Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Limehouse Chappie]

This is the best you could do?

1) The "freedictionary.com" doesn't meet my stated requirement of a good dictionary anymore than wikipedia would pass muster as a quality research resource.

2) Even if it did, a colloquial descriptivist definition proffered by a dictionary is not the same thing as a precise, or even correct, usage of a term. Even if you accept the notion of biological differences between races (I do) there is still no such thing as a "German race" outside of the hazy vernacular. That would be like calling "American" a race. I defy anyone to find a reference to either "German" or "Mexican" as a race in a modern genetics/demography textbook or any reputable source.

3) Finally, I never said that "Mexican [couldn't] be used in discussions of race" I said that "Mexican" is not a race. Again, feel free to cite a legitimate scholarly source that says otherwise.

 

[Limehouse Chappie]

So in the end, we've come down to Zimmerman truthers and Trayvon truthers. That pretty much settles it then.

Innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the Trayvon-truthers and the prosecution.

 

[Limehouse Chappie]

Defense moves to oust a second judge?

Yep, it sure sounds like the prosecution is in dire trouble.

what is this supposed to prove?

 

[WildCat]

what is this supposed to prove?

It's just another red herring to distract from the fact there is precious little in the way of actual evidence that Zimmerman murdered Martin.

 

[This is The End]

Clearly Chris Rock is one of the biggest racists in the world...

Does this look like a Chris Rock joke?

“I dont miss driving around scared to hit mexicans walkin on the side of the street, soft ass wanna be thugs messin with peoples cars when they aint around (what are you provin, that you can dent a car when no ones watchin) dont make you a man in my book,” the 2005 Myspace page said. “Workin 96 hours to get a decent pay check, gettin knifes pulled on you by every mexican you run into!”

And another thing, saying Z is self-racist is racist. He is not Mexican. That's like saying Japanese and Chinese are the same thing. It's racist.

 

[This is The End]

It's just another red herring to distract from the fact there is precious little in the way of actual evidence that Zimmerman murdered Martin.

I'd say that there is considerable evidence that Z wanted to clean up his story considerably. I'm not sure if he did that because he was nervous, or dumb, or guilty.

 

[Noztradamus]

I don't think I fully grasp the significance of the flashlights, but doesn't this gated townhouse community have streetlights? Do you really need a flashlight to walk around after dark? If it doesn't have lights, maybe that's the reason there's so much crime and everybody's so scared. Maybe the residents could all agree to keep their porch lights on, or don't they have porch lights either?

No street lights (or street signs either)
http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/nj1015.com/files/2012/03/141625504.jpg

This is Retreat View Circle - the inner streets are the same, but don't have sidewalks either.

The only illumination is the lights by each carhole door, which illuminate the house number.
http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/03front1211.jpg


The only way George is going to get a street name is to walk or drive all the way back to the intersection of Twin Trees and Retreat View Circle. But that would mean the ******* would get away, so he's not going to do that.

 

[WildCat]

No street lights (or street signs either)
http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/nj1015.com/files/2012/03/141625504.jpg

This is Retreat View Circle - the inner streets are the same, but don't have sidewalks either.

The only illumination is the lights by each carhole door, which illuminate the house number.
http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/03front1211.jpg


The only way George is going to get a street name is to walk or drive all the way back to the intersection of Twin Trees and Retreat View Circle. But that would mean the ******* would get away, so he's not going to do that.

You're saying that if he didn't know the name of the street he would know exactly where the street signs were located?

 

[Limehouse Chappie]

Does this look like a Chris Rock joke?



And another thing, saying Z is self-racist is racist. He is not Mexican. That's like saying Japanese and Chinese are the same thing. It's racist.

Japanese is not a race. Chinese is not a race. Canadian is not a race. Icelandic is not a race. Nigerian is not a race. Zimbabwean is not a race. American is not a race. Russian is not a race.

 

[Noztradamus]

You're saying that if he didn't know the name of the street he would know exactly where the street signs were located?

No. I am saying that is he was more observant than a potted palm, he would remember that the only street signs in the community are at the intersections.
In this case, the closest is by the clubhouse. George does know about the clubhouse.

 

[Dan O.]

The thing is that this is a small community with one entrance, and one street circles all the way around it, and apparently the police were pretty familiar with it.

Actually, there are two entrances. The main entrance by the club house and the back entrance on the east side near Trayvon's residence. Aparently George didn't know the name of either of the two other streets in his neighborhood that connected to the outside streets.

 

[johnny karate]

Innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the Trayvon-truthers and the prosecution.

No one doubts the prosecution's burden, by why do you think this same rigid legal standard must apply to casual discussion of the case?

Do you personally think Casey Anthony was innocent of the crimes for which she was charged?

How about O.J.?

Or is forcing the discussion into the confines of legal standards just a convenient way to avoid thinking too hard about a complex issue?

How it works around here is that the person making the claim has the burden of proving that claim.

Zimmerman has a made a positive claim with a lot of specific details, and there are people here who defend that claim.

Just because the legal system is set up counter intuitively so that the prosecution must disprove that positive claim doesn't mean that's how it must work in any debate about the case.

If someone came here and claimed to have seen Bigfoot and demanded those who doubted must disprove that claim, they'd be laughed off the forum.

But for some reason, there are lazy thinkers in this thread who would rather fall back on a legal standard irrelevant to this discussion than actually provide evidence for the claim they are defending.

 

[WildCat]

No. I am saying that is he was more observant than a potted palm, he would remember that the only street signs in the community are at the intersections.
In this case, the closest is by the clubhouse. George does know about the clubhouse.

If he was that observant he'd know which street he was on.

If anything, not knowing where the signs are located supports the claim that he didn't know the street name.

 

[This is The End]

Yes, he could have driven around. The point being you now understand and can admit he would have had to do something to get the street address. He could not get it by remaining where he was. So that should satisfy you as why he claims he had to walk through.

I'm having a hard time understanding why some of you (not TheL8Elvis in particular, I just used your quote to bring this up) are talking about the street address story with 100% confidence.

The street address story was made up after the not911 call. In the not911 call Z admitted that he got out of the truck to follow M. It was live. Compare that call, which was live, to the reenactment.* Going to find a street address is not the reason Z went down that sidewalk.

We can only assume why certain people (not TheL8Elvis in particular, you've been trying to be logical in my opinion) believe the street address story.

And that is aside from my opinion that it is almost guaranteed that Z new the names of the streets. I find all the personal anecdotes (coincidentally from those exact same people) that they don't know their neighborhood's streets laughable. We can only assume why they are doing that. It goes way beyond giving Z the benefit of the doubt. It is quite telling and they should realize that.

I guarantee those same people will attack this previous paragraph instead of the second paragraph that isn't opinion.

Compare this reasoning for going down that sidewalk:
*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k07wZIU1siM#t=10m8s

.... to the non911 call.

I personally don't know if Z is guilty or innocent. But you don't see me giving Z a mile in order to believe his inch long "I was going to get a street address story".

Again to clarify, I'm talking about people who post the street address story with 100% confidence. Considering how shaky the street address story is it almost needs to be in quotes. Z's "street address story". We can only assume why some people are possibly letting themselves fall for that story hook, line, and sinker.

Yes, he said in his initial interview he wanted to see where TM went so he could tell the police when they got there.

Compare that to:

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Z: YES

Which was live.

This post reminds me, TheL8Elvis, did you respond to this post:

Except it falls into the same trap as the Zimmermanistas do. They assume a fantastical scenario in which innocent old George was just looking for that address, the wind was making it sound like he was running, and Trayvon attacked him out of the bushes for looking at him funny.

I must be a zimmermanista, as I pretty much believe 2 out of 3 of those things.

Since, unless I am mistaken, you are agreeing that you believe that "George was just looking for that address, the wind was making it sound like he was running" I am wondering if you watched the relative 2 minutes of that video yet?

Watch for 2 minutes starting at this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k07wZIU1siM#t=10m8s

That part of Z's story is not something I would be saying that I "pretty much believe".

If you did, could you post me a link?

 

[Limehouse Chappie]

No one doubts the prosecution's burden, by why do you think this same rigid legal standard must apply to casual discussion of the case?

Do you personally think Casey Anthony was innocent of the crimes for which she was charged?

How about O.J.?

Or is forcing the discussion into the confines of legal standards just a convenient way to avoid thinking too hard about a complex issue?

How it works around here is that the person making the claim has the burden of proving that claim.

Zimmerman has a made a positive claim with a lot of specific details, and there are people here who defend that claim.

Just because the legal system is set up counter intuitively so that the prosecution must disprove that positive claim doesn't mean that's how it must work in any debate about the case.

If someone came here and claimed to have seen Bigfoot and demanded those who doubted must disprove that claim, they'd be laughed off the forum.

But for some reason, there are lazy thinkers in this thread who would rather fall back on a legal standard irrelevant to this discussion than actually provide evidence for the claim they are defending.

I don't think the legal standard applies in this discussion, but like any other claim I think those clamoring for Zimmerman's head should adduce facts to support their position. I see tons of certainty, lots of outrage, and piles of speculation, but precious few facts. I'm skeptical of Zimmerman's guilt the same way I'm skeptical about most things.

 

[This is The End]

Japanese is not a race. Chinese is not a race. Canadian is not a race. Icelandic is not a race. Nigerian is not a race. Zimbabwean is not a race. American is not a race. Russian is not a race.

That doesn't mean that saying Japanese and Chinese are the same thing isn't racist. Replace racist with bigoted or prejudiced if you insist.

 

[This is The End]

<snip>

Let's examine this idea that seems eminently reasonable to them in every way, that GZ chased down and cornered TM with the intent of restraining him.

<snip>

I snipped your entire post because it is based on that example.

Could you post a link to someone to whom it "seems eminently reasonable to them in every way, that GZ chased down and cornered TM with the intent of restraining him"?

 

[Dan O.]

Did you not hear him give directions on the NEN call ?

When you come to the clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you would go past the clubhouse. Dispatcher: So it's on the lefthand side from the clubhouse? Zimmerman: No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left...uh you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left.
...
Zimmerman: If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the club house, and uh, straight past the club house and make a left, and then they go past the mailboxes, that's my truck...[unintelligible] Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of? Zimmerman: I don't know, it's a cut through so I don't know the address.


He then said he still wanted to be able to give them a street address... so that explains why the house number was not sufficient.

You may not believe, but it appears to make sense.

The dispatcher is making perfect sense. He had deduced from George's rambling that George was probably on Twin Trees Lane and asked a very straight forward question that would both confirm the street and provide additional information. "What address are you parked in front of?" to which scramble brains George gives a mostly unusable answer despite the fact that his headlights were on and pointed at the number on the house in front of his truck.

Everything George has said about wanting to get a street address comes after the killing. This is obviously an excuse that George manufactured after the fact. There was no reason to give the dispatcher an address on a street that was not where he was parked and not where he planned to meet the police. So, what again was George really doing?

 

[This is The End]

This is the best you could do?

1) The "freedictionary.com" doesn't meet my stated requirement of a good dictionary anymore than wikipedia would pass muster as a quality research resource.

2) Even if it did, a colloquial descriptivist definition proffered by a dictionary is not the same thing as a precise, or even correct, usage of a term. Even if you accept the notion of biological differences between races (I do) there is still no such thing as a "German race" outside of the hazy vernacular. That would be like calling "American" a race. I defy anyone to find a reference to either "German" or "Mexican" as a race in a modern genetics/demography textbook or any reputable source.

3) Finally, I never said that "Mexican [couldn't] be used in discussions of race" I said that "Mexican" is not a race. Again, feel free to cite a legitimate scholarly source that says otherwise.

The last thing I would want someone to do is read one of the Race threads on the JREF. It can be quite a madhouse.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=220669

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214385

Some people claim there is no such thing as race, period. Others draw the line at a few, to several races. Others say there are hundreds.

There is no agreed upon set definition.

Let's just say that if a Chinese person was posting hate about the Japanese in general, and then a person on here said that that Chinese person was "self hating" it would be frowned upon. That is exactly what some here did when Z posted hate about Mexicans. That is aside from the fact that posting hate about anyone is bad in the first place.

 

[This is The End]

No one doubts the prosecution's burden, by why do you think this same rigid legal standard must apply to casual discussion of the case?

Do you personally think Casey Anthony was innocent of the crimes for which she was charged?

How about O.J.?

Or is forcing the discussion into the confines of legal standards just a convenient way to avoid thinking too hard about a complex issue?

How it works around here is that the person making the claim has the burden of proving that claim.

Zimmerman has a made a positive claim with a lot of specific details, and there are people here who defend that claim.

Just because the legal system is set up counter intuitively so that the prosecution must disprove that positive claim doesn't mean that's how it must work in any debate about the case.

If someone came here and claimed to have seen Bigfoot and demanded those who doubted must disprove that claim, they'd be laughed off the forum.

But for some reason, there are lazy thinkers in this thread who would rather fall back on a legal standard irrelevant to this discussion than actually provide evidence for the claim they are defending.

Good post. Some people just find it easier to post one-liners and/or call people names.