Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Cylinder]

There were at least several posters that said TM got what was coming to him.... how did you miss that?

There is a signifigant difference in meaning between his death was his own doing and he got what he deserved. There's no evidence that Martin deserved to die. There is a bit of evidence that he is responsible for the circumstances of his own death.

 

[This is The End]

There is a signifigant difference in meaning between his death was his own doing and he got what he deserved. There's no evidence that Martin deserved to die. There is a bit of evidence that he is responsible for the circumstances of his own death.

I disagree. The question was did anyone say "he got what was coming to him".

Several posters said that M got what was coming to him for supposedly beating Z to near death.

So the answer to the question is definitely "yes".

You can dance the words around all you want. "He got what was coming to him." "He got what he deserved." "His death was his own doing." We could argue semantic variations all day if you want.....

ETA: I just checked and the first person to use the word "deserved" here was you.... The phrase "got what was coming to him" matches just as much with "his death was his own doing".

 

[This is The End]

Cylinder what is your opinion on the audio comparison of the supposed "chamber check" above?

Did you listen to it? Does it sound the same to you at all?

 

[triforcharity]

I've listened to it. It's hard to tell. It COULD be, but I've never heard a Kel Tec PF9 racked in person, so I don't know. Could it be? Sure. Could it also be his flashlight? Sure.

Conclusive? Nope.

 

[Dan O.]

There is a signifigant difference in meaning between his death was his own doing and he got what he deserved. There's no evidence that Martin deserved to die. There is a bit of evidence that he is responsible for the circumstances of his own death.

Trayvon walked to the store and was walking back in the rain while talking to his girl friend on a cell phone. Are you saying that this makes him responsible for the circumstances of his own death? Or perhaps you are saying it is because he was born black. Evidently you see no responsibility for the guy packing a gun and following strangers.

 

[WildCat]

Cylinder what is your opinion on the audio comparison of the supposed "chamber check" above?

Did you listen to it? Does it sound the same to you at all?

How do you rack the slide with one hand? What exactly was done to the police call audio that resulted in the cliped peaks seen in the wave form? How did the supposed PF9 chamber check audio go from mono 16-bit 8Hz to srereo 16-bit 8Hz in the side-by-side comparison? How far away, in the comparison recording, was the microphone from the gun?

 

[WildCat]

Trayvon walked to the store and was walking back in the rain while talking to his girl friend on a cell phone. Are you saying that this makes him responsible for the circumstances of his own death? Or perhaps you are saying it is because he was born black. Evidently you see no responsibility for the guy packing a gun and following strangers.

Maybe assaulting Zimmerman made him responsible? Odd you "forgot" about that part, isn't it?

 

[johnny karate]

Maybe assaulting Zimmerman made him responsible? Odd you "forgot" about that part, isn't it?

Do mean assualt in the criminal sense? What evidence is there that Martin criminally assaulted Zimmerman?

Also, I assume your return to this thread means you've taken the time to read the medical reports the existence at which you previously scoffed.

Assuming you are now up to speed with what most of us have known for a month, can you now provide evidence that Zimmerman sustained injuries other than those indicated in the medical reports?

 

[WildCat]

Do mean assualt in the criminal sense? What evidence is there that Martin criminally assaulted Zimmerman?

Also, I assume your return to this thread means you've taken the time to read the medical reports the existence at which you previously scoffed.

Assuming you are now up to speed with what most of us have known for a month, can you now provide evidence that Zimmerman sustained injuries other than those indicated in the medical reports?

Are you now back to denying that Martin assaulted Zimmerman?

 

[johnny karate]

Are you now back to denying that Martin assaulted Zimmerman?

Note the qualifier I added in my previous post. I was careful to include it. Twice.

Perhaps you missed it in much the same way you missed the fact that the medical reports had been released a while ago.

I have always doubted that Martin criminally assualted Zimmerman, and now that it seems there is nothing to substantiate that claim beyond the word of a liar and manipulator, my doubt is even stronger.

So do you think Martin criminally assaulted Zimmerman, and if so what evidnce do you have that he criminally assaulted Zimmerman?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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

Page 3, paragraph 1:
Quote:
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, it is entirely reasonable for me to claim that GZ was assaulted by TM ?

I am not saying it's a sure thing, just a reasonable assumption based on a few pieces of evidence.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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.

In my non-legal opinon, the 'legal opinon' part was that bail must be granted, the state failed to prove otherwise, and Lester granted it in the amount the state asked for.

I don't see how 'That GZ would have fled' part is a 'legal opinion'.

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.

I don't see how Judge Lesters conclusion about fleeing is a 'legal opinon' and is somehow made better by his legal experience. So yes, it's a fallacious argument from authority in my opinion.

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.

So instead me pointing out I don't think the judge proved a claim that GZ would have fled, it is now my burden to prove the judges claim wrong ? I don't think so. He is the one making a positive assertion, not me.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So I wonder what the reality here is...

Does the judge continue to be wrong, or are the self-appointed legal experts in this thread who maintain the judge is wrong the ones who are actually wrong?

Quite the conundrum.

Yes, because Judge Lester has never been wrong in a ruling before ...

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/4/18/205418/108

Here's a sampling from Google. It's not intended to be a complete analysis, it's just what the first five or six pages of Google had. The search words I used if anyone wants to do more research, are "kenneth lester jr + florida 5th dca."

In 2004, he granted a defendant a downward departure at sentencing and was reversed by the appeals court.

In 2004, he refused to suppress drugs seized during a traffic stop. The appeals court reversed, finding the traffic stop unlawful.

In 2005, Judge Lester refused to suppress evidence in a case where the defendant said he had been unlawfully detained and searched. The appeals court reversed his ruling, stating "A stop without a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity occurred and [defendant] Oslin's consent to the search of his person was invalid as a product of an illegal stop."

Etc...

 

[WildCat]

Note the qualifier I added in my previous post. I was careful to include it. Twice.

Perhaps you missed it in much the same way you missed the fact that the medical reports had been released a while ago.

I have always doubted that Martin criminally assualted Zimmerman, and now that it seems there is nothing to substantiate that claim beyond the word of a liar and manipulator, my doubt is even stronger.

So do you think Martin criminally assaulted Zimmerman, and if so what evidnce do you have that he criminally assaulted Zimmerman?

It's legal to break someone's nose because you don't like the way they're looking at you or you think they're following you? And it's not assault?

Do cite the case law on this, I'm sure you'll dazzle us with your legal knowledge!

 

[johnny karate]

In my non-legal opinon, the 'legal opinon' part was that bail must be granted, the state failed to prove otherwise, and Lester granted it in the amount the state asked for.

I don't see how 'That GZ would have fled' part is a 'legal opinion'.



I don't see how Judge Lesters conclusion about fleeing is a 'legal opinon' and is somehow made better by his legal experience. So yes, it's a fallacious argument from authority in my opinion.



So instead me pointing out I don't think the judge proved a claim that GZ would have fled, it is now my burden to prove the judges claim wrong ? I don't think so. He is the one making a positive assertion, not me.

The personal incredulity of someone who is 0-2 in speculating the outcomes in legal matters related to this case is as compelling as ever.

 

[johnny karate]

Yes, because Judge Lester has never been wrong in a ruling before ...

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/4/18/205418/108

Here's a sampling from Google. It's not intended to be a complete analysis, it's just what the first five or six pages of Google had. The search words I used if anyone wants to do more research, are "kenneth lester jr + florida 5th dca."

In 2004, he granted a defendant a downward departure at sentencing and was reversed by the appeals court.

In 2004, he refused to suppress drugs seized during a traffic stop. The appeals court reversed, finding the traffic stop unlawful.

In 2005, Judge Lester refused to suppress evidence in a case where the defendant said he had been unlawfully detained and searched. The appeals court reversed his ruling, stating "A stop without a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity occurred and [defendant] Oslin's consent to the search of his person was invalid as a product of an illegal stop."

Etc...

I don't recall claiming Judge Lester was infallible and incapable of being wrong, only that you've failed to demonstrate he is wrong in this particular case.

 

[johnny karate]

It's legal to break someone's nose because you don't like the way they're looking at you or you think they're following you? And it's not assault?

The evidence that this is how it happened is... ?

Also, you keep dodging my question. What evidence is there that Zimmerman sustained more injuries than what the medical reports indicated?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I don't recall claiming Judge Lester was infallible and incapable of being wrong, only that you've failed to demonstrate he is wrong in this particular case.

And I never set out to prove him 'wrong'.

I disagree with his conclusion about fleeing- I don't find it reasonable, and I have explained why.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The personal incredulity of someone who is 0-2 in speculating the outcomes in legal matters related to this case is as compelling as ever.

I think you are 0-1 for the only claim you have made in this thread.

Everything else you are very careful to not actually make a positive claim about.

 

[This is The End]

So, it is entirely reasonable for me to claim that GZ was assaulted by TM ?

I am not saying it's a sure thing, just a reasonable assumption based on a few pieces of evidence.

Are you a Judge and using reasonable in a legal sense? Or are you using reasonable like a normal person?


ETA: If you are a Judge and using reasonable in a legal sense, then yes.

If you are just a normal poster on an internet forum, then no.

At least this explains why you repeatedly claimed that the Judge said it was a sure thing.

Again for everyone wondering this was explained in post #3674

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...89#post8503689

Here is where TheL8Elvis continued to claim the Judge said it was a sure thing several posts after that post:

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.

<snip>

But the judge stated conclusively that he would have fled. Again, been over all that, not interested in doing it again.