Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Max_mang]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231831

I wouldn't call this thread very reliable. For the most part it's a disgrace to critical thinking.

I'm probably one of the few who have read every page. And the last 25 sound just like the first 25.

 

[crimresearch]

So you're repeating things that you heard that support your partisan view while discarding others and you refuse to back up your statements. Gotcha. On ignore you go. Anyone who says their knowledge is from 'media coverage' while pretending to cite facts on this case is a complete waste of time.

So you come into a thread after 6.000+ posts to demand that people give you the available facts that have been dissected ad infinitum, because you can't be bothered, and then play games when answered?

Here, let me save you some effort.

 

[sgtbaker]

Absolutely. But apparently on that "cold dark rainy night" it is only the behavior and actions of Trayvon Martin that can be perceived as suspicious or threatening.

The problem with threads like this is you end up arguing against ideas and it's hard to keep track of who made what statement and who stands exactly where, in all of this. From my POV, I don't think anyone needs to justify Trayvon feeling threatened. I think that is something that goes without saying. The only time I see his experience of the level of threat as being relevant is when questioning the events that transpired after he ran. I don't think it's unreasonable to question why he had all that time to get home, yet, he was still at the opposite end of the building when the confrontation occured. If the truck was parked where people are guessing it was parked, then I question what both parties were doing at that time and how, after all that time, they can both still be so close to where the truck was supposedly parked. Both Zimmerman's and the girlfriend's account have only seconds in between verbal contact and physical altercation but neither account actually make sense according to the time.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Redacted.

 

[Moss]

Note to self:
1. Abstain from posting your opinions in a controversial thread
2. Let it run for a while
3. Snipe from the sideline that the thread lacks critical thinking
4. Be unassailable because you have not offered any position or opinion at all
5. ?
6. Egostroking

 

[RandFan]

I wouldn't call this thread very reliable. For the most part it's a disgrace to critical thinking.

I'm probably one of the few who have read every page. And the last 25 sound just like the first 25.

Which raise an interesting question. Why? Are you a masochist?

 

[RandFan]

So, a friend of mine says, "it hurts when I do this". "Dude, don't do that".

Here's your sign.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Note to self:
1. Abstain from posting your opinions in a controversial thread
2. Let it run for a while
3. Snipe from the sideline that the thread lacks critical thinking
4. Be unassailable because you have not offered any position or opinion at all
5. ?
6. Egostroking

Personally, I like to skip straight to #6.

 

[Beerina]

We are going around in circles here. It can't be his job because it's his job. And nowhere does the dispatcher say "follow him". If there is ambiguity then discretion is the better part of valor. I honestly think you do GZ no favors with this line of argument. Making leaps of logic is not the mark of reason.

"I don't need you to follow him." is social engineering designed to defuse the situation. It didn't work in this case. It was not a legally binding commandment.

It sounds like there is still confusion on this after 130+ pages.

 

[Moss]

"I don't need you to follow him." is social engineering designed to defuse the situation. It didn't work in this case. It was not a legally binding commandment.

It sounds like there is still confusion on this after 130+ pages.

Which situation exactly did need defusing?

 

[lane99]

In practice vs. In theory

...The DA charged with Murder 2, which tells me, Zimmerman's claims don't add up, and that the DA has evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor, or something else. Maybe the evidence shows that Martin never struck Zimmerman at any time, or maybe there is a witness that saw the fight, that hasn't come to our attention...

Assume as you like. Though I'm sure there are plenty of people here who realize the bringing of a charge was not dictately soley by the evidence in this case.

As soon as this episode became a media sensation, it was practically inevitable that charges were going to be laid. Short of the evidence showing with 100% absolute certainty that this was self-defense.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

"I don't need you to follow him." is social engineering designed to defuse the situation. It didn't work in this case. It was not a legally binding commandment.

Unless you're the media. Than it was "an order". Because to present it any other way would not fit the narrative.

 

[Max_mang]

Which raise an interesting question. Why? Are you a masochist?

Lol, perhaps. But mostly because I live in Orlando and it's a hot topic here.

Even though I'll probably be accused of doing something dishonorable or egotistic, I compliment you on your level-headedness throughout this thread, RandFan.

 

[RandFan]

"I don't need you to follow him." is social engineering designed to defuse the situation. It didn't work in this case. It was not a legally binding commandment.

• I was not talking about "We don't need you to follow him".
• I don't claim that anything in the discussion with the dispatcher was a legally binding contract.
• There is no ambiguity in "we don't need you to follow him".
• Not following a suspicious person is prudent.
• Interpreting "Let me know if he does anything, OK?" as "hey, make sure you follow him" isn't a reasonable interpretation and following a suspicious person isn't prudent.
• Trying to make a point about the implications of "we don't need you to follow him" with some silly illogical leap about another isn't helping the discussion.

It sounds like there is still confusion on this after 130+ pages.

Tell me about it.

 

[Max_mang]

Note to self:
1. Abstain from posting your opinions in a controversial thread

I don't have an opinion. I have no dog in this race. I care about knowing the actual facts, so I asked a question. I think getting an actual account of all the different stories and where they come from would really shed some light on things. Many many pages ago someone worked on putting together timeline of events which (maybe only temporarily) helped to put some things in perspective.

Possibly some posters here assumed I have an opinion from my questions somehow. They're wrong.

 

[RandFan]

Lol, perhaps. But mostly because I live in Orlando and it's a hot topic here.

Even though I'll probably be accused of doing something dishonorable or egotistic, I compliment you on your level-headedness throughout this thread, RandFan.

You flatter me and I appreciate it. I try but I have failed from time to time. FWIW: I don't find you to be doing anything dishonorable or egotistical. And actually it does answer my question. That's fine.

 

[Moss]

I don't have an opinion. I have no dog in this race. I care about knowing the actual facts, so I asked a question. I think getting an actual account of all the different stories and where they come from would really shed some light on things. Many many pages ago someone worked on putting together timeline of events which (maybe only temporarily) helped to put some things in perspective.

Possibly some posters here assumed I have an opinion from my questions somehow. They're wrong.

Might have hit the wrong person, but I've seen that pattern a few times here. Hell, at some point I even indulged it in some other thread. I find that rather annoying.
And maybe it is an unwarranted assumption but I have a hard time imagining anyone not having an opinion on something.

 

[lane99]

...in a struggle you're 4.4 times more likely to be shot by your own weapon than to shoot the other person...

If your arguments had more merit, and you less bias, you might not have to invent bogus statistics such as this to make your case.

 

[Max_mang]

Might have hit the wrong person, but I've seen that pattern a few times here. Hell, at some point I even indulged it in some other thread. I find that rather annoying.
And maybe it is an unwarranted assumption but I have a hard time imagining anyone not having an opinion on something.

Nope, I honestly don't have an opinion. Someone made a claim that GZ's story has changed. I've followed this closely and evidence of that is not clear to me. I asked the person who made the claim to provide evidence. This apparently ruffled some feathers. That seems weird to me on a critical thinking forum but so be it. A young man was killed under very questionable circumstances and this is a touchy subject.

 

[curi0us]

You are joking, right? 6.6 violent crimes per 100K?

6.65 per 1000. It's the 62.85 per 1000 property crime rate that must have pushed the city into the super unsafe setting. I was just going by the "crime index" though which gave it a 3 with a 100 being safest. I dunno the numbers like you but the site says the Sanford is safer than just 3% of the cities in the US. The city I knew which was closest was Oakland with a "4".