George Zimmerman shot

[RandFan]

¹COPS

²That 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.

³Infer 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.

⁴There's a difference between mitigating risk and assuming a specific outcome is particularly likely.

⁵I 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.

(1) I'll avoid the attempt at ridicule. Use whatever evidence you like. Hell, rely on tabloids for all I care. Just understand that when you say "Cops" I hear, "I couldn't do any better than a reality show". How Reality TV Works. You'll excuse me if I'm underwhelmed.

(2) Given the serious nature of the charges against him, I think most reasonable people would go out of their way to avoid GZ.

(3) Not much wiggle room here but believe whatever you like. I'm confident that most reasonable people would want to avoid GZ at all costs.

(4) Thank you. Most people don't attempt to mitigate risk if and when they cannot, and I quote, "reasonably reach conclusions that require them to be facts".

(5) So, let me see if I understand you, we cannot make any reasonable assumptions about Zimmerman because the charges have not been tested for basis in fact? Is that correct? So, can you reach any reasonable conclusions about MJ or are you saying that GZ is a special cases that require that we apply different standards?

 

[theprestige]

(1) I'll avoid the attempt at ridicule. Use whatever evidence you like. Hell, rely on tabloids for all I care. Just understand that when you say "Cops" I hear, "I couldn't do any better than a reality show". How Reality TV Works. You'll excuse me if I'm underwhelmed.

Of course.

The reason I like COPS, out of all reality shows, is that what happens on camera is uncoached and unscripted. The situation is what it is, the suspects are doing what they're doing, etc.

Anyway, it's pretty much tangential at this point.

Most people don't attempt to mitigate risk if and when they cannot, and I quote, "reasonably reach conclusions that require them to be facts".

Of course. Mitigating risk doesn't require assuming facts not in evidence. It only requires perceiving the possibility that a fact might be true or might become true.

So, let me see if I understand you, we cannot make any reasonable assumptions about Zimmerman because the charges have not been tested for basis in fact? Is that correct?

That is not correct. We cannot make any reasonable assumptions about George Zimmerman that require us to assume that unproven claims about him are true, because those claims are unproven.

I have no objection to assumptions that don't have that requirement.

Unreasonable: "George Zimmerman is a proven domestic abuser."

Reasonable: "It's probably risky to get into a violent confrontation with George Zimmerman."

A Matter of Personal Judgement, About Which Reasonable People May Differ: "It will not be surprising if someone kills George Zimmerman in self defense."

So, can you reach any reasonable conclusions about MJ or are you saying that GZ is a special cases that require that we apply different standards?

You can reach many reasonable conclusions about many different people. I don't think you can reach a reasonable conclusion that specific claims about George Zimmerman are true, because those specific claims have not been tested and shown to be true.

If your assessment of the likelihood that someone will kill Zimmerman in self defense is based on assuming those claims are true, then you will be less surprised by such a thing than I would be, since I don't assume those claims to be true and therefore don't infer certain risks from those claims with the same level of certainty that you do.

 

[Toke]

Sounds like those two guys deserve each other.
Aggressive, confrontational and gun-toting.

Lets just hope they only hurt each other and like minded.


Weir anecdote.
During an afternoon of "standing guard" training I experienced some remarkable differences in approach.
I would let two guys with slung rifles walk up and then ask for paperwork.
My companion started yelling "drop your weapons, etc." at 50 yards, way too long to read papers.

Different people, different levels of paranoia.

 

[theprestige]

Sounds like those two guys deserve each other.
Aggressive, confrontational and gun-toting.

Lets just hope they only hurt each other and like minded.

Let's just hope that neither of them hurts anybody, surely?

 

[portlandatheist]

Some men are born into trouble, some men find trouble, and for others, trouble finds them. For George Zimmerman, it was all three.

 

[Toke]

Let's just hope that neither of them hurts anybody, surely?

Yes, of course, ideally he will learn to control his anger and stop the whole angry man routine.
I just find it unlikely, and hope that if/when it will be some other danger to his surroundings.

 

[RandFan]

That is not correct. We cannot make any reasonable assumptions about George Zimmerman that require us to assume that unproven claims about him are true, because those claims are unproven.

???

I've no idea what your point is.

You can reach many reasonable conclusions about many different people.

Including GZ and MJ.

I don't think you can reach a reasonable conclusion that specific claims about George Zimmerman are true, because those specific claims have not been tested and shown to be true.

This is a straw man.

If your assessment of the likelihood that someone will kill Zimmerman in self defense is based on assuming those claims are true, then you will be less surprised by such a thing than I would be, since I don't assume those claims to be true and therefore don't infer certain risks from those claims with the same level of certainty that you do.

My "assessment" (as opposed to the straw man).

• Michael Jackson: If he were alive today and I had small children I would not let children near him because I think that is an unacceptable risk.
• I would avoid Zimmerman because I think that is an unacceptable risk.

Are we clear? Could we focus on the issue at hand. I said "I would not be surprised at all if someone killed Zimmerman in self defense."


That's it. No absolute claims about anything. Just an opinion as to risk. You know, just like the risk assessment you did of Michael Jackson. If it's reasonable to avoid Jackson absent a conviction then it's reasonable to avoid Zimmerman absent a conviction.

 

[theprestige]

???

I've no idea what your point is.

You asked if you had understood me. I said you had not, and restated your attempt at understanding in a way that more accurately reflected the point you were trying to understand.

Including GZ and MJ.

Yes, but it doesn't follow that every conclusion we reach about them is reasonable.

This is a straw man.

I was trying to explain why allegations of domestic abuse did not to me equate to the fact of domestic abuse. It was a question you had raised. I'm not sure how responding a question you had raised, by giving my assessment of the claim, can be a straw man.

My "assessment" (as opposed to the straw man).

• Michael Jackson: If he were alive today and I had small children I would not let children near him because I think that is an unacceptable risk.
• I would avoid Zimmerman because I think that is an unacceptable risk.

Are we clear?

Reasonably so.

Could we focus on the issue at hand.

Have we not been? It seems to me that everything we've said so far has followed directly from the issue you raised:

I said "I would not be surprised at all if someone killed Zimmerman in self defense."

That's it. No absolute claims about anything. Just an opinion as to risk. You know, just like the risk assessment you did of Michael Jackson. If it's reasonable to avoid Jackson absent a conviction then it's reasonable to avoid Zimmerman absent a conviction.

You also asked if anyone else would be surprised. I replied that I would, and gave an overview of my reasons for answering your question as I did. You then replied with questions about my reasoning, which I have been answering. I'm not sure where you think our conversation derailed, but whatever. Clearly you and I have reached different conclusions about how likely it is that someone will someday kill George Zimmerman in self defense. Does that suffice, or would you like to discuss the question some more?

 

[RandFan]

Does that suffice, or would you like to discuss the question some more?

If you don't think it unreasonable that people would be wary of Zimmerman or that there are people that think that there is a probability greater than that of the the average person that Zimmerman will kill or be killed, then let's move on.

If not then you will have to explain yourself better. I don't know why you are talking about "allegations" not equating to "facts" (as one example). AFAIK, I never said or implied that they did.

So yeah, if we can agree on the first paragraph I don't care about the rest.

 

[sunmaster14]

So here's a question that Apperson is going to have to address: If Zimmerman had threatened Apperson with a gun, how come Zimmerman never shot back? I'm still wrestling with how this incident ended. Do you just fire a couple of shots at an armed man, not actually hit him, and then walk away? If you're armed, do you just let a guy fire a couple of shots at you and not return fire?

 

[lionking]

So here's a question that Apperson is going to have to address: If Zimmerman had threatened Apperson with a gun, how come Zimmerman never shot back? I'm still wrestling with how this incident ended. Do you just fire a couple of shots at an armed man, not actually hit him, and then walk away? If you're armed, do you just let a guy fire a couple of shots at you and not return fire?

You do if you are a coward, as George is.

 

[BenBurch]

If he brandished, then the other guy has a Stand Your Ground case.

 

[johnny karate]

So here's a question that Apperson is going to have to address: If Zimmerman had threatened Apperson with a gun, how come Zimmerman never shot back? I'm still wrestling with how this incident ended. Do you just fire a couple of shots at an armed man, not actually hit him, and then walk away? If you're armed, do you just let a guy fire a couple of shots at you and not return fire?

Why does Apperson have to address that question?

Maybe Zimmerman just flashed it or waved it at Apperson with no real intention of using it. Either way, I'm not aware of any self-defense law that requires the person invoking it to have received return fire to establish they were appropriately threatened.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

I can't see how Apperson proves Zimmerman brandished his firearm.

I think there's a good chance Apperson will end up in hot water over this, but whether he does or not... it is VERY difficult to see how Zimmerman could possibly end up in any trouble out of this.

 

[johnny karate]

I can't see how Apperson proves Zimmerman brandished his firearm.

Why do you think he has to?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So here's a question that Apperson is going to have to address: If Zimmerman had threatened Apperson with a gun, how come Zimmerman never shot back? I'm still wrestling with how this incident ended. Do you just fire a couple of shots at an armed man, not actually hit him, and then walk away? If you're armed, do you just let a guy fire a couple of shots at you and not return fire?

Would it surprise you if Zimmerman fled in fear when the guy he pulled on gun on had one of his own?

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Why do you think he has to?

I guess it depends on whether we mean "has to" in order to get Zimmerman in trouble, or "has to" in order to avoid trouble himself.

I can easily agree with your implication that the law probably doesn't require him to offer any rock solid proof that Zimmerman brandished and threatened in order that he avoid getting in trouble for firing the shot.

I really don't know how it will play out. It will be interesting to see it unfold.

I think the most likely scenario is probably that neither one of them will really face any serious consequences from this incident. I think the least likely scenario is Apperson gets away unscathed and Zimmerman gets busted.

I'm not sure how likely or unlikely the scenario where Zimmerman gets off and Apperson faces punishment is. That strikes me as a real possibility, but perhaps legally speaking it really isn't. I'm not sure.

As I said, it will be interesting to see how it pans out.

Do you think there's much chance at all of Zimmerman facing consequences from this incident?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I can't see how Apperson proves Zimmerman brandished his firearm.....

I can't see how Zimmerman proves he didn't.

Stalemate. They both walk.

 

[This is The End]

No, it's not. It's rape, and it's child abuse. Which is a horrific crime, but it's not terrorism. And it's hardly established that Zimmerman did this. Nice try, though.

Actually it is terrorism. The gain does not have to be political. It becomes a form of terrorism the very moment when he tells her to not tell anyone or else.

(Just in case anyone is wondering, Ziggurat is the one arguing for vigilantism against terrorists, not me.)

 

[This is The End]

Given Zimmerman's track record since his acquital for murder, it does not look like the record of a reasonable non volatile person.

That just about sums it up.