Latest GeorgeZimmerman News

[Upchurch]

Which I have also been saying all along, and I don't dispute that your hypotheticals and speculations are entirely plausible, with one caveat: You discredit Zimmerman's testimony because you claim it is biased. His testimony, from the initial police response to the trial, was consistent with the other evidence. His story stayed the same and did not conflict substantially at any time. Therefore, I accuse you of bias in discrediting his testimony. Just because he is in the defendant's seat does not mean he is lying, as you have obliquely asserted. All of your hypotheticals rely on discrediting GZ's testimony, founded on your apparent belief that defendants cannot be trusted to tell the truth under oath.

It is anecdotal evidence and it should be treated as such.

Further, I never claimed to know whether he was lying. What I claimed is that he had a vested interest in presenting himself in the best possible light because he was at risk of being convicted off a crime. Do you disagree that this was the case?

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not convinced you're genuinely interested, Zig. What's in it for him to answer?

Of course I'm not interested in his answer. It was a rhetorical question, Upchurch. Do you know what a rhetorical question is? I'll give you a hint: that was one.

 

[Belz...]

It's not a word game. There's a fundamental difference between the two. One is a command, one is not. Do you understand the difference?

Who said it was a command? We're simply saying that the dispatcher told him not to do it. Sure, not in those exact words, but I think it was clear.

You're going to ask me to look this all up, aren't you?

I apologise for the request, but I'm genuinely interested to know if there were prior similar incidents with Zimmerman.

I do not agree. We have Rachel Jenteal's testimony, And we have the facts on the ground.

Ok, what do you consider to be facts supporting this conclusion, specifically?

 

[Ziggurat]

Who said it was a command? We're simply saying that the dispatcher told him not to do it.

You said it was a command, right there. Plus, "don't follow him" is a command (in grammatical terms, it's an imperative) whether or not anyone describes it as such. And no, the dispatcher did not tell him not to. She told him "we don't need you to do that." That is not a command (not an imperative).

I thought my question was rhetorical, but evidently it wasn't. You don't understand the difference.

 

[Jules Galen]

You said it was a command, right there. Plus, "don't follow him" is a command (in grammatical terms, it's an imperative) whether or not anyone describes it as such. And no, the dispatcher did not tell him not to. She told him "we don't need you to do that." That is not a command (not an imperative).

I thought my question was rhetorical, but evidently it wasn't. You don't understand the difference.

So...did you feel it was ok for Zimmerman to stalk and kill Trayvon?

Or...

With less loaded words..."Do you think Zimmerman did the right things, that night?

 

[Thermal]

It is anecdotal evidence and it should be treated as such.

Further, I never claimed to know whether he was lying. What I claimed is that he had a vested interest in presenting himself in the best possible light because he was at risk of being convicted off a crime. Do you disagree that this was the case?

I wasn't aware that eyewitness testimony to a specific act is considered anecdotal. Presumably the courts are no longer admitting it.

I don't disagree that it would serve his interests to reframe his version of events, but what I see as bias is that you assume he did. I would say that testimony has low reliability if it is vague, inconsistent, etc. Not just because he is a defendant. People can tell the truth even when accused of a crime, but your bias disallows that.

Regarding your claim of defendant's testimony being anecdotal see link below. Note the use of 'hearsay' and 'secondhand' regarding it's use.

http://trial.laws.com/evidence/anecdotal-evidence

 

[Ziggurat]

So...did you feel it was ok for Zimmerman to stalk and kill Trayvon?

Define "stalk", and demonstrate with evidence how Zimmerman's actions meet your definition.

And "OK" isn't relevant. I wasn't there, I don't know. Under some theories of what happened, yes it was OK, under some theories it was not. But we cannot distinguish between the competing theories with anything even approaching confidence.

I know that the jury made the right decision given the evidence available.

 

[Jules Galen]

Define "stalk", and demonstrate with evidence how Zimmerman's actions meet your definition.

And "OK" isn't relevant. I wasn't there, I don't know. Under some theories of what happened, yes it was OK, under some theories it was not. But we cannot distinguish between the competing theories with anything even approaching confidence.

I know that the jury made the right decision given the evidence available.

I didn't even have to read the rest of your post to understand your position.

 

[Ziggurat]

I didn't even have to read the rest of your post to understand your position.

So you can't define your terms. Why am I not surprised?

 

[Upchurch]

I wasn't aware that eyewitness testimony to a specific act is considered anecdotal. Presumably the courts are no longer admitting it.

Courts love eyewitness testimony. That doesn't make it any less anecdotal evidence, nor any more trustworthy.

Look, courts play be a different set of standards with different goals. Barring procedural muck-ups, they have to reach a decision and even the muck-ups fall back on a default conclusion, the presumption of innocence.

I don't disagree that it would serve his interests to reframe his version of events, but what I see as bias is that you assume he did.

I'm saying that we have no way of knowing if he did, thus we can not take his testimony as granted. What you see as bias, I call skepticism, as should you.

I would say that testimony has low reliability if it is vague, inconsistent, etc. Not just because he is a defendant. People can tell the truth even when accused of a crime, but your bias disallows that.

How does specificity or consistency aid in reliability? A high level of specificity could also mean "authored". A high level of consistency could mean "rehearsed". I don't see the connection.

Zimmerman may very well completely believe what he is saying, but that still doesn't mean it reflects what actually happened. Human memory is notoriously spotty and malleable, which is why anecdotal evidence is so unreliable. It isn't independently testable.

There are numerous people who absolutely believe that they've been abducted by aliens. Is it biased to consider their anecdotal evidence unreliable?

 

[Thermal]

Courts love eyewitness testimony. That doesn't make it any less anecdotal evidence, nor any more trustworthy.

Wait, wait, wait....Are you still asserting that a defendants first-hand testimony is considered anecdotal evidence?

 

[sunmaster14]

Wait, wait, wait....Are you still asserting that a defendants first-hand testimony is considered anecdotal evidence?

Not just first-hand testimony, but testimony which was fully consistent with other evidence (both physical and eyewitness) that Zimmerman couldn't have known existed at the time. Furthermore, Zimmerman is no genius. It is extremely unlikely that he could weave a consistent story on the fly so soon after a traumatic incident. He also expressed relief when the police, falsely as it turned out, told him that there was probably security camera video of the encounter.

There is lots of reason to believe Zimmerman's testimony and no reason to doubt it. Note to Upchurch: the fact that the testimony is self-serving is not sufficient reason to doubt it. It is sufficient reason to give it less weight than disinterested testimony, but actual doubt requires something more. Specifically, it requires other evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's narrative.

 

[Belz...]

You said it was a command, right there.

Ok, so as I suspected, it's word games, then.

The point is that it wasn't an order, but he was asked not to do this. Stop playing games.

I thought my question was rhetorical, but evidently it wasn't. You don't understand the difference.

And apparently self-back-patting at the same time. I'm sure you feel great about yourself.

 

[Upchurch]

Wait, wait, wait....Are you still asserting that a defendants first-hand testimony is considered anecdotal evidence?

Yes. That is pretty much the definition of "anecdote". Why is that startling?

Note to Upchurch: the fact that the testimony is self-serving is not sufficient reason to doubt it. It is sufficient reason to give it less weight than disinterested testimony, but actual doubt requires something more. Specifically, it requires other evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's narrative.

No, you are completely wrong from a skeptical/critical thinking perspective. An anecdote amounts to a claim about an event or series of events. One should never ever just assume that an anecdote or claim is true by default.

For the beginning of the encounter, there is no evidence, for or against, that relates to Zimmerman's story. If you have any, please present it.

 

[Thermal]

Yes. That is pretty much the definition of "anecdote". Why is that startling?

No, Zimmernan's testimony is entirely a first-hand account. Anecdotes are commonly defined as the use of secondhand or hearsay evidence in support of an argument. Are you discounting his first-hand testimony as anecdotal because...we were not the ones directly asking the questions? I accuse you of a heap of logical errors if so.

Quick edit: please provide an external definition of 'anecdotal' which fits your use of it. Methinks you're making it up.

 

[Belz...]

For the beginning of the encounter, there is no evidence, for or against, that relates to Zimmerman's story.

Indeed, which is why we can't conclude that he did anything criminal.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ok, so as I suspected, it's word games, then.

The point is that it wasn't an order, but he was asked not to do this. Stop playing games.

No. "You don't need to do that" isn't a request not to do it. It's a statement that you're not being requested TO do it.

For example, if you rent a car, and you say that you'll bring it back washed, and the agent says you don't need to wash the car, does that mean that the agent wants you to NOT wash the car? No, it doesn't. You can still wash the car, you just don't have to.

And apparently self-back-patting at the same time. I'm sure you feel great about yourself.

No, I don't feel great about myself, I feel bad about you.

 

[Belz...]

No, Zimmernan's testimony is entirely a first-hand account. Anecdotes are commonly defined as the use of secondhand or hearsay evidence in support of an argument.

No, anecdotes are accounts by a person, first-hand or otherwise.

 

[Belz...]

No. "You don't need to do that" isn't a request not to do it.

In this context it most certainly is.

No, I don't feel great about myself, I feel bad about you.

Oh, I'm sorry; you weren't propping yourself up, but putting me down. Does the phrase "distinction without a difference" ring a bell? That's another rhetorical question, by the way.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes. That is pretty much the definition of "anecdote". Why is that startling?

"Anecdote" is not a relevant legal description of first-hand witness testimony in court. Basically all eyewitness testimony is anecdotal, yet courts still allow it, and for good reason. So while it may be technically true to call his testimony anecdotal, it makes no sense to do so, because that descriptor simply doesn't matter. It's not meaningful in context. It adds nothing.