George Zimmerman shot

Ziggurat said:
You're not comparing Zimmerman's story to the evidence, you're comparing a made-up scenario to the evidence. And the basis of that scenario is taking one piece of Zimmerman's account (that he pulled a u-turn) and discarding the rest (that Apperson pulled a u-turn to follow).

Here's what we know about Zimmerman's account:

The road in question is a divided street with two lanes on each side. If Zimmerman makes a U-turn into the left lane, and Apperson makes a U-turn into the right lane, that positions Apperson to fire out of his driver's side into Zimmerman's passenger side.
Click to expand...

Okay, that actually makes sense and fits the evidence.

HuffPost either reported incorrectly, or was given a different version of events.
 
Ziggurat said:
And I believe most (all?) of them happen post-Martin...
Click to expand...

No, not "all". Zimmerman had a history of violence and legal entanglements before he killed Martin.

And for what's it worth, when he was arrested for battery of an LEO, he claimed he was the victim and did nothing wrong. Hard to believe, I know.
 
johnny karate said:
No, not "all". Zimmerman had a history of violence and legal entanglements before he killed Martin.
Click to expand...

My claim was specifically in regards to guns (trace the thread back a bit and you'll see why I was specifically interested in that). I know of "legal entanglements" prior to Martin, but I don't know of any that involved a firearm.
 
Ziggurat said:
My claim was specifically in regards to guns (trace the thread back a bit and you'll see why I was specifically interested in that). I know of "legal entanglements" prior to Martin, but I don't know of any that involved a firearm.
Click to expand...

Well...
Ziggurat said:
The only incident where we know with certainty that a firearm was involved was in the shooting of Martin, and even there, we have no evidence that the firearm was used in anything but a defensive manner. In every other incident, the people making the accusations have a motive to lie. And I believe most (all?) of them happen post-Martin, meaning that they also know what kind of lie will likely get bad press for Zimmerman. So unless and until we can get some corroboration, then there's really not much regard we should place in them.
Click to expand...

...okay. But your post was phrased a little ambiguously.
 
I don't want Zimmerman killed. Period. I'm human and have moments of schadenfreude but overall I believe in restorative over retributive justice.

That said, I would not be surprised at all if someone killed Zimmerman in self defense. I'm curious, would anyone else be?
 
Given Zimmerman's track record since his acquital for murder, it does not look like the record of a reasonable non volatile person. It still looks like and this is my opinion only, it is a matter of when, not if, he kills someone again or is killed while trying to harm someone else
 
RandFan said:
Thanks.
Click to expand...
You're welcome.

Why do you suppose loved ones would have had such a beef with Zimmerman that they would call the police? I know you know better than to think you would allege a conspiracy, right? If it were simply strangers I would think you might have a point worth considering.
Click to expand...
I've seen enough episodes of COPS to know that "loved ones" can and do get up to a lot of baffling, counter-productive, and self-defeating shenanigans, including calling the police for things which aren't a police matter or aren't as serious as the caller seems to think they are. I've also seen enough episodes of COPS to know that nominal role of "loved one" is no guarantee of reason in their behavior or justice in their cause.

George Zimmerman Won't Be Charged in Second domestic abuse case

Do you honestly believe that the dropped charges had no basis in fact? Are you suggesting that domestic abuse cases where the charges are dropped are always due to lying on the part of the alleged victim?
Click to expand...
And there's the dishonest argument.

What I honestly believe is that dropped charges have not been tested for basis in fact. I also honestly believe that lacking such a test, their claims cannot be taken as fact, nor can we reasonably reach conclusions that require them to be facts, nor can we make sound arguments that depend on their being facts.

What do you think is going on?
Click to expand...
With Zimmerman? I'm agnostic.

With you? I think you're arguing that I should assume that claims about Zimmerman which have been made but never tested are true. I think you're also arguing that I should accept as reasonable a prediction founded upon assuming that these untested claims are true.
 
theprestige said:
I've seen enough episodes of COPS to know that "loved ones" can and do get up to a lot of baffling, counter-productive, and self-defeating shenanigans, including calling the police for things which aren't a police matter or aren't as serious as the caller seems to think they are. I've also seen enough episodes of COPS to know that nominal role of "loved one" is no guarantee of reason in their behavior or justice in their cause.
Click to expand...
Cops?


And there's the dishonest argument.

What I honestly believe is that dropped charges have not been tested for basis in fact. I also honestly believe that lacking such a test, their claims cannot be taken as fact, nor can we reasonably reach conclusions that require them to be facts, nor can we make sound arguments that depend on their being facts.
Click to expand...
Thais is nonsense. We can and do make such inferences daily. This isn't the courtroom.

With Zimmerman? I'm agnostic.

With you? I think you're arguing that I should assume that claims about Zimmerman which have been made but never tested are true. I think you're also arguing that I should accept as reasonable a prediction founded upon assuming that these untested claims are true.
Click to expand...
I'm arguing that a reasonable person can draw inferences from facts.

Michael Jackson was never convicted of child molestation. Would I let him watch young children if I had a say? Hell, no. You?
 
theprestige said:
You're welcome.


I've seen enough episodes of COPS to know that "loved ones" can and do get up to a lot of baffling, counter-productive, and self-defeating shenanigans, including calling the police for things which aren't a police matter or aren't as serious as the caller seems to think they are. I've also seen enough episodes of COPS to know that nominal role of "loved one" is no guarantee of reason in their behavior or justice in their cause.


And there's the dishonest argument.

What I honestly believe is that dropped charges have not been tested for basis in fact. I also honestly believe that lacking such a test, their claims cannot be taken as fact, nor can we reasonably reach conclusions that require them to be facts, nor can we make sound arguments that depend on their being facts.


With Zimmerman? I'm agnostic.

With you? I think you're arguing that I should assume that claims about Zimmerman which have been made but never tested are true. I think you're also arguing that I should accept as reasonable a prediction founded upon assuming that these untested claims are true.
Click to expand...

If you truly believe women who drop charges of domestic violence were just lying, I'm totally at a loss.
 
Zimmerman is a guy with a violent past (before and after the Martin case) and is known to carry a gun. He is also known to have used a gun on an unarmed man. Any reasonable person encountering Zimmerman and getting into a confrontation with him would fear for their life. Therefore, shooting Zimmerman before he has a chance to shoot you might just constitute self defense.

I don't know if that is what happened here, but I have a feeling it eventually will.
 
This is The End said:
Yes. Raping a child several times over the course of 10 years is most definitely terrorism.
Click to expand...

This seems like an odd way to refer to an unproven allegation which, if true, still wouldn't fit the description you are giving.

If I recall correctly, her allegation was that from the time they were both about 5 years old (within a couple years of one another, him being 2 years older if I recall correctly) there were a handful of incidents where he behaved in a sexually inappropriate manner toward her, none of which rose to the level of "rape" or even got near it. In her set of allegations, at no time did sexual intercourse take place between them.

I believe what she claimed was that when they were VERY young he touched her inappropriately on one or two occasions while they were watching TV, in a way similar to what Lena Dunham described doing to her infant sister. Certainly super gross, but not rape. Particularly when one reminds themselves they're talking about a 6 year old and a 4 year old or something like that. Gross, weird and inappropriate behavior that you'd certainly hope any adult who discovered would put a rapid stop to, but rape? No.

I recall the final incident she mentioned being one where he tried to massage her in bed when he was like 19 and she was 17, and it sounded like she thought he was trying to make that transition into intercourse, but she left and it did not culminate in that way.

So, feel free to correct me if I've forgotten a significant allegation from her... but currently I'm really baffled how you're referring to this as "Raping a child several times over the course of 10 years"
 
Skeptic Tank said:
This seems like an odd way to refer to an unproven allegation which, if true, still wouldn't fit the description you are giving.

If I recall correctly, her allegation was that from the time they were both about 5 years old (within a couple years of one another, him being 2 years older if I recall correctly) there were a handful of incidents where he behaved in a sexually inappropriate manner toward her, none of which rose to the level of "rape" or even got near it. In her set of allegations, at no time did sexual intercourse take place between them.

I believe what she claimed was that when they were VERY young he touched her inappropriately on one or two occasions while they were watching TV, in a way similar to what Lena Dunham described doing to her infant sister. Certainly super gross, but not rape. Particularly when one reminds themselves they're talking about a 6 year old and a 4 year old or something like that. Gross, weird and inappropriate behavior that you'd certainly hope any adult who discovered would put a rapid stop to, but rape? No.

I recall the final incident she mentioned being one where he tried to massage her in bed when he was like 19 and she was 17, and it sounded like she thought he was trying to make that transition into intercourse, but she left and it did not culminate in that way.

So, feel free to correct me if I've forgotten a significant allegation from her... but currently I'm really baffled how you're referring to this as "Raping a child several times over the course of 10 years"
Click to expand...
Some fair points. I sincerely think you have some legitimate points.

I guess the allegations are not adequate to assume that Zimmerman is creepy. Even with all of the other allegations. Perhaps my thinking is wrong and Zimmerman should be the hero of gun rights advocates.

The second paragraph is sarcasm
 
RandFan said:
Cops?
Click to expand...
COPS

Thais is nonsense. We can and do make such inferences daily. This isn't the courtroom.
Click to expand...
That we make such inferences does not prove that such inferences are always, or ever, justified. And a courtroom is not the only place where critical thinking may reasonably be applied to claims and assumptions.

I'm arguing that a reasonable person can draw inferences from facts.
Click to expand...
Infer what you like. I think reasonable people can make different inferences than you have, and weight those inferences differently than you have, when considering hypothetical scenarios. That's all.

Michael Jackson was never convicted of child molestation. Would I let him watch young children if I had a say? Hell, no. You?
Click to expand...
There's a difference between mitigating risk and assuming a specific outcome is particularly likely.

I also think these things should be considered on a case by case basis. A nonviolent interaction between an unsupervised child and Michael Jackson may carry a lot more risk than a nonviolent interaction between me and George Zimmerman, for reasons that have no relevance from one scenario to the other.
 
RandFan said:
Some fair points. I sincerely think you have some legitimate points.

I guess the allegations are not adequate to assume that Zimmerman is creepy. Even with all of the other allegations. Perhaps my thinking is wrong and Zimmerman should be the hero of gun rights advocates.

The second paragraph is sarcasm
Click to expand...

I'm comfortable agreeing that Zimmerman is creepy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom