Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[curi0us]

I'm so glad I have you here to explain it all to me.

So regarding this "circumstantial evidence" you speak of... in regards to Zimmerman you say we can use it. Can we also make assertions based on it? Statements of fact?

Yes. Assertions can absolutely be based upon it.

People are regularly convicted of crimes with nothing but circumstantial evidence.

Let's say someone said, "Zimmerman's head wounds were not as severe as we were lead to believe" and based this argument on circumstantial evidence, you wouldn't object?

We argued about this before and not once did I raise an objection based upon you using circumstantial evidence.

We both debated the topic using logic and circumstantial evidence. I didn't realize you weren't aware of this at the time.

You let me know just as soon any of that gets verified. I'll probably continued to be bored by your conspiracy theory, but at least it gives you something to do.

If the 911 call quote is verified what then?

So... you're not arguing that Cutcher is lying?

Nope.

I am just arguing she is wrong. There are a number of possible reasons for why she is wrong that don't require any conscious dishonesty on her part.

And just so you know, quotation marks aren't used exclusively as a means of quoting someone. Every time you see someone use them in response to you, in doesn't necessarily mean they're claiming you said whatever it is that's in quotation marks. I'm sorry if that confused you.

If your quoted statement was close to what I had been arguing it wouldn't be an issue. As a rhetorical device a quoted statement that isn't a true verbatim quote might be used but your quote of me was very different from my actual position.

I understand your claim. What you seem to fail to understand is that you have no evidence Cutcher was influenced by the "PR message". None. And short of a confession by Cutcher herself, you never will.

Actually, I have presented a lot of evidence. You just have no idea what the word "evidence" means.

Where did I "blame" you and for what? This seems to be some bizarre persecution complex.

You were clearly complaining to me about how "meaningless" this discussion is and I was pointing out that you could have picked one of my points that was of critical importance to the case. So it was your choice and you should take responsibility for that.

 

[johnny karate]

Yes. Assertions can absolutely be based upon it.

People are regularly convicted of crimes with nothing but circumstantial evidence.


We argued about this before and not once did I raise an objection based upon you using circumstantial evidence.

We both debated the topic using logic and circumstantial evidence. I didn't realize you weren't aware of this at the time.

You know what? Fair enough. See below.

I am just arguing she is wrong. There are a number of possible reasons for why she is wrong that don't require any conscious dishonesty on her part.

Yes, there are a number of possible reasons for why she is wrong. Including, but certainly not limited to, your conspiracy theory. But I reject your conspiracy theory because I find it to be silly and offensive, and the evidence presented to support it less than compelling. But I will certainly allow for the possibility that it might be true.

You were clearly complaining to me about how "meaningless" this discussion is and I was pointing out that you could have picked one of my points that was of critical importance to the case. So it was your choice and you should take responsibility for that.

I think you misunderstood. I find the entire conspiracy theory tiresome and meaningless, not just the one particular aspect I chose at random to discuss. I only brought it up to prove a point. But I feel we have reached an accord on that point, and I see no further need to discuss it.

 

[brenn]

Does anybody else just check back at JREF on a rare occasion to confirm that the closest things to skeptics on this forum are some people who have adopted the terminology and appearance of skeptics, to support their preconceived points of view?

In this thread and every other one I look at, there is nothing but standard "right vs. left" argument, disguised as a discussion of "evidence."

Quick, somebody "disprove" an argument solely by labelling it as a type of invalid argument, just to confirm I'm in the right place.

 

[RandFan]

Does anybody else just check back at JREF on a rare occasion to confirm that the closest things to skeptics on this forum are some people who have adopted the terminology and appearance of skeptics, to support their preconceived points of view?

In this thread and every other one I look at, there is nothing but standard "right vs. left" argument, disguised as a discussion of "evidence."

Quick, somebody "disprove" an argument solely by labelling it as a type of invalid argument, just to confirm I'm in the right place.

The best skeptics are those who realize their own skeptical competency and thus have that Dunning-Kruger certainty necessary to see the short comings of others. They alone are best to judge. It's truly unfortunate that the incompetent are allowed to participate in the dialectic as no progress can be had by anyone but true skeptics^tm.

 

[WildCat]

Ah yes, that indefinable "quality of evidence".

Assuming a young black kid with a screwdriver is using it as a burglary tool is, of course, topnotch "quality" evidence.

Odd, you forgot to mention all the jewelry! It must have slipped your mind, eh johnny?

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

He was raised in a racially integrated household and himself has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather - the father of the maternal grandmother who helped raise him.

 

[LTC8K6]

From your link:
Oops.

Huh? I didn't say the police were correct, or that they would necessarily win a case.

I said that's what they would call it, and they will. They will say you look like a burglar, carrying a typical burglar's tool. They will use that to harass and intimidate you if they feel the need. Even to arrest you.

Carrying a big screwdriver, sans any other tools or any job requiring it, is seen as odd. The police will find it suspicious. Even if you have a perfectly legitimate reason for carrying it while walking down the street.

If TM had been stopped by the police with that backpack that evening, he'd likely be in jail.

 

[Giz]

Odd, you forgot to mention all the jewelry! It must have slipped your mind, eh johnny?

Oh come on, haven't we all found ourselves in possession of a pile of jewelry without being able to explain its provenance?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Oh come on, haven't we all found ourselves in possession of a pile of jewelry without being able to explain its provenance?

I know I have.

 

[johnny karate]

Odd, you forgot to mention all the jewelry! It must have slipped your mind, eh johnny?

So is there a connection between the jewelry and the "burglary tool"? Do you suspect Martin burglarized someone's home to steal that jewelry?

 

[quadraginta]

I'm with you. I feel the same way about the so-called weed bag they found on TM. When I was a kid I carried weed to school every day so I could make rope. It's outrageous to think he had a weed bag to smoke weed. Racists!

"Four hundred n' ninety seven n' a half feet o' rope!

Whadaya got that for?"


"I just carry it."

 

[KatieG]

Why is any of that relevant to this case?

 

[johnny karate]

Huh? I didn't say the police were correct, or that they would necessarily win a case.

I said that's what they would call it, and they will. They will say you look like a burglar, carrying a typical burglar's tool. They will use that to harass and intimidate you if they feel the need. Even to arrest you.

Carrying a big screwdriver, sans any other tools or any job requiring it, is seen as odd. The police will find it suspicious. Even if you have a perfectly legitimate reason for carrying it while walking down the street.

If TM had been stopped by the police with that backpack that evening, he'd likely be in jail.

If he was trespassing. You seemed to have forgotten that part. Martin would have been in jail if he was already guilty of another crime. Not for simply having a screwdriver in his possession. That's actually not against the law.

It's so not against the law, that the school official who found him with it didn't turn him over to the police, nor was he even disciplined because of the screwdriver. Probably because that school official is smart enough to recognize that it proved nothing.

 

[johnny karate]

Oh come on, haven't we all found ourselves in possession of a pile of jewelry without being able to explain its provenance?

Actually, no. Usually, I'm too busy assaulting police officers or skulking around my neighborhood with a gun chasing people I imagine to be criminals.

 

[johnny karate]

Why is any of that relevant to this case?

It's not. But it demonstrates two things:

1) How far some people are willing to go to disparage Trayvon Martin.

2) How lax the standards of evidence are in disparaging Martin compared to those being applied to Zimmerman.

 

[tyr_13]

Why is any of that relevant to this case?

It's standard debunking stuff. When someone makes an appeal to emotion or other irrelevant argument, often times it's not only useful to point out that it is also untrue, if it is.

Neither Martin, nor Zimmerman are the saints and sinners people have been making them out to be. Often people doing so are just trying to raise outrage for their own advantage. Sadly, one of the only ways to take the wind out of their sails is to show them wrong.

For example, the race question. Zimmerman being 'white' is not a valid argument for him being racist. However, it's also untrue to boot. Pointing out both of those things can be useful.

 

[nadsat]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/25/us-usa-florida-shooting-zimmerman-idUSBRE83O18H20120425

On February 2, 2012, Zimmerman placed a call to Sanford police after spotting a young black man he recognized peering into the windows of a neighbor's empty home, according to several friends and neighbors.

"I don't know what he's doing. I don't want to approach him, personally," Zimmerman said in the call, which was recorded. The dispatcher advised him that a patrol car was on the way. By the time police arrived, according to the dispatch report, the suspect had fled.

So much for gung-ho vigilante. EDIT to clarify: This was in reference to a separate incident from the Trayvon Martin one.

 

[WildCat]

Why is any of that relevant to this case?

It's not. I'm just having fun watching johnny try to explain the unexplainable.

 

[RandFan]

delete

 

[Mumbles]

So much for gung-ho vigilante. EDIT to clarify: This was in reference to a separate incident from the Trayvon Martin one.

Well, that certainly explains why he was cussing about how "they always get away", and why he decided to pursue Martin personally.