We have been following the investigation into the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida. The shooter, George Zimmerman, 28, has not been charged and reported a suspicious character to 911. Martin was returning from a 7-11 after buying Skittles. He was carrying the candy, a small amount of cash, and an iced tea. The family and many others have called for the arrest of Zimmerman, though the accounts of the shooting have been murky. Previously, we discussed the need to hear the 911 tapes, which have now been released and are linked below.
Zimmerman is reportedly a habitual caller into the police and is heard on one of the tapes complaining that ““These a**holes always get away.” Zimmerman states on the call that Martin appeared “up to no good . . . It’s raining. He’s just walking around, looking about . . . He’s just staring looking at all the houses.” Zimmerman says on the call that it is Martin who confronts him: “Something’s wrong with him. He’s coming to check me out.” However, he later admits that he is following Martin, which the police dispatcher discourages.
Police Chief Bill Lee said the 911 calls show that the incident was not a case of racial profiling. He said Zimmerman could not say whether the suspect was black or white. However, on the tape you hear Zimmerman say “He looks black” and then a few moments later, “He’s a black male.” While he is at first equivocal, he does identify his race. That does not mean that this is a case of profiling, of course.
However, family member have been critical of the handling of the case by the police and what they view as the police bending over backward to defend Zimmerman. The family had to file a lawsuit to get these tapes. After a hearing, the police finally relented.
The tapes certainly contradict some statements by the police. However, I am not sure that they substantially alter the status in the case. The evidence still is largely based on Zimmerman’s account, though such contemporary records are generally admissible. The tapes both help and hurt Zimmerman.
The statement by Zimmerman that “these a**holes always get away” certainly shows animus and he clearly follows the youth. However, that does not translate into evidence of intent to kill. I am more interested in the level of force used by Zimmerman and the two gunshots heard on the tape. It is possible that audio creates a misleading impression of two shots but that would seem an important forensic question. It is hard to believe that Martin would allegedly continue any confrontation of Zimmerman after a warning shot unless the shot was fired in the midst of a struggle over the gun. Zimmerman can cite the tape for his statement that he believed that Martin had something in his waistband and appeared on drugs. He can also cite his contemporary description of Martin approaching him.
Putting aside the complaints regarding the handling of the case by the police and the conflicting statements given by officials, there remains the question of whether there is sufficient evidence to base a charge against Zimmerman. I would like to see the coroner’s report on the trajectory and distance of the gunshot wound as well as audio analysis of the gun shot or shots. I would also like to see evidence of the abrasions on both men. Zimmerman was reportedly bleeding from the struggle but we have not heard many details on Martin’s other injuries.
Zimmerman would be wise to secure criminal counsel. There is probably enough here for an indictment. The most salient facts against him are (1) the statement on the 911 tape showing animus, (2) the disregarded instructions not to follow Martin, (3) the advantage in weight and possession of a firearm in the struggle, and (4) the lack of any weapon or proof of criminal conduct by Martin.
What do you think about the state of the evidence?
Here is the Zimmerman tape: 911 Tape (Zimmerman)
Here is a witness tape: 911 Tape (1)
Here is a witness tape: 911 Tape (2)
Source: CNN
@Gene H. – OK Einstein once more into the breach…
Circular Logic:
1) SotB must be wrong as Gene H is right and can prove it.
2) Gene H. can’t actually PROVE anything with minute details about organic life when the BIGGER picture about ALL organic life, its complexities and interdependencies (and the universe) screams (or is ostensibly) was from super-sentient architecture.
(NOT Intelligent Design which is actually pure bunk).
3) SotB must be wrong because Gene H has a strange understanding of online dictionary definitions. He seems to dispute them even when copy & pasted verbatim. Even though the definitions seem to dispute him (i.e. the noun “belief”, or belief system, can’t possibly apply to evolutionists? WTF?)
4) But Gene H must be right and SotB must be wrong because Gene H believes it to be so. And they both can’t be right or wrong. Why? Because Gene H said so.
5) What makes Gene H a subj matter expert on NatSel? He possibly went to college for 4+ years. What about SotB? He didn’t… WELL THERE YOU GO… SotB must be wrong – right?
6) Well SotB doesn’t understand NatSel, Science, and must be one of those ill-formed science-hatin’ Creationists… well how do you know that? Gene said so and around and around we go on this puerile benighted merry-go-round…
@Otteray Scribe – There was a reason why I didn’t involve you into any theological debate. I didn’t want to jeopardize the apparent nice relationship we have. So please feel free to ignore my postings in that venue. I’m trying to stop anyway but for some reason it keeps coming up. Why don’t you introduce us to a new topic of conversation? I’m game…
@Gene H. – As usual you totally miss the point. Never mind I’ll just move on (he said ad infinitum). I already know what he is and IMHO he is much better suited for intellectual debate than you are. You use circular reason like a badge of honor. You make unsubstantiated claims about you, me, and Natural Selection as if they were etched-in-stone “facts” when they are just opinions and specious theories. Why must I wait for you to SAY I’m a Fundie when it is ostensibly obvious by your jaded negative comments about me and my alleged lack of scientific knowledge?
Topicality is a suggestion, especially on new threads, sonofthunderboanerges. This is an older thread. There are newer threads to cover the Martin case. Meandering is just fine. Some of the most entertaining theads hear are meanders. However, you were the one who sowed the wind. If you don’t like reaping the whirlwind? Too bad. Go hide in the basement.
sonofthunderboanerges,
Sorry! You don’t get off that easy.
“OK Gene I bow to the KCR (King of Circular Reasoning).”
Prove my reasoning is circular. You made the claim. You hold the burden of proof. Your claiming it to be so without proof is just another unfounded opinion. Do you even know what circular logic is? Let me help you with that. It’s a logical fallacy in which the conclusion of an argument is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises – like beggging the question that God exists and then coming to a conclusion that implicitly or explicitly requires the existence of God to be true. Sound familiar, Mr. “Gestalt”?
I can demonstrate my logics are both linear and formally sound, so if you can prove they are circular, you need to get to work.
“I’m really done with your arguably ridiculous benighted and puerile diatribe.”
Also, that word you keep using – “puerile”. There is nothing sophmoric or adolescent about my arguments. They are evidence, logic and fact based. As for “benighted”; overtaken by darkness or night or existing in a state of intellectual, moral, or social darkness? A thing is neither puerile or beinighted simply because you don’t like it, cannot defeat the logic of it or it doesn’t conform to your beliefs. Only the willfully ignorant think empirically gained facts and knoweldge are anything other than intellectual, moral and social light. The light of reason to be precise. That is why is was referred to as “The Age of Enlightenment”. Then again, you’ve proven you don’t know what that word means either.
You’re done alright.
Just not in the sense you think.
Fatfingered that one: “science.”
I have been on line very little the past few days due to work load and some other issues. I do not engage in theological arguments. Everyone has to stand on their own. Theology is opinion. Sience is facts. I prefer facts; they are challenging enough without obfusicating them with random unprovable opinions.
@Otteray Scribe – You should read the context. I did not really invoke your name for those reasons. I was only mentioning you as a resource to help us (Melisha and I) have an offline forum but someone said we could just stay here because no one really cares about going off-topic. Which I thaught was a no-no.
I also mentioned you as I was trying to say that I was civil to your I-friends as they were your friends (Friend of my friend etc?). But one in particular just wouldn’t stop with the invective attacks so I responded in kind. Which I regret now if you are now chastising me for it?
My comments about so-called “psychopaths” was not in a clinical reference. It was a reference to certain obfuscated members of the intelligence community who display some of those personality traits when in field operations. Of course they are not clinically diagnosed that way as that would make them unfit for duty. I mentioned that in them joking around with each other (kinda’ sorta’) they sometimes refer to themselves as unofficial “psychopaths”, when they probably more likely have a borderline personalty disorder. In any event, it seems to help them carry out very “dark” operations necessary within global counter-terrorism. In my opinion that is.
SoTB, I see that you have invoked my name several times upthread. I have not waded through the comments, so am not sure of the full context; however, please do not use me as some sort of weight in making your arguments. I am a scientist with a forensic specialty. I have no interest whatsoever in theological arguments about the GPS coordinates of either heaven or hell, even if such places exist, which I doubt.
BTW, “psychopath” is not a term of art, and neither is “sociopath.” Those are lay terms of convenience. The correct term is antisocial personality disorder and there is a very specific algorythmic formula for making that paricular psychiatric diagnosis.
http://www.accg.net/antisocial.htm
@Gene H. – OK Gene I bow to the KCR (King of Circular Reasoning). I’m really done with your arguably ridiculous benighted and puerile diatribe.
Truth be told, I never actually went to college, yet I know you probably did. IMHO my autodidact and polymath acumen involves a much more diverse education versus a matriculated person who is experiencing an expensive yet narrow rote education – IMHO that is. I’m not dissin’ college students now! I wish I did have that financial opportunity in life. Christopher Langan and I can’t be that lucky I guess… 🙂
sonofthunderboanerges,
I didn’t mention you being a Fundamentalist at all. I mentioned that you were demonstrating that you don’t understand science, the scientific method, evolution and its contingent mechanisms or what some words mean.
“I start to transform into his puerile Doppelganger and he responds in kind.”
Actually I proved your word usuage, statements and assertions about evolution were factually incorrect. If you think facts a puerile because they don’t conform to your belief system, that’s your problem. Learn to argue better.
“Any profiler would summarize that he is assuming some sort of egotistical stance based on his chose of words, invectives, and type of attacks toward me. I haven’t attempted to show-off or verbally attack anyone except him.”
OS actually is a profiler. That’s part of his day job. Why don’t you ask him what he thinks?
“I’m really a nice guy when you get to know me.”
That doesn’t mean you’re right.
“After awhile though I tend to burn bridges behind me as I can be a social klutz at times.”
It could have something to do with your apparent thin-skinned/inference problem.
@Blouise – OK granted. But you and others know that I play well with others and I try to be courteous even if I don’t agree with something. He starts exchanging barbs with me because he thinks he’s found an easy Fundamentalist target. I start to transform into his puerile Doppelganger and he responds in kind. Any profiler would summarize that he is assuming some sort of egotistical stance based on his chose of words, invectives, and type of attacks toward me. I haven’t attempted to show-off or verbally attack anyone except him. I’m really a nice guy when you get to know me. After awhile though I tend to burn bridges behind me as I can be a social klutz at times. Esp. when I go MIA for long periods of time or say the wrong thing forgetting social protocols.
@Malisha – Jeopardy comes on ABC-TV I think at 7PM weekdays EST. You just have to answer problems in the form of a question and earn escalating points then get bonus points at final Jeopardy. I am amazed at some people’s acumen. I get a lot of them but there are some that I have no clue what the answer is. Like Natural Selection and Atheism – no not really! 🙂
sonofthunderboanerges,
1) “Again you twist things to your advantage. I meant that there is no *burden of proof* that an “opinion” be truthful. [. . .] IMO you have offered ANY credible evidence in rebuttal yet. What you call “empirical” could very well be observational-error, which I posit Darwin (et al) were guilty of.”
Opinion. I have twisted nothing. You seem Hellbent on doing some twisting though. You failure to understand the words you use is not my problem. I have presented both logic, corrected improper definitions on your part and presented evidence in the form of a report on an experiment demonstrating that natural selection is a real observable and testable natural process. You are the one absent evidence. You made claims about Darwin’s work? Prove them. As claimant, the burden of proof rests with you.
2. “Again you misunderstand. PROOF,in your world, is arguably the ‘smoking gun’ type evidence that definitively PROVES something is true. That really can’t be done if the recipient has a biased viewpoint as to what empirical TRUTH actually is and rejects piecemeal dissenting evidence as it appears as he/she has a gestalt-deficit, as you do. You seem to have a problem with spatial-concepts and part-whole-relationships. Sometimes piecemeal evidence can be used to build a larger picture (i.e. gestalt). But when one summarily rejects it on a case-by-case basis, failing to see the gestalt, well proof is no longer objective. And empirical evidence is really only what the person sees and tests coming to a conclusion which could actually be false (i.e. original claimed size of the Universe?, etc.)”
No. I understand proof just fine. Proof is objective. A=A. That’s why it’s called proof. Facts are called facts because they have objective proof of their reality. It is objective and verifiable which what makes it definitive. Bias does not play into it, but evidence and testability do. Now that you can’t understand objective proof because of your bias is entirely your problem. I have not demonstrated any composition or division errors either whereas your statements are riddled with logical fallacies, not the least of which is begging the question, so pardon me while I dismiss your “gestalt” argument as the crap argument that it is.
3. “No actually I was copy & pasting from online dictionaries – for the most part. I admit paraphrasing sometimes.”
Having access to a tool and knowing how to use it are not the same thing. Just so, paraphrasing is not actual understanding.
4. “'[snip] Argumentum ad hominem is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic of the person supporting it.’ Agreed. You did do that toward me a few times…’”
Actually I didn’t but since the entirety of your outrage is based on that misrepresentation, I’ll point out that what was your inability to tell the difference between comments directed at your statements versus comments directed at your person has now morphed into the logical fallacy of a straw man.
5. “’What I said was clearly and plainly about the nature of your statement and not a claim about you.’” And it was. “Yeah tacitly implying that I’m a f****** idiot who doesn’t have psychic abilities to know how to use tact for unidentified Ashkenazim-Jews.” It’s not my fault you don’t know the difference between “imply” and “infer”. Your poor inference (which seems to be deliberate to give you rationalization for being the first to abandon civility) is not my problem, but rather yours.”
6. “Just so, everything else I’ve stated has been to your statements of your beliefs as if they were assertions of fact when they are demonstrably not.”
End of story, your self-rationalizing qualification notwithstanding.
7. “’Feel free to believe whatever you like. Feel free to say what you like about your beliefs. Don’t expect them to go unchallenged.’ Thanks… Even when they aren’t directed at you?”
Yep. But especially if they are directed at me. You make the statements, you own the responses solicited or not.
8. “’I don’t care about your persona. I’m interested in your fallacious and/or erroneous statements. You have the right to your opinions. You do not have the right to have them not challenged. If that’s what you think? Boy howdy, have you come to the wrong place.’ And your baseless assertion of so-called ‘fallacious and/or erroneous statements’ are your opinion too.”
Actually my assertions are based on proofs, making them fact until proven otherwise, not opinion. Your inability to properly understand the concepts notwithstanding.
9. “'[snip]So let me get this straight: You feel that I feel that EVERY comment (and sub-part of said comment) in your posting was ad hominem (attacking me for just being me)? And MY defintions are faulty? Let’s see that would be a scathing indictment against Webster et al. ‘
‘No. I mean exactly what I said without your interjections. What I originally said goes to your statement. If you are so thin skinned as to take comments directed at your statements explicitly and try to distort them to take personal offense, that’s entirely your problem. I don’t do tacit when it comes to ad homimen. If I’m going to attack you, I’ll do it directly.’
Yeah I can see that in your “f****** idiot” veiled invective… No I’m hardly thin-skinned.”
Apparently either you are thin-skinned or you don’t understand the meaning of the word “if” and the difference in the words “implicit” and explicit”.
“It appears you are as you must continue to respond with your specious absolute arguments about *this and that* as if you actually know what your talking about.”
Just because you are losing an argument that doesn’t make mine specious. You also mistake absolute for factual. If my facts are wrong? Prove them wrong. Until then, my argument isn’t specious, but rather factual. So far, I’ve shown you don’t even know the meanings of the words you use, let alone have any evidence, i.e. facts, to back your assertions.
“So far you have made a great mainstream academia bandwagon-parrot for which you falsely accuse me of.”
Again, I only think people don’t understand science when they demonstrably don’t understand science. Like you. Also, I don’t accuse you of being a “great mainstream academia bandwagon-parrot”. I said you parroted a term without understanding it. You raise a straw man.
10. “’I hope your profession isn’t some critical public safety scenario that involves some sort of intellectual acumen. Yes that was ad hominem! Quid pro quo…sorry…’ [- your words.]
“’And I think you’re an idiot who’s opinion of my intellect means absolutely nothing to me in light of your own demonstrated lack of one and I hope you haven’t been allowed the opportunity to pass on your faulty genes.’”
You asked for it. Also, intelligence is – like most human traits and characteristics – shaped by both genes and environment.
11. “’Oh! That’s right! Darwin was full of shit.’ I never said that.”
No, but your every post has been attempting to discredit either Darwin, evolution or natural selection to it is a reasonable inference to make that you are out to discredit him.
12. “’However, I do invite you to take your faux apology and stick it firmly up your ass right next to where you store your head.’ I don’t remember apologizing. [. . .] They say you savants have problems detecting sarcasm.”
Oh I understand sarcasm just fine, hence the use of “faux”. And technically speaking, I’m not a savant. Again, you should not use words you don’t understand. Just because someone smarter than you doesn’t mean they are a savant.
13. “’That’s quid pro quo. If you want to play this game instead of arguing proofs?’ No I don’t want to play your puerile game as I already told OS and Malisha. You have not offered any ‘objective proofs’, just regurgitated copy & pastes of minutiae and failing to see the big picture. That’s just my opinion of course.”
And a demonstrably factually wrong opinion at that. Appeal to whomever you wish. I’ve proven that you don’t know the meanings of the terms you use and pointed to evidence that is scientifically valid and factual that you dismiss as “minutiae” because it does not conform to your preconceptions and belief system. Evidence is evidence. Your refusal to accept the proof of it is your intellectual and logical failing and no one else’s.
14. “’I will win it too.’ OK if you say so… You become the pariah not me for needlessly cluttering up this thread because of a puerile bruised ego.”
Your assumption is that you’ve somehow bruised my ego. I clearly don’t give a dman what you think of me. How could you possibly bruise my ego? You, on the other hand, are stomping about like a child being told he can’t have his cake and eat it too, so I’ll let the audience decide who has the bruised ego.
15. “’Appeal to OS all you like.’ Thanks for your permission… no really…”
You’re welcome.
16. ‘“If you want to remove the civility component by conflating that by attacking your statements I am somehow attacking you and use that for an excuse for going ad hominem? Knock yourself out, dingus. I’ve got insults that can strip paint. See? I don’t mince words when it comes to ad hominem.” Yup… I detect a bruised ego… Are you also a narcissist or do you have borderline personality disorder too?”
You’ve proven your skills at detection are sub-par at best. As to BPD or narcissism? Nope. I’ve seen more psychiatrists and psychologists than a lab rat over all my years of being in G&T programs and they all describe me as a highly intelligent, auto-didactic polymath with an extremely well integrated personality. Thanks for asking though. I will, however, tear you a new ass if you just want to swap insults. Ask OS as you are want to do. He knows me quite well. You do know he’s a psychological professional, right?
17. “’I’d rather focus on your opinions not being backed by proof, ergo being belief based instead of fact based and the weight that should be given to those statements in that light. You bemoan the change of subject, yet you keep brining the matter up. If you don’t want your opinions on the matter challenged? Don’t bring them up. Again . . . you have the right to your opinion. You have the right to express it, even to present it as fact, but you do not have the right to have your opinions and assertsions go unchallenged. If you want a captive, receptive and compliant audience for your flavor of choice Bible studies, might I suggest that a free speech forum isn’t the best place to find one.’ Which you haven’t demonstrated yet. Your version of ‘proof’ seems to be very SUBJECTIVE (yawn).”
You’ve already shown you don’t know what “subjective” and “objective” mean as it relates to proof. My proof was and is objective. It is based on facts as demonstrable via observations and repeatable tests. Those observations were made on snail, but similar observations, tests and conclusions have been made with fruit flies, ants, bacteria and other fast breeding, short lived populations. You haven’t defeated my one instance of proof in the slightest. I carry no burden to supply additional proof until you refute my standing proof with substantive evidence. So far, your “proof” is nothing but the statement and re-statement of your opinion, which is not a fact.
“I keep bringing the matter up with others. You just keep popping in with your specious assertions.”
I will keep popping with factual assertions you fail to rebut with objective evidence as long as you keep asserting fallacious and erroneous beliefs as if they were proof of something other than your beliefs.
“I really don’t want to continue this as we are NOT really debating.”
Actually we are really debating, as in having a contention by words or arguments. You’re just losing terribly as a logical, factual and evidential matter.
“We’re just exchanging barbs at one anther and no one is learning anything except how your bruised ego takes precedence over informed debate.”
Just like your weak insults failed to arouse anything other than my amusement, but I sure seem to have pissed you off. When your “argument” such as it is gets anywhere near “informed”, be sure to send me a post card. Because your beliefs are “informed” by wishful thinking, not facts. Again, veracity in opinion is not required, but in proofs, it is essential.
“I vote we stick to George Zimmerman…”
That is entirely up to you.
However, if you keep talking about evolution as if you have a clue though, I’m just going to jump right back in on the subject.
Hey Woosty, thank you!
I’m going to check in to that. Do you blog there? wow! LIFE INTEREST, maybe it will find a temporary lodging!
@ SotB: Do you not realize that I don’t know how to play Jeopardy? OK, I know it’s a TV game show, but that’s the sum total of my knowledge of that subject. (Little frownie face could go in here)
“So there you go… an indictment from a benighted soul. Oh sorry I guess soul doesn’t fit his artificial paradigm.” —
Oh well, you used the word paradigm, and I had to get off at the last stop. As they say, “one sandwich short of a picnic.”
If you think “paradigm” confuses me, how about this one: “paradigm shift”?
“… how your bruised ego takes precedence over informed debate.” (sonofthunderboanerges)
This is a well intentioned hint: You have no idea how many posters have tried that ploy over the years. Gene’s ego does not bruise.
@Woosty’s still a Cat – Yes Salon.com seems very cool. However, when I attempted to join it said that memberships were temporarily closed.
Malisha there is Salon.com.
@Gene H. – “Do you need help understanding what the word “if” means? Or are you going to continue to conflate to justify your indignation at having your opinions and assertions challenged? Just curious.”
Uhhhh… that is why I said VEILED… DUH!!!
@Woosty’s still a Cat – Don’t feel dissed. I was just copying and pasting a online definition of the word “esoteric”. I may use it too loosely but I’m not trying to exclude people. It’s just that it’s my own personal pet-theory and has not been parsed by any “clubs”, “groups”, or religious organizations. It’s just idle speculation on my part and very well could contain enough “provable” flaws to make me ditch the whole thing in it’s entirety. It’s just a bunch of coincidental biblical assumptions and astronomical facts which caught my eye when I had a lot of time on my hands dealing with my own version of psychopaths (i.e. sitting at my desk ducking them). 🙂
One of the PP’s caught my whiteboard scribbling in my cubicle and tried to decipher it. Fortunately he was not smart enough and he bought my misdirection as to what it really was on the board. Whew!