Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[triforcharity]

I say good. If GZ wants to lie in court, allow his family to lie in court, hide things not only from his attorney, but the judge also, he should have to live with his actions.

Good for Judge Lester.

 

[KatieG]

A little late, but try this one. Sorry, posted and then had Dr.s appt.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...1_george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-mark-o-mara

 

[KatieG]

JKL response to motion.

2 pages, in reverse order.

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/...fendants_Motion_to_Disqualify_Trial_Judge.pdf

 

[Unabogie]

Legalese for "stick it".

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I'm actually OK with Lester staying on the job. However I do think it would be nice if in the future he separates the findings in his rulings by heading based on type. For instance, one heading could be titled "fact based legal findings" and another heading could be titled "psychic based findings I pulled out of my ***". That would make it easier for regular Joe's who don't have the luxury of following the critical thinkers on JREF to know how much weight to give to the various findings.

 

[This is The End]

By Rene Stutzman and Jeff Weiner, Orlando Sentinel

The judge wrote that if not for a satellite monitoring system keeping track of his whereabouts, Zimmerman might well have fled.

Notice how they wrote "might well have" instead of "definitely would".

I suppose they missed something that many posters on here, that constantly claim the Judge said it was a sure thing, didn't.

 

[This is The End]

Notice how they wrote "might well have" instead of "definitely would".

I suppose they missed something that many posters on here, that constantly claim the Judge said it was a sure thing, didn't.

Wow, I should have finished reading the page. There's one already:

I'm actually OK with Lester staying on the job. However I do think it would be nice if in the future he separates the findings in his rulings by heading based on type. For instance, one heading could be titled "fact based legal findings" and another heading could be titled "psychic based findings I pulled out of my ***". That would make it easier for regular Joe's who don't have the luxury of following the critical thinkers on JREF to know how much weight to give to the various findings.

Stating that the evidence shows that something is likely is not the same as saying the evidence shows that something is a sure thing. Neither of which would require your suggestion of "psychic based findings". That would be saying that something is a sure thing without any evidence at all.

 

[This is The End]

BTW, NBS, JK asked you a question about that specific opinion of yours 10 posts ago.

Here is a link if you don't feel like scrolling up:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8501236#post8501236

 

[Cylinder]

Notice how they wrote "might well have" instead of "definitely would".

Although there is no record of flight to aviod prosecution, this Court finds that circumstances indicate that the Defendant was preparing to flee to avoid prosecution, but such plans were thwatred;

I suppose they missed something that many posters on here, that constantly claim the Judge said it was a sure thing, didn't.

I suppose they did, huh?

 

[This is The End]

Although there is no record of flight to aviod prosecution, this Court finds that circumstances indicate that the Defendant was preparing to flee to avoid prosecution, but such plans were thwatred;




I suppose they did, huh?

Yeah don't quote him out of context or anything....

Here's the part you left out:

It is entirely reasonable for this Court to find....

And as crimresearch has noted many times, that does not mean that the judge thinks it was a sure thing. Only that it was a reasonable finding.

I'm sure you'll try this again in about a dozen pages though.

Here's the entire document for anyone that wants to see for themselves:

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/SKMBT_363-V12070510360.pdf

 

[Cylinder]

Yeah don't quote him out of context or anything...

That's completely dishonest. The partial quote you provided is the courts reasoning - not it's findings and you know (or should know) that. It's not even on the same page as the complete quote I provided.

Delta Bravo.

 

[This is The End]

That's completely dishonest. The partial quote you provided is the courts reasoning - not it's findings and you know (or should know) that. It's not even on the same page as the complete quote I provided.

Delta Bravo.

How is pointing out that, in the paragraph that specifically addresses the finding, the court says that it is merely a "reasonable finding", not a sure thing.

Isn't that the entire basis of this argument?

 

[This is The End]

The repeated, and repeatedly incorrect claim, was that the finding was a sure thing.

It clearly says, in the reasoning for the finding, that it was "entirely reasonable for this Court to find.... "

So later on in the document, when the Judge gives the summary finding, one has already read that he does not state it as a sure thing.

Only if one does not read the entire document, or if one does not remember the actual paragraph describing his reasoning, would one not be aware that he is not stating it as a sure thing.

That is exactly what taking something out of context means.

Again, here's the entire document for anyone that wants to see for themselves:

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_...2070510360.pdf

 

[This is The End]

Here is the entire quote, from the beginning of the document, where the Judge explains his reasoning:

Page 3, paragraph 1:

It is entirely reasonable for this Court to find that, but for the requirement that he be placed on electronic monitoring, the Defendant and his wife would have fled the United States with at least $130,000 of other people's money."

As crimresearch pointed out, in Judge speak the highlighted does not mean he is saying it was a sure thing, only that it was a reasonable assumption.

So from that point on in the document it is established as a finding, already explained as being merely a reasonable assumption.

That is why, later in the document, when the Judge gives a summary of the finding he does not have to repeat his reasoning, only give the finding:

Although there is no record of flight to avoid prosecution, this Court finds that circumstances indicate that the Defendant was preparing to flee to avoid prosecution, but such plans were thwarted;

Also, I would note that that is the concluding sentence to an entire paragraph. I suggest everyone read that entire paragraph for even more context.

Page 6, section D.

 

[This is The End]

Cylinder I was going to ask you for your opinion on the questions JK asked NBS, which NBS has since ignored:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8501236#post8501236

Though, I seem to remember you already giving your reasons for why you think Z and his wife conspired to hide the money from the court.... Could you link to them or recap them, I would like to review it.

ETA: You can review Page 6 section D, the paragraph to which your quote was a concluding sentence, for a re-cap of the defense's "explanation for it".

A concise summary is: The defense argued that Z's youth as a 28 year old man and his fear/confusion were the explanation for Z and his wife's plot to hide the money from the court.

I can't remember if you merely parroted that, or if you came up with something better.

 

[johnny karate]

I'm actually OK with Lester staying on the job. However I do think it would be nice if in the future he separates the findings in his rulings by heading based on type. For instance, one heading could be titled "fact based legal findings" and another heading could be titled "psychic based findings I pulled out of my ***". That would make it easier for regular Joe's who don't have the luxury of following the critical thinkers on JREF to know how much weight to give to the various findings.

There's one vote for "The judge is wrong and I am right".

Anyone else here know better than a veteran judge and feel like proclaiming their superior knowledge?

 

[johnny karate]

Although there is no record of flight to aviod prosecution, this Court finds that circumstances indicate that the Defendant was preparing to flee to avoid prosecution, but such plans were thwatred;

Read the bolded portion carefully.

Read it again.

Now explain how prefacing one's statement with "circumstances indicate" is making a definitive assertion.

---

Considering the semantic contortions you're going through to turn the judge's order into something it's not, can I put you down for "The judge is wrong and I am right"?

 

[johnny karate]

BTW, NBS, JK asked you a question about that specific opinion of yours 10 posts ago.

Here is a link if you don't feel like scrolling up:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8501236#post8501236

I wouldn't hold your breath.

Fraudulent claims cannot be substantiated.

And those who make them have no choice but to tuck tail and run away when challenged.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

There's one vote for "The judge is wrong and I am right".

Anyone else here know better than a veteran judge and feel like proclaiming their superior knowledge?

I thought the judge might recuse himself. I was wrong. Still haven't read the decision.

As far as the judge being wrong on his opinion that 'GZ would have fled' ... been there, done that. Your argument from authority about the 'veteran judge' has no bearing on his ability to proclaim he knows what GZ would have done if not for the monitoring. Presumably, we and the 'veteran judge' had access to the same facts. I agree that it would be a reasonable conclusion that GZ could have been preparing to possibly flee. But the judge stated conclusively that he would have fled. Again, been over all that, not interested in doing it again.
But as you are fond of saying, this is a skeptic forum and people should prove their claims ... we are not bound by the law, and can discuss whatever. So let me clarify - if Judge Lester came here and posted that GZ was going to flee, I don't think the evidence he used to demonstrate that is sufficient.
Legally, I have no doubt the Judge can write that in his opinion that GZ is an *******, or was planning to flee to cuba, or whatever.

*vacation mode back on*

 

[johnny karate]

I thought the judge might recuse himself. I was wrong. Still haven't read the decision.

As far as the judge being wrong on his opinion that 'GZ would have fled' ... been there, done that. Your argument from authority about the 'veteran judge' has no bearing on his ability to proclaim he knows what GZ would have done if not for the monitoring. Presumably, we and the 'veteran judge' had access to the same facts. I agree that it would be a reasonable conclusion that GZ could have been preparing to possibly flee. But the judge stated conclusively that he would have fled. Again, been over all that, not interested in doing it again.
But as you are fond of saying, this is a skeptic forum and people should prove their claims ... we are not bound by the law, and can discuss whatever. So let me clarify - if Judge Lester came here and posted that GZ was going to flee, I don't think the evidence he used to demonstrate that is sufficient.
Legally, I have no doubt the Judge can write that in his opinion that GZ is an *******, or was planning to flee to cuba, or whatever.

*vacation mode back on*

For starters, the judge did not make any conclusive statements. The language he used in the order was qualified ("It is entirely reasonable for this Court to find...", "circumstances indicate"). He was very clearly making an informed legal opinion, not a definitive assertion. All of the out-of-context quotes from the order don't change that.

Secondly, you know that an argument from authority isn't always a fallacy, right? If a medical doctor offers an informed diagnosis, some random non-doctor can't offer baseless disagreement and then claim "argument from authority" to put their claim on equal footing with that of the doctor.

If you think the judge is wrong, prove it. Until then, you're just making baseless assertions about the law in contradiction to a guy who knows a lot more about it.