Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

[FBM]

What argument?

The argument that people shouldn't take sides.

I don't think I said that people shouldn't take sides; I think I said that people shouldn't take sides based on unrelated emotional/political bias instead of the available evidence. I think I mentioned that I sometimes stump for clear thinking and rationality.

It doesn't matter in the slightest what people say or do, here on this thread.[/quote]

"in the slightest"? Are you sure about that phrase? Every action, I'm told, has a reaction. Can you tell me that some of the heated debate in this thread hasn't affected the way some of the more intense debaters have acted in their daily lives? That nobody has learned something about the law, rational debating, logical fallacies, other members' positions on racism, gun control, etc? I would surely hope that nothing we say in this thread affects the outcome of the trial, and never suggested that it could. So I don't see the relevance of your statement, which is tantamount to saying, "It's just the internet."

[mistermack]

Well, if we were debating physics, then cold rational weighing of facts would of course be the way to go.
But as we are discussing people, who are notoriously unpredictable and illogical, then cold logic might be less helpful than intuition.
In fact, intuition of human nature is one of the best ways of solving human crimes. And you get that intuition by experience of living among people, and learning how they think and act.

If it wasn't known who killed Martin, what would be wrong with speculation about what happened, between who, and why? We all love a whodunnit.

As none of us can have any influence on the trial, I see nothing wrong in treating it as a whodunnit.
Except that we know who dunnit, but we just like to try to solve how and why.

[Seth]

I don't think it's that simple. As I said before, I don't think zimmerman intended from the start to shoot martin. But the circumstances, and thought process on both sides ended in a scuffle, zimmerman having the upper hand because he had a gun.

Let's pretend zimmreman didn't have a gun and they just had a good ol fist fight, the police come and sort things out. both are alive.

Let's pretend Zimmerman didn't have a gun and politely asked Martin what he was doing in Zimmerman's private gated community and an enraged Martin punched and beat Zimmerman's head on the concrete till his skull fractured and he suffered permanent, irreversible and potentially fatal brain damage. Zimmerman's alive, but not really because he's in a persistent vegetative state and will never be the same person even if he wakes up.

There is no such thing as a "good ol fist fight." People die and are permanently injured and disabled in fistfights all the time.

zimmerman thought martin was "up to no good", martin thought zimmerman was "up to no good".

they cross paths, zimmerman has one side of thinking gearing him towards self defense and figures since he has a gun, he'll be ok, or at least even, if in case martin had a gun.

Which is a valid train of thought, since it's Zimmerman's community, not Martin's, who was just a guest there, and therefore had at least some duty to act reasonably and account for his activities to authorized residents who have a right to question the presence of strangers in their private community.

turns out martin didn't have a gun, and while zimmerman's immagination might have run wild, both were scared at that cruical moment when the gun went off.

It's sounding very much like Martin was enraged, not scared, when he attacked Zimmerman, who had a justifiable fear of serious bodily harm or death, which triggered his right to use lethal force against his attacker.

if zimmerman never had a gun, they both would be alive today, arguing their case in court.

Or, Zimmerman would be brain-dead and Martin would be a fugitive, or on trial for assault or murder. All Zimmerman not having a gun gets us is a different tragic outcome. If things are as Zimmerman says they were, then Martin got what he deserved and Zimmerman did the right thing by surviving through the use of deadly force. It's just Martin's bad luck that Zimmerman had a gun. Which is one good reason not to attack people even if you are angry at them for some perceived slight or disrespect. It happens that this dissuasion of potential victims being armed is the very best thing about lawful concealed carry, because it deters criminal activity and victimization when the criminal doesn't know who is armed and thus capable of killing him. It appears that Martin forgot this essential and fundamental point of civilized public behavior: An armed society is a polite society.

Sad story, unfortunatelly, we all have to pay the price for the choices we make, even if they were not meant to be made, on purpose from beginning, bottom line is one person is dead, one is alive. One can defend himself in court, the other one cant.

A good reason not to attack other people, isn't it?

I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six.

[Seth]

Well, if we were debating physics, then cold rational weighing of facts would of course be the way to go.
But as we are discussing people, who are notoriously unpredictable and illogical, then cold logic might be less helpful than intuition.
In fact, intuition of human nature is one of the best ways of solving human crimes. And you get that intuition by experience of living among people, and learning how they think and act.

If it wasn't known who killed Martin, what would be wrong with speculation about what happened, between who, and why? We all love a whodunnit.

As none of us can have any influence on the trial, I see nothing wrong in treating it as a whodunnit.
Except that we know who dunnit, but we just like to try to solve how and why.

Which is not at all what you're doing. You're rendering judgment on one person based on your preconceptions, your biases, and your small view of the evidence.

We know how, and the why is something none of us can make any rational judgment about because we are not privy to all of the relevant evidence. You may speculate, as we have all done, but the difference is that CES and I at least (and Tyrannical and FBM to some extent) are discussing the evidence we have and the laws that regulate conduct and while we can see both outcomes we refuse to judge Zimmerman merely because he shot a black man who has been falsely portrayed in the press as an innocent young boy. It may be that Zimmerman committed murder, or acted in lawful self defense. Speculating is one thing, but you're not examining the evidence from both sides, you and Kiki have clearly made up your minds who's guilty and nothing will change that, not even an acquittal. You've fixed your position and you're trying vainly to defend it in the face of countervailing evidence, just like the bigots and racists who are calling for Zimmerman to be murdered in revenge for Martin's death, regardless of the actual facts.

[Tyrannical]

Stop the presses!

Zimmerman is Black

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/ ... 8H20120425

The 28-year-old insurance-fraud investigator comes from a deeply Catholic background and was taught in his early years to do right by those less fortunate. He was raised in a racially integrated household and himself has black roots through an Afro-Peruvian great-grandfather - the father of the maternal grandmother who helped raise him.

[Ronja]

Well, if we were debating physics, then cold rational weighing of facts would of course be the way to go.
But as we are discussing people, who are notoriously unpredictable and illogical, then cold logic might be less helpful than intuition.
In fact, intuition of human nature is one of the best ways of solving human crimes. And you get that intuition by experience of living among people, and learning how they think and act.

Sorry, but but without strict qualifiers, the bolded part is pretty undiluted bovine excrement.

We certainly often live under the illusion that we understand other humans intuitively, and that that understanding is accurate. But it is an illusion, and IMO not something a justice system can be based on. To wit:

1) People are born with genetically varying temperamental differences, and their environment when growing up sometimes mitigates these differences but can also sometimes intensify them. [will dig up the references if needed] It is difficult to truly grok someone who's temperament differs a lot from one's own.

2) At least in the (mostly relatively tolerant) Western world, pretty much every state or major region has at least some subcultures, often one or more minority languages, "races" and/or religions etc. These subcultures differ in what is seen as admirable / expected /neutral / reprehensible behavior in one situation/context or another. [ditto about references] It is difficult to truly grok someone who's cultural context differs a lot from one's own.

3) It follows therefore (from 1 and 2 and also due to the shortness of individual human life), that no one person can have an extensive enough experience = large enough sample to really understand how all or even most people from their own region think and act. (and we have not even started on immigrants, guest students/workers or tourists here...)

4) We cannot reliably mitigate that limitation (point 3) simply by adding more experience to the "intuitor team". Even if we put a group of individuals together (forming e.g. a police force or a jury), the totality of their experience will not necessarily cover the correct "intuitive frame of reference" for either the victim nor the alleged perpetrator. And as research has shown, under positive circumstances a group can embrace a larger territory of problem solving approaches than any one individual or smaller subgroup could, but under negative circumstances restrictive groupthink and a punitive group culture can emerge, and such a group does far worse than an independent expert in problem solving (including figuring out the who+where+when+what+how+why of an alleged crime). [again I can find references if they are needed]

IMO all the above forms one (but not the only) strong motivation for why all activities that try to pass as justice MUST rely on evidence. Our intuition will sneak into the process whatever we try to do, but if the formal requirements of evidence are made as clear as humanly possible, there is at least a chance that justice can be done. Not a certainty, mind you, but at least a chance.

[Tyrannical]

In fact, intuition of human nature is one of the best ways of solving human crimes. And you get that intuition by experience of living among people, and learning how they think and act.

I'd say that intuition of human nature is one of the best ways to prevent crimes.

Once we have insight into how a group thinks, we can make statistical predictions based on previous observations. Something otherwise known as stereotyping or profiling.

This of course was the basis for Jim Crow laws, where it was correctly identified that Blacks think and act significantly different than Whites, and that Black behavior was incompatible with White society.

[FBM]

Intuition more easily and quickly leads to racism and mob mentality than it does to justice and truth. I'd rather have the physics and ballistics associated with, for example, the blood splatter, than have anyone go by what just feels right to them. It was Zimmerman's intuition about Martin that led him to suspect Martin's motive for being in the neighborhood. If intuition were reliable as evidence and admissible in court, we wouldn't even be having this debate.

[JimC]

In fact, intuition of human nature is one of the best ways of solving human crimes. And you get that intuition by experience of living among people, and learning how they think and act.

I'd say that intuition of human nature is one of the best ways to prevent crimes.

Once we have insight into how a group thinks, we can make statistical predictions based on previous observations. Something otherwise known as stereotyping or profiling.

This of course was the basis for Jim Crow laws, where it was correctly identified that Blacks think and act significantly different than Whites, and that Black behavior was incompatible with White society.

More turgid racist crap...

[Tyrannical]

Instead of ad hominem attacks, you could always find evidence to refute those beliefs.

[Ronja]

Tyrannical, AFAIK it is not an ad hominem to call the content of one or more of your posts "racist" or "crap" or any other epithet, with or without evidence (though the presence or absence of evidence will likely be noted by the readers).

An ad hominem attacks the speaker/poster as a person, and then makes the fallacious leap into "therefore what you said/wrote is invalid."

[Tyrannical]

Tyrannical, AFAIK it is not an ad hominem to call the content of one or more of your posts "racist" or "crap" or any other epithet, with or without evidence (though the presence or absence of evidence will likely be noted by the readers).

An ad hominem attacks the speaker/poster as a person, and then makes the fallacious leap into "therefore what you said/wrote is invalid."

I just knew where he was going when he ended his sentence with "..."

But there is a long correlation between stating views that are considered racist to being considered racist, and being labelled as racist is an ad hominem, as it is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.

[kiki5711]

I don't think it's that simple. As I said before, I don't think zimmerman intended from the start to shoot martin. But the circumstances, and thought process on both sides ended in a scuffle, zimmerman having the upper hand because he had a gun.

Let's pretend zimmreman didn't have a gun and they just had a good ol fist fight, the police come and sort things out. both are alive.

Let's pretend Zimmerman didn't have a gun and politely asked Martin what he was doing in Zimmerman's private gated community and an enraged Martin punched and beat Zimmerman's head on the concrete till his skull fractured and he suffered permanent, irreversible and potentially fatal brain damage. Zimmerman's alive, but not really because he's in a persistent vegetative state and will never be the same person even if he wakes up.

There is no such thing as a "good ol fist fight." People die and are permanently injured and disabled in fistfights all the time.

zimmerman thought martin was "up to no good", martin thought zimmerman was "up to no good".

they cross paths, zimmerman has one side of thinking gearing him towards self defense and figures since he has a gun, he'll be ok, or at least even, if in case martin had a gun.

Which is a valid train of thought, since it's Zimmerman's community, not Martin's, who was just a guest there, and therefore had at least some duty to act reasonably and account for his activities to authorized residents who have a right to question the presence of strangers in their private community.

turns out martin didn't have a gun, and while zimmerman's immagination might have run wild, both were scared at that cruical moment when the gun went off.

It's sounding very much like Martin was enraged, not scared, when he attacked Zimmerman, who had a justifiable fear of serious bodily harm or death, which triggered his right to use lethal force against his attacker.

if zimmerman never had a gun, they both would be alive today, arguing their case in court.

Or, Zimmerman would be brain-dead and Martin would be a fugitive, or on trial for assault or murder. All Zimmerman not having a gun gets us is a different tragic outcome. If things are as Zimmerman says they were, then Martin got what he deserved and Zimmerman did the right thing by surviving through the use of deadly force. It's just Martin's bad luck that Zimmerman had a gun. Which is one good reason not to attack people even if you are angry at them for some perceived slight or disrespect. It happens that this dissuasion of potential victims being armed is the very best thing about lawful concealed carry, because it deters criminal activity and victimization when the criminal doesn't know who is armed and thus capable of killing him. It appears that Martin forgot this essential and fundamental point of civilized public behavior: An armed society is a polite society.

Sad story, unfortunatelly, we all have to pay the price for the choices we make, even if they were not meant to be made, on purpose from beginning, bottom line is one person is dead, one is alive. One can defend himself in court, the other one cant.

A good reason not to attack other people, isn't it?

I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six.

seth,

you twist everything around to make it look like that night martin was indeed NOT supposed to be in that neighborhood, didn't look anything but suspicious when he saw zimmerman, didn't have a right to fight back, and Zimmerman had ALL the rights, to follow him, kill him.

you can twist anything into the total opposite. it's nowhere near a common ground point of view as I described.

[FBM]

Tyrannical, AFAIK it is not an ad hominem to call the content of one or more of your posts "racist" or "crap" or any other epithet, with or without evidence (though the presence or absence of evidence will likely be noted by the readers).

An ad hominem attacks the speaker/poster as a person, and then makes the fallacious leap into "therefore what you said/wrote is invalid."

I just knew where he was going when he ended his sentence with "..."

But there is a long correlation between stating views that are considered racist to being considered racist, and being labelled as racist is an ad hominem, as it is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.

Just wondering, Ty, are you offended by the term 'racist'? Is it derogatory to you? At times you defend racism but now that you're saying that it's a negative characteristic, I had to wonder. Or do you mean 'percieved negative characteristic'?

[mistermack]

seth,

you twist everything around to make it look like that night martin was indeed NOT supposed to be in that neighborhood, didn't look anything but suspicious when he saw zimmerman, didn't have a right to fight back, and Zimmerman had ALL the rights, to follow him, kill him.

you can twist anything into the total opposite. it's nowhere near a common ground point of view as I described.

That's right. It's called trolling, and it's pathetic.
And Seth is grand-master zen pathetic, or claims to be.