Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Dancing David]

I will read it. I suspect as always, the truth is more complicated. The biggest problem I have when I hear the 911 call is Zimmerman saying "these ******* always get away". The problem with that statement (totally independent of whether it had anything to do with race) is that it appears that in his mind he had already decided Martin was a likely criminal. That is a dangerous way to think, and it could be that mindset that also made him more likely to pull the trigger (regardless of which one initiated violence when the confrontation took place).

That statement will be hotly contested and most likely allowed in discovery. But then it comes down to jury instructions regarding intent.

 

[RandFan]

Argument from derision attacks argument from authority. Outcome determined by credibility of the authority. Authority says stupid stuff and contradicts it's own policy and has no science to back up it's claims. Winner = Derision.

No.

Newton: Laws of motion.
Newton: Alchemy (stupid stuff).
Therefore: Newton's laws of motion are wrong.

Dude, arguments MUST stand on their own.

 

[RandFan]

What if it excluded Martin as well? Would it mean that neither one of them actually screamed or that the quality of the recording being compared is just not high enough?

I don't hold that the experts are correct beyond a shadow of doubt. Two options.

• GZ lied and someone else was yelling.
• The experts were wrong.

So, your point?

 

[RandFan]

Hmm . . .

Argument from derision attacks argument from authority. Outcome determined by credibility of the authority. Authority says stupid stuff and contradicts it's own policy and has no science to back up it's claims. Winner = Derision.

BTW: I don't even accept that it is necessarily stupid. I don't know what the context is. These are cherry picked to mock them. Further this "no science to back up it's claims" is nonsense.

And I want to add another "expert" to Newton. Tesla. By your logic curi0s, Tesla's claims about electricity are all wrong.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I don't hold that the experts are correct beyond a shadow of doubt. Two options.

• GZ lied and someone else was yelling.
• The experts were wrong.

So, your point?

I don't claim to speak for sgtbaker, but it seems to me the point is #2. If TM is excluded, it makes a good case the 'experts' do not have the ability to determine who was screaming.

I don't want to see just one party excluded. I want to see the results for *both* parties.

 

[RandFan]

I don't claim to speak for sgtbaker, but it seems to me the point is #2. If TM is excluded, it makes a good case the 'experts' do not have the ability to determine who was screaming.

I don't want to see just one party excluded. I want to see the results for *both* parties.

That would then hold for DNA evidence. Without blood from all parties the exclusion of one cannot be trusted.

 

[WildCat]

Further this "no science to back up it's claims" is nonsense.

Excellent! Can you link to the science paper that details how a very short low-quality recording of a person screaming "help" can be scientifically shown to either match or not a normal speaking voice in which the word "help" is never uttered?

I'll be waiting a long, long time for that link, won't I?

 

[WildCat]

That would then hold for DNA evidence. Without blood from all parties the exclusion of one cannot be trusted.

These clowns claim to be able to do it not with DNA, but with a short, low-quality recording of a person screaming for help.

Do you have any evidence at all that they can do this?

Hint: a claim is not evidence.

 

[johnny karate]

Right - but whether you need them or not is open to interpretation by the doctor. Not worth arguing about anyway.

I don't see how that's relevant. Again, saying an injury requires stitches denotes a level of severity. That's what Zimmerman's lawyer did.

Honestly, IDK how I feel about a lawyer lying in a media interview, in general. And circumstances are important. Yes, a blatant lie is more egregious than a questionable statement or using loaded language. If GZ told his attorney 'they said I should have had stitches' - then the attorney is simply is repeating what he was told - no problem.

All that does is shift the lie from Zimmerman's lawyer back to Zimmerman himself. I'm not sure how that makes it "no problem". It's still a lie.

I don't want to engage in tu quoque - but - if I can show you clips of benjamin crump (the martins lawyer) blatantly lying, will you censor censure him in the same way as GZ lawyer ? I'm not claiming it's ok - I just want you to treat them equally for it, fair enough ? That will cast doubt on anything the martins say ?

Well, except that the Martin family lawyer - nor any of Martin's family - were not there that night, so everything they say about the altercation between Martin and Zimmerman is automatically taken with a grain of salt. Zimmerman is the only living witness (if you'll recall, he killed the other guy), so what he tells us about what happened is supposed to be factual, not speculation.

He gets treated on the scene - declines to go to hospital. He just shot and killed someone and is probably in some sort of shock/denial/ecstasy/whatever.
He shows up at police station with clear signs of lacerations on the back of his head ( see what I did there ? )

I sure do. It's called assuming facts not in evidence. Also known as "making s*** up".

...and after he goes home and all the adrenaline wears off , he wakes up the next day and decides it hurts enough to go to the hospital.

You don't get stitches because your wound "hurts". You get stitches because it won't close.

Someone at the hospital mentions, "you should have had stitches". GZ tells his family/attorney 'They said I should have had stitches'.

Putting the great big assumption you made aside, you still have to account for how a wound severe enough to require stitches one day didn't even merit a band-aid the night before.

You can disagree with that narrative (and obviously do). But I don't think you can claim it's fantastic or far-fetched.

So now "fantastic" and "far-fetched" are the standards? How about "improbable" or "unlikely". Zimmerman's story simply does not fit the evidence.

I suppose we can turn ourselves into pretzels trying to make it fit, but I personally don't see why any of us should have to work so hard to make Zimmerman's case for him.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That would then hold for DNA evidence. Without blood from all parties the exclusion of one cannot be trusted.

I might agree with you if I thought the certainty in DNA testing was equivalent to voice recognition (with limited data in this case).

 

[WildCat]

I don't see how that's relevant. Again, saying an injury requires stitches denotes a level of severity. That's what Zimmerman's lawyer did.



All that does is shift the lie from Zimmerman's lawyer back to Zimmerman himself. I'm not sure how that makes it "no problem". It's still a lie.



Well, except that the Martin family lawyer - nor any of Martin's family - were not there that night, so everything they say about the altercation between Martin and Zimmerman is automatically taken with a grain of salt. Zimmerman is the only living witness (if you'll recall, he killed the other guy), so what he tells us about what happened is supposed to be factual, not speculation.



I sure do. It's called assuming facts not in evidence. Also known as "making s*** up".



You don't get stitches because your wound "hurts". You get stitches because it won't close.



Putting the great big assumption you made aside, you still have to account for how a wound severe enough to require stitches one day didn't even merit a band-aid the night before.



So now "fantastic" and "far-fetched" are the standards? How about "improbable" or "unlikely". Zimmerman's story simply does not fit the evidence.

I suppose we can turn ourselves into pretzels trying to make it fit, but I personally don't see why any of us should have to work so hard to make Zimmerman's case for him.

You do realize that the evidence of wounds will not be that surveillance video, don't you? I can't imagine a more foolish thing to argue about than that stupid low-res video, it is of little or no value wrt evidence in this case.

But hey, if that's all you got argue away!

 

[johnny karate]

I don't find that troubling. GZ is not on trial. He's not even charged with anything ... why would he be busy providing evidence ?

I do believe his father (?) noted that GZ was following the advice of the police and not talking to anyone.

Zimmerman is making the positive claim of self-defense. Information like the severity of the wounds he supposedly sustained while defending himself go to substantiating that claim. When that information proves itself to be false or misleading, the claim it supports becomes suspect.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So now "fantastic" and "far-fetched" are the standards? How about "improbable" or "unlikely". Zimmerman's story simply does not fit the evidence.
.

You already agreed the video did not disprove GZ or the police claims of injury.
So what exactly about the claim of GZ going to the hospital the next day and being told 'you should have had stitches' is improbable or unlikely ?

What evidence can you cite to contradict this claim ?

 

[johnny karate]

You do realize that the evidence of wounds will not be that surveillance video, don't you? I can't imagine a more foolish thing to argue about than that stupid low-res video, it is of little or no value wrt evidence in this case.

But hey, if that's all you got argue away!

You do realize that Zimmerman is not shown with any kind of bandage or wound dressing for an injury supposedly severe enough to require stitches, don't you?

Maybe you can be the first person to account for that.

 

[Information Analyst]

I can only assume that you are mistaken me with someone else but I flat out said I don't trust his lawyer.

Not impossible - it's been along thread....

 

[johnny karate]

You already agreed the video did not disprove GZ or the police claims of injury.
So what exactly about the claim of GZ going to the hospital the next day and being told 'you should have had stitches' is improbable or unlikely ?

Because the night before that same wound didn't require any bandages.

What evidence can you cite to contradict this claim ?

The obvious lack of bandages in the surveillance video.

ETA: Also, here's the video of Zimmerman's lawyer:

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

For the record, you get sutures when a wound goes through the dermis exposing subcutaneous tissue underneath. The wound heals faster and doesn't need extensive 'filling in' with scar tissue.

Once in a while you suture facial wounds or a laceration over a joint to decrease scarring or facilitate healing respectively.

You don't suture a dirty wound you cannot properly clean. It would raise infection risk. And you don't generally suture a wound that is over 24 hours old (except in rare circumstances) for the same reason.

 

[WildCat]

You do realize that Zimmerman is not shown with any kind of bandage or wound dressing for an injury supposedly severe enough to require stitches, don't you?

Maybe you can be the first person to account for that.

Maybe you can explain why you think that information should be in the public domain at this time?

But if you think that anyone (prosecution or defense) at trial is going to introduce that video as evidence either way you are delusional. It's completely irrelevant to the case of either side.

 

[RandFan]

I might agree with you if I thought the certainty in DNA testing was equivalent to voice recognition (with limited data in this case).

Begging the question. Your premise implicitly assumes the conclusion. However, I will say that I don't believe that the voice recognition has achieved the status of DNA. If you restated your argument I could possibly agree with you.

 

[RandFan]

For the record, you get sutures when a wound goes through the dermis exposing subcutaneous tissue underneath. The wound heals faster and doesn't need extensive 'filling in' with scar tissue.

Once in a while you suture facial wounds or a laceration over a joint to decrease scarring or facilitate healing respectively.

You don't suture a dirty wound you cannot properly clean. It would raise infection risk. And you don't generally suture a wound that is over 24 hours old (except in rare circumstances) for the same reason.

Would a wound justifying sutures likely require a bandage?