Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Dan O.]

Maybe you guys should all save yourselves the effort, and realize this will just be another Amanda Knox quagmire. Did anyone consider her as a suspect in this case?

While the Amanda Knox case was active, the JREF thread consistently maintained a high ranking in google searches concerning the case. The thread attracted many new members on both sides of the issue and the neutral moderation of this board allowed all issues to be fully discussed.

By contrast, this thread seems to be more like a bunch of people yelling past each other with little regard to what the others are saying.

 

[leftysergeant]

I did watch the video, and it didn't prompt me to go digging into who Frank was and what he may or may not have done in the past.

I'm not sure what serious problems he has that are relevant.

He has a history of arrests for violating a domestic violence no-contact order. The slimeball has no place on Neighborhood Watch. He has manhood and control issues. He is not even fit to comment on whether Z's actions were proper. His comments that Martin should have been polite to the sick bastard chasing him for no good reason are utterly wrong and uncalled for.

Taaffe is one of the kinds of people you do not want running around your neighborhood if you have any sense.

That the homeowner's association let those two play Neighborhood Watch will probably come around to bite them in the butt when the law suits start.

 

[Noztradamus]

A very interesting new piece of information. Using this shortcut would be consistent with Martin's route back from the 7-11 (as also identified on the same page), and would put Martin on Retreat View Circle walking in the same direction as Zimmerman would have been driving towards the main entrance. This allows for a better opportunity for Zimmerman to first catch sight of Martin than if he had been coming back through the main entrance.

It would also raise Martin's Anxiety Index, because there is no reason for anyone driving on Retreat View Circle to turn onto Twin Trees Lane unless they are following someone.

 

[Dancing David]

I don't agree with JK, but he did say bandage, not dressing.

This is the post I responded to initially:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8168830&postcount=4934

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.

 

[Dancing David]

Maybe you guys should all save yourselves the effort, and realize this will just be another Amanda Knox quagmire. Did anyone consider her as a suspect in this case?

I disagree, the standards or evidence will be different, as will the whole process.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

This is the post I responded to initially:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8168830&postcount=4934

I missed that

 

[davefoc]

First I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge the fact that I went off with an emotional opinion based on only a very limited understanding of the facts surrounding the case in an earlier post. Sometimes it's good to be a semi-anonymous poster on the internet where people won't remember what you've said in a few minutes anyway. This was one of those moments for me.

In what real world is 'preponderance of the evidence' a rational standard [preponderance of the evidence] for criminal cases?

I'd like to answer this even though it was addressed to Randfan since RandFan's approach here seems similar to mine. RandFan didn't say that the preponderance of evidence standard had any significance to the case beyond using that as a way of giving an estimate as to what his rough judgment of the probable situation was with regard to the guilt of Zimmerman. That's the kind of thinking that I apply in a situation where the available facts don't allow for a strong conclusion. I think he's just saying to himself, "OK, based on what we know now, what do I think probably happened". And this seems like a pretty reasonable process for making a guess about a lot of real world events where the evidence just isn't available to make a strong conclusion, to me.

And a comment on this thread:
My assumption was that it was unlikely that significant evidence would be available that would allow the truth to be sorted in this case. I've changed my mind a bit after following this thread. It seems like there might be quite a bit of evidence available eventually that will allow at least improved guessing as to what went on. But until that evidence is analyzed and released it doesn't seem like there is much basis to improve the quality of the guessing as to what went on, so I'm a little surprised this thread hasn't died down a bit at least until there are some more official releases about the evidence in this case.

 

[johnny karate]

So in other words they can apply an antibiotic as a wound dressing and it would not be visible?

Sure, if you want to believe the EMTs decided to give a serious head wound in need of stitches a squirt of Bactine instead.

Or maybe they just kissed Zimmerman's boo-boo to make it all better.

 

[RandFan]

I don't think so, but I do admire the way you avoided having to respond with that response. But feel free to clean up my faulty premises for me, I'm sure you will.

Your premises implicitly assume the conclusion.

 

[RandFan]

I notice you start some posts with "I don't mean to be condescending" and also mention ego in your sig. Do you find those to be things people in your life frequently accuse you of having issues with? If so, I can't imagine why. And thank you for explaining all of that. I'll spend some time pondering those things. Perhaps next time around you can explain some other deep concepts, maybe even enlighten us all that the earth is round (well, sort of round, anyway).

Your post is non-responsive.

 

[RandFan]

I think Randfan is saying that the preponderance of evidence is all he needs to make up his mind about what he thinks happened, but it would not be enough for a court of law. That is why he states that he thinks Zimmerman is in the wrong, but would not feel able to vote "guilty" if he were on the jury.

 

[RandFan]

I'd like to answer this even though it was addressed to Randfan since RandFan's approach here seems similar to mine. RandFan didn't say that the preponderance of evidence standard had any significance to the case beyond using that as a way of giving an estimate as to what his rough judgment of the probable situation was with regard to the guilt of Zimmerman. That's the kind of thinking that I apply in a situation where the available facts don't allow for a strong conclusion. I think he's just saying to himself, "OK, based on what we know now, what do I think probably happened". And this seems like a pretty reasonable process for making a guess about a lot of real world events where the evidence just isn't available to make a strong conclusion, to me.

Thank you. For those arguing semantics looking for a gotcha.

source Arrest/charge/indict To arrest someone you need probable cause. The best-known definition of probable cause is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime". Another common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".

Preponderance of evidence = probably true.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_cause#cite_note-2

 

[Almo]

While the Amanda Knox case was active, the JREF thread consistently maintained a high ranking in google searches concerning the case. The thread attracted many new members on both sides of the issue and the neutral moderation of this board allowed all issues to be fully discussed.

That wasn't what the Knox threads looked like to me.

By contrast, this thread seems to be more like a bunch of people yelling past each other with little regard to what the others are saying.

This is what the Knox threads looked like to me. But I didn't hang around in there long, because that's what they looked like. Perhaps I'm wrong, or you're being sarcastic.

 

[crimresearch]

First I'd like to take a moment to acknowledge the fact that I went off with an emotional opinion based on only a very limited understanding of the facts surrounding the case in an earlier post. Sometimes it's good to be a semi-anonymous poster on the internet where people won't remember what you've said in a few minutes anyway. This was one of those moments for me.



I'd like to answer this even though it was addressed to Randfan since RandFan's approach here seems similar to mine. RandFan didn't say that the preponderance of evidence standard had any significance to the case beyond using that as a way of giving an estimate as to what his rough judgment of the probable situation was with regard to the guilt of Zimmerman. That's the kind of thinking that I apply in a situation where the available facts don't allow for a strong conclusion. I think he's just saying to himself, "OK, based on what we know now, what do I think probably happened". And this seems like a pretty reasonable process for making a guess about a lot of real world events where the evidence just isn't available to make a strong conclusion, to me.

And a comment on this thread:
My assumption was that it was unlikely that significant evidence would be available that would allow the truth to be sorted in this case. I've changed my mind a bit after following this thread. It seems like there might be quite a bit of evidence available eventually that will allow at least improved guessing as to what went on. But until that evidence is analyzed and released it doesn't seem like there is much basis to improve the quality of the guessing as to what went on, so I'm a little surprised this thread hasn't died down a bit at least until there are some more official releases about the evidence in this case.

It contributes nothing to the dialectic to continually and deliberately trot out fine sounding legal terms in order to argue against the opinions of others via appeals to false authority... even less useful to flip-flop and claim to have only been expressing a lay opinion when called on incorrect legal facts.

The difference between probable cause and proof beyond a reasonable doubt at different stages of the process is relevant to this thread.

Declamations about 'preponderance of the evidence' OTOH, obscure rather than enlighten.

This thread contains a lot of useful information, honest speculation, good questions and answers...

And a signal to noise ratio of about 5 to 1. (IMO)

 

[AlBell]

It's impossible to keep up.

Indeed.

It's not impossible to know what was going through Martin's mind. He was terrified and calling for help.

Speculate all you want; others are, and have been doing so. I've seen nothing convincing that would put that in the 'evidence' column.

 

[AlBell]

Not unless he can jury shop all the way to Texas...

I'd guess Texas to be a bad choice. Maybe in a New England state.

 

[Dancing David]

I missed that

No problem Mr Post 5106

 

[Dancing David]

Sure, if you want to believe the EMTs decided to give a serious head wound in need of stitches a squirt of Bactine instead.

Or maybe they just kissed Zimmerman's boo-boo to make it all better.

The stitches quote is from the lawyer outside of the court room right?

I don't recall the term serious head wound either.

 

[johnny karate]

The stitches quote is from the lawyer outside of the court room right?

Yes... and? It's information about the events of that evening we are receiving from the man Zimmerman paid to be his advocate. That information is contradicted by what we see on the video tape (i.e. the lack of a bandage for a laceration we were told required stitches). That puts Zimmerman's entire narrative in question.

I don't recall the term serious head wound either.

Zimmerman's lawyer described the wound as "serious enough" to need stitches. Obviously, the wound is on his head. But if you object to the term "serious head wound", I'll retract it and no longer use it.

Regardless, the description given regarding the nature of Zimmerman's supposed scalp laceration is not in any way substantiated by what we see on the video.

 

[Montag451]

George zimmerman's attorneys on CNN right now. Piers Morgan (a man who usually I don't rate) is actually doing a really good job on challenging them. Lots of usual trying to avoid answering the question, changing the subject etc. Not making them look good at all.

Way to go PM