Latest GeorgeZimmerman News

[Ziggurat]

I am unfamiliar with this broad use of 'anecdotal evidence'

For our purposes, we can define an anecdote simply as a first-hand description of an event. In many cases, as I have described above, anecdotes do not constitute useful evidence. And for the reasons I also described above, those reasons aren't really relevant here.

and am seeking a definition (not made up on the fly, a real one). Seriously, this is not just a semantic argument. Consider:

1. Upchurch says that GZ's testimony can be dismissed as anecdotal evidence.

And as I explained above, "anecdotal" is not a relevant descriptor. One might dismiss Zimmerman's testimony because it's self-interested and (in crucial parts) uncorroborated, but "anecdotal" contributes nothing to the conversation. Upchurch isn't technically wrong to call it anecdotal, but that is a wholly inadequate description of why one might ignore Zimmerman's testimony, and I think his use of the term is misguided. I'm surprised that he keeps trying to defend his use of the term rather than simply switching terms to clarify the heart of the objection.

 

[Thermal]

Not sure what you mean by "externally", but I found it by googling the word. You can also find it here:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/anecdotal

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anecdotal

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/anecdotal



We're talking about "anecdote" as opposed to physical evidence, here, so corroboration by other anecdotes doesn't make it not an anecdote, I think.

Thank you, I had seen them too, but I think I didn't phrase the question properly. Anecdotal evidence (both words together as a independent expression) normally refers to the Wiki usage. To use it by defining the words separately and combining their definitions strikes me as equivocation, as the definition of the combined use is different.

 

[Thermal]

For our purposes, we can define an anecdote simply as a first-hand description of an event. In many cases, as I have described above, anecdotes do not constitute useful evidence. And for the reasons I also described above, those reasons aren't really relevant here.



And as I explained above, "anecdotal" is not a relevant descriptor. One might dismiss Zimmerman's testimony because it's self-interested and (in crucial parts) uncorroborated, but "anecdotal" contributes nothing to the conversation. Upchurch isn't technically wrong to call it anecdotal, but that is a wholly inadequate description of why one might ignore Zimmerman's testimony, and I think his use of the term is misguided. I'm surprised that he keeps trying to defend his use of the term rather than simply switching terms to clarify the heart of the objection.

I agree, and his dismissal of testimony as evidence relies on mischaracterizing it as anecdotal evidence.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

<snip>

Edited by jsfisher: 

<snip> Moderated content and response to same redacted.

 

[Aber]

Close enough, since that doesn't change anything about my argument.

Huh?

There's some evidence of Martin hitting Zimmerman; what evidence is there for an attempt to grab his gun?

 

[Thermal]

Once again, Law != Science

People wearing fancy clothes does not make something a formal procedure*. The purpose of a trial is to persuade a judge/jury toward an argument within the confines of the law, not test a claim/hypothesis. Sometimes the results are the match up, sometimes not, but they are not interchangeable. The right tool for the job: you don't use a hammer to tighten a screw.

Seriously, this is ridiculous. I've laughed at people who complain that critical thinking is dead on this board because others didn't agree with them, but people are now arguing for basic logical fallacies. Maybe those naysayers were right all along. Are we even trying to get it right or is the only concern not to admit when we're wrong, even to ourselves?

Fine. You win. Anecdotal evidence is just as good as the real thing. Cherry-picked evidence, why not? Argument from authority, all day long! I'm done.


* Well, I suppose it a type of formal procedure, in that there are rules, but it isn't the type being referred to by the article.

I found definitions that suit your use of the phrase, used more scientifically (I assume the != in your reply means not equal?). Buy as we are arguing about legal matters, the argumentative or legal use is more contextual.

 

[theprestige]

My favorite thing about the latest Zimmerman news is that none of the Zimmerman haters can actually stay on topic.

Go ahead and necro the old thread, if all you want to do is slow flood that debate. In the latest news, some crazy guy with a gun opened fire on an innocent person, and got jail time for it. And it wasn't George Zimmerman.

 

[Ziggurat]

Huh?

There's some evidence of Martin hitting Zimmerman; what evidence is there for an attempt to grab his gun?

Given the circumstances (ie, no other witnesses, no video), there wouldn't be. Furthermore, since I'm discussing hypothetical possibilities of what could have occurred, the point is that this specific variation on those possibilities wouldn't change the legal justification for the use of deadly force under this hypothetical. The question of legal guilt doesn't depend upon whether Zimmerman fired because his head was being beaten against the ground or whether he fired because Martin went for his gun. It's the same in either case.

 

[Aber]

Given the circumstances (ie, no other witnesses, no video), there wouldn't be. Furthermore, since I'm discussing hypothetical possibilities of what could have occurred, the point is that this specific variation on those possibilities wouldn't change the legal justification for the use of deadly force under this hypothetical. The question of legal guilt doesn't depend upon whether Zimmerman fired because his head was being beaten against the ground or whether he fired because Martin went for his gun. It's the same in either case.

Was he just being punched or his head beaten against the ground - you've shifted your ground.

Zimmerman knew he had to claim that he was imminent fear of death or serious harm to justify the shooting. The physical evidence of him being punched or his head being beaten against the ground was marginal in supporting such a claim (in my opinion). A claim for an attempted grab for his gun was his 'get out of jail free' card (given there was no physical evidence of this).

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

George Zimmerman, shortly after his "brutal beating":

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/02/15/article-2560283-1AC192E8000005DC-704_634x805.jpg

Definition required.

 

[Ziggurat]

Was he just being punched or his head beaten against the ground

You don't already know?

- you've shifted your ground.

No, actually, I haven't. He was being punched, and the punches knocked his head into the ground. Which is why he had cuts on the back of his head.

Zimmerman knew he had to claim that he was imminent fear of death or serious harm to justify the shooting.

People have died from punches.

The physical evidence of him being punched or his head being beaten against the ground was marginal in supporting such a claim (in my opinion). A claim for an attempted grab for his gun was his 'get out of jail free' card (given there was no physical evidence of this).

And? Again, how does that change anything?

 

[johnny karate]

Definition required.

Here you go:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shortly

 

[Aber]

And? Again, how does that change anything?

Because it produces a very different scenario:

Only being punched - jury considers the physical evidence of the state of Zimmerman's face in evaluating whether he was in danger of serious injury or death.

Attempted grab for his gun - no physical evidence to consider, and the gun is obviously capable of causing serious injury or death. It is not really possible to disprove Zimmerman's claim, as the burden of proof is shifted.

 

[Wolrab]

Please. It's patently obvious that the dispatcher wanted Zimmerman to stop following Martin and that's what was means by the phrase. It wasn't a direct command, either. It was a request. (snip)

If I am told, "We don't need you to do that." I would understand it as I don't have to, but I can do that if I want. The dispatcher's statement was ambiguous and they should have said, "Don't follow him." but didn't.

It can very easily be construed as permission or a request to continue if you want to as it may be helpful to continue following him.

 

[Belz...]

If I am told, "We don't need you to do that." I would understand it as I don't have to, but I can do that if I want.

Why would the dispatcher even bother saying it, then, since under your interpretation those words make no difference?

 

[Wolrab]

I do not know, but it definitely was not a command to stop following.

 

[jadebox]

I do not know, but it definitely was not a command to stop following.

Zimmerman thought differently. In his statement to the police he said:

The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect and that an officer was in route​

.

-- Roger

 

[Wolrab]

Zimmerman thought differently. In his statement to the police he said:

The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect and that an officer was in route​

.

-- Roger

Doesn't matter, that is an anecdote.
Too bad he didn't act on that otherwise we would never know who he is and Trayvon would still be alive.

The dispatcher's statement is still not a command, though.

 

[Belz...]

I do not know, but it definitely was not a command to stop following.

It was implied. You know, context. Human language and all. We're not robots.

 

[Wolrab]

It was implied. You know, context. Human language and all. We're not robots.

Still not a command. I really don't see how this matters at all except to poison the well against GZ.