Unarmed teen shooting: the debate rages on...

[Coito ergo sum]

OMG CES, thanks for the laugh. You really crack me up sometimes.

I don't understand. Why was that funny?

The poll surprised me, because I was under the impression through the news reports that most people were thinking it was some sort of race murder incident and hate crime.

And, there was a racial divide like the OJ trial, where most blacks said they thought he was not guilty and most whites said they thought he was guilty. I was wondering whether that same divide applied here, now, given the new poll. Clearly, I would think most blacks were of the mind that Zimmerman ought to fry, but with the new poll, I wonder if it's pretty much just whites who changed their view of it.

I think it's a fair question. Don't you?

I'm not laughing at the results of the poll. I'm laughing at your choice of poll - Rasmussen is notoriously conservative leaning.

So, you think that Rasmussen wants to make it look like the Hispanic guy shot the black guy justifiably?

Here you go, from the other guys.

If what you have insisted all along is true (that there is no evidence that someone is guilty or not guilty) then when this poll was taken (back in April) results should still be true...so, I'm wondering why public sentiment would have changed so dramatically since then.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/153776/Black ... -Case.aspx

I never said there was no evidence. Jeepers. Is it really that difficult to grasp? I said that there is reasonable doubt, at the moment, based on the evidence we have. It's folks like kiki who are saying they know the guy's guilty.

I think public sentiment would have changed because huge amounts of information released by the prosecution have come out in the last month and a half, much of it exculpatory. That would be my guess. Following the case, it seemed article after article revealed either a debunking of originally supposedly damning evidence or additional evidence showing facts consistent with Zimmerman's story.

The whole point is that the Rasmussen poll is new, and a poll from a month and a half ago is old. Of interest to my follow up question was that the gallup poll does show a racial divide.

Yes, how did that work, anyway? Isn't all that evidence supposed to be immediately available per Florida law?

No. The prosecution has to make what they made available, but "immediate" is not required.

And, go ask the State if you think they did something wrong. They're trying to put the guy in jail, not cover up for him.

Read Dershowitz' article about how unethical he says the prosecution has behaved thus far. They left out truthful information that, according to Dershowitz, should have ethically been in the arrest warrant.

[kiki5711]

It's folks like kiki who are saying they know the guy's guilty.

Yes, I said he was guilty but you didn't explain why I think that way, and guilty of what?

[laklak]

It's just stuff. Stuff is never equal to the life of any person.

I know that's supposed to be the human, reasonable, decent attitude to take. Well, I think it is. But somebody comes in my house to steal my stuff I'll splatter them across the living room and let the dogs eat the resulting mess.

[tattuchu]

My opinion has changed drastically since the incident was first reported. Initially I thought Zimmerman was a trigger-happy Dirty Harry type racist son-of-a-bitch. His story of being attacked by the little kid we saw in the photos was just ludicrous.
But then my opinion changed as new information was relayed, and we found out we'd been misled by inaccurate and even doctored evidence. Things were not as they first appeared. I still kinda thought the whole thing was Zimmerman's fault, that he was a twat, and his arrogance and stupidity brought the whole incident not only on initially but to an unpleasant an unnecessary conclusion.
Bit by bit, though, as new info is revealed, things are looking more and more favorable toward Zimmerman in my eyes. It's not a case of good guy vs bad guy. I think both participants are/were flawed individuals, neither perfect. But at this point in the game, my opinion is that Zimm acted in self-defense.

[maiforpeace]

Several George Zimmerman witnesses change their accounts

By Rene Stutzman and Jeff Weiner, Orlando Sentinel

5:51 p.m. EST, May 22, 2012

Evidence released last week in the second-degree-murder case against George Zimmerman shows four key witnesses made major changes in what they say they saw and heard the night he fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford.

Three changed their stories in ways that may damage Zimmerman. A fourth abandoned her initial story, that she saw one person chasing another. Now, she says, she saw a single figure running.

[Tero]

I never trust witnesses. But it sounds interesting that M is walking back to where he was staying. Then Z interferes. What reason would M have not to walk home? There was nothing there until Z appeared.

Then Z gets beat up and "had to shoot M".

[FBM]

kiki, have you ever heard of logical fallacies? If so, would you define for me your understanding of what they are and why some people consider them to be important?

yes, it is in coitos every post.

That's not really answering my question. What is your understanding of what logical fallacies are? What is their use and their importance?

it means the person is playing merry go round with words, twisting them, manipulating them to make it sound like their line of reasoning is the right one , eventually totally straying off to one bit of the subject to another that in the end it cannot be discussed any more.

PERFECT example coitos response right above this one.

Are you honestly, genuinely so sure you haven't repeatedly committed any of the following during this discussion?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually an improper argumentation in reasoning often resulting in a misconception or presumption. Literally, a fallacy is "an error in reasoning that renders an argument logically invalid".[1] By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or participant (appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure any logical argument.

Though an argument is not "logically valid", it is not necessarily the case that the conclusion is incorrect. It simply means that the conclusion cannot logically be arrived at using that argument.

Though often used unintentionally, fallacies can be used purposefully to win arguments regardless of the merits. Among such devices, discussed in more detail below, are: "ignoring the question" to divert argument to unrelated issues using a red herring, making the argument personal (argumentum ad hominem) and discrediting the opposition's character, "begging the question" (petitio principi), the use of the non-sequitur, false cause and effect (post hoc ergo propter hoc), bandwagoning (everyone says so), the "false dilemma" or "either-or fallacy" in which the situation is oversimplified, "card-stacking" or selective use of facts, and "false analogy". Another common device is the "false generalization", an abstraction of the argument that shifts discussion to platitudes where the facts of the matter are lost. There are many, many more tricks to divert attention from careful exploration of a subject.[2]

Emphasis not in the original.

[maiforpeace]

No problems with this 'stand your ground' law, eh?

Woman Gets 20 years for Firing a Warning Shot

[kiki5711]

FBM: Are you honestly, genuinely so sure you haven't repeatedly committed any of the following during this discussion?

I don't deny doing the same thing, but that's because the story gets so skewed from one side of the ball game to the other, that in the midst of all the words, you forget what was in the middle and the emotions go to accusations which muddle the issue all the more.

[kiki5711]

No problems with this 'stand your ground' law, eh?

Woman Gets 20 years for Firing a Warning Shot

I bet if she knew she was going to get 20 yrs for that, she would have shot him dead instead. Now if she shot him and claimed self defense, she'd get off free. She should have shot that bastard dead.

[FBM]

FBM: Are you honestly, genuinely so sure you haven't repeatedly committed any of the following during this discussion?

I don't deny doing the same thing, but that's because the story gets so skewed from one side of the ball game to the other, that in the midst of all the words, you forget what was in the middle and the emotions go to accusations which muddle the issue all the more.

I can sympathize. When I really intensely believe something is true and want people to agree with me, I get upset when they don't. Well, not so much any more, but I used to.

[amused]

... But at this point in the game, my opinion is that Zimm acted in self-defense.

If he'd just remained in his car and not created an unnecessary confrontation, a young kid wouldn't be dead now.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's folks like kiki who are saying they know the guy's guilty.

Yes, I said he was guilty but you didn't explain why I think that way, and guilty of what?

I leave the explanation to you. Much of your explanation has been shown to be based on untrue facts, like the "he was told to stay in his car" nonsense, or the racism, paranoia, psycho "assumptions" you make.

Guilty of the crimes charged. If you're referring to being guilty of something else, then you'll have to clarify that yourself.

[Coito ergo sum]

It's just stuff. Stuff is never equal to the life of any person.

I know that's supposed to be the human, reasonable, decent attitude to take. Well, I think it is. But somebody comes in my house to steal my stuff I'll splatter them across the living room and let the dogs eat the resulting mess.

The "just stuff" line works with innocent people, but the "just stuff" line doesn't work when one is referring to a life savings or a lifetime of "stuff" on which a family depends for their own lives and some scumbag looking to strip them of it all. Invading a home is more than just "taking stuff."

[Coito ergo sum]

I never trust witnesses. But it sounds interesting that M is walking back to where he was staying. Then Z interferes. What reason would M have not to walk home? There was nothing there until Z appeared.

Then Z gets beat up and "had to shoot M".

Where is it established that M is walking back to where he was "staying" and then Z interfered?