I'm happy to concede that there will always be exceptions. Sure there could be some detail that could determine the case. In the case of Einstein here (Apperson), the odds are a bit higher he would make a mistake and indict himself. Still, if GZ had died it's unlikely there would have been an indictment IMO and I think that is quite reasonable. One only need convince others that one is legitimately in fear of one's life.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you seem to be condensing this down to a he said/he said issue, when in fact there is going to be more to it that just what each party claims. Apperson, on going for a Stand your ground defence, will have to prove that on the balance of probabilities he had a reasonable fear for his life. With the shaded windows of GZ's vehicle, that is going to actually have to start with him being actually able to see what GZ was doing through those windows, and depending on the light, that might be impossible to do. The police I am sure have already check these sorts of things out, but we simply don't know what they found.

That they are charging him with firing "without provocation" indicates that at the very least they think that they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ did nothing to provoke Apperson, and I doubt they are basing that purely on the testimony of GZ. So if they are right (and no I'm not saying that they are because we haven't seen the evidence yet) then it would seem that any SYG defence which would have to rely on provocation would be a very high mountain to climb, even without the testimony of GZ. As such, I believe you're merely jumping to a conclusion because of your stance over SYG laws without actually fully understanding the bar that is required to reach, and the evidence for and against it in this case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom