Trayvon Martin Case

[3rdnlng]

Been following it. The story was shown on Good Morning America yesterday and some cable news outlets last night.

 

Al Sharpton (predictably) and his Nation Action Network will be there in FL on Thursday.

 

Apparently the alleged perpetrator had a fixation on crime and young black males. Sounds like a fake-ass Elvis Presley.

 

At the end of the day, the fact that Zimmerman was not arrested on the scene is an absolute farce. The dispositive legal issue is that he got out of his vehicle, with a weapon, under no pretense that he was in danger or that Martin had committed a felonious act, to pursue an individual who was unarmed, and moving away from him, and that Zimmerman is taller and 100 lbs heavier than Mr. Martin.

 

Those are incontrovertible facts that will be dispositive in both the criminal case against the Zimmerman, the civil suit against Zimmerman, and what (in this ESQ's estimation) should probably be a colorable negligent entrustment action against the housing community/community-watch group.

 

On the strength of those facts, Zimmerman should have been arrested. In most square places, Zimmerman is awaiting arraignment right now.

 

This is what you wrote well over a year ago. Sounds like you had pretty much made up your mind.

[3rdnlng]

Any intrepid prosecutor should be glad to have this case and provide justice for his family given the facts.

 

 

1. Who started the struggle - the only one who knows that is Zimmerman (assuming that if there were eye-witnesses with substantive details it would have led to Zimmerman's arrest). The court, though, is obliged to draw inferences based on circumstantial data.

 

a. The victim, by all accounts and in consideration of the 911 tape, was retreating what he felt was an escalating situation. Zimmerman, in consideration of the same data, wasn't going after Martin to ask him to stop by and play Madden. There is enough circumstantial data to suggest that Zimmerman had already escalated the matter by going against the police's admonitions. The reasonable person can infer that Zimmerman continuing that escalation in his confrontation with Martin.

 

b. Juries are asked everyday to draw inferences based on an appraisal of presented data

 

Off the 2nd page of this thread. Circumstantial evidence would seem to back up GZ more than your pure speculation would make GZ at fault.

[Joe Miner]

 

The only thing that matters and what your post above demonstrates, is that you can't even argue your own contention that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.

 

You'd rather just throw stones and create diversions.

 

OK, carry on then...

 

Reading is hard for you I take it?

 

You've invented a narrative about what you think I've said and are trying your best to argue against it.

 

You're like a reincarnation of OC. Equally as narcissistic, and equally as wrong most of the time.

[Juror#8]

This is what you wrote well over a year ago. Sounds like you had pretty much made up your mind.

 

Yep. That was my initial same day reaction to what was known.

 

I said "Allegedly" with respect to his "fixation" with black folks and I mentioned that he should have been arrested.

 

I also listed facts, which are true to this day, besides the weight difference.

 

I then spent the next 20 posts from March and April, 2012 mentioning to anyone who would listen that all the facts weren't in, we should wait for more details, and that Zimmerman deserved a fair trial.

 

How about you post those posts from A YEAR AGO.

 

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

Reading is hard for you I take it?

 

You've invented a narrative about what you think I've said and are trying your best to argue against it.

 

You're like a reincarnation of OC. Equally as narcissistic, and equally as wrong most of the time.

 

Nope. Nothing invented.

 

Anyone can read our correspondence from a page ago and figure out who said what and why. I advise that they do that.

 

Off the 2nd page of this thread. Circumstantial evidence would seem to back up GZ more than your pure speculation would make GZ at fault.

 

Circumstantial data doesn't back Zimmerman and I never said Zimmerman wasn't attacked.

 

I said that we didn't know.

 

You're the one trying to create a narrative of omniscience and then getting emotional when you're called on it.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Juror#8

[3rdnlng]

You listen to schit that happened 100 years ago (other than Jackie Robinson not getting to play in a spring training game) and assume that it's a racist community now? I heard that this guy Zimmermann had lacerations both on the front of his neck and the back. How true? Who knows? He could have done it to himself. All the people getting their panties all in a wad should just sit back and let it play out. As Darin said, remember the Duke lacrosse player f'up? How about Tawnya Brawley? Don't be so anxious to come to conclusions.

 

Juror #8---this was my first post in this thread that had anything to do with possible guilt and all I said was that we should let it play out. Did you notice the difference between the way you immediately were prejudiced against GZ versus my neutrality?

[unbillievable]

Yep. That was my initial same day reaction to what was known.

 

I said "Allegedly" with respect to his "fixation" with black folks and I mentioned that he should have been arrested.

 

I also listed facts, which are true to this day, besides the weight difference.

 

I then spent the next 20 posts from March and April, 2012 mentioning to anyone who would listen that all the facts weren't in, we should wait for more details, and that Zimmerman deserved a fair trial.

 

How about you post those posts from A YEAR AGO.

 

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

As an outside observer, I did note that while you feel that you were being objective, the fact is that it read like you believed Zimmerman was guilty, and was just waiting for the details to come out in court. Like those old Columbo episodes where you knew who did it, but still patiently waited for the end to to find out the how's and why's of the crime.

 

Personally, I believe that one thug killed another;

...and the only thing that we can learn from this case is being a WHITE hispanic is somehow relevant. I wonder if the news would be as compelling if a BLACK oriental shoots an ASIAN redneck.

[Juror#8]

As an outside observer, I did note that while you feel that you were being objective, the fact is that it read like you believed Zimmerman was guilty, and was just waiting for the details to come out in court. Like those old Columbo episodes where you knew who did it, but still patiently waited for the end to to find out the how's and why's of the crime.

 

That's a fair observation. And I can't say that I necessarily disagree with you on that. I think that my thoughts are more about my dissatisfaction with how Zimmerman handled a fight with someone younger and smaller than him with no weapon. I think it was a "B word" move.

 

I'll let you in on a little secret - I think that it went down like this...

 

Zimmerman stopped pursuing Trayvon. Trayvon thought that Zimmerman was still pursuing him and was running frantically towards the direction of home. Trayvon probably saw Zimmerman from a distance retreat back towards his vehicle or otherwise "away" from him. Trayvon had time to process Zimmerman, his build, what he looked like, his mannerisms and wondered "what the !@#$ am I running away from this Ni99a for" and felt emboldened to go H.A.M.

 

He probably went back to ask why Zimmerman was following him. Zimmerman may have called him a "punk" or suggested that he had some mens rea. Trayvon may have called him a "B word" or whatever. Trayvon probably threw the first punnch.

 

And the rest is history.

 

That's what I truly believe happened.

 

It may not be what happened. There is evidence to the contrary and that evidence is compelling. But it's what I think happened.

 

But even though I *think* that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, there is nothing to substantiate that so I'm stuck in the same conjectural boat as everyone else.

 

I'm just the contrarian because I'm willing to admit that we're all in a conjectural boat.

 

Juror #8---this was my first post in this thread that had anything to do with possible guilt and all I said was that we should let it play out. Did you notice the difference between the way you immediately were prejudiced against GZ versus my neutrality?

 

I can see the differences in your first response versus mine.

 

But mine was more based on my thoughts about Zimmerman as a person who chases someone and then gets all B word when things get a little "hood."

 

I still feel that way. But I stopped discussing it after the first day.

 

How the altercation happened, I see that differently.

[dayman]

In here facts = Zimerman's account. That is all there is to say.

[B-Man]

In here facts = Zimerman's account. That is all there is to say.

 

LOL.....................that misrepresentation of the replies is all you ever can say..............................

 

 

 

 

 

Yep. That was my initial same day reaction to what was known.

 

I said "Allegedly" with respect to his "fixation" with black folks and I mentioned that he should have been arrested.

 

I also listed facts, which are true to this day, besides the weight difference.

 

I then spent the next 20 posts from March and April, 2012 mentioning to anyone who would listen that all the facts weren't in, we should wait for more details, and that Zimmerman deserved a fair trial.

 

How about you post those posts from A YEAR AGO.

 

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

 

Another post that is just too funny to pass on.....................our own Ed Begley is offended that his own posts were quoted..............lol

 

don't you know that his position evolved ?

 

"The juror doth protest too much, methinks"

 

 

 

.

[Rob's House]

People are getting too caught up in the actual case. What is most noteworthy about this case, and the ONLY reason it's being discussed nationally, is because of the shameful way it was depicted in the media and used as a political football.

 

This case was eye opening for me. It illustrated and filled in the details of a theory I've developed over the years about the way people process information. It led me to do a research paper on cognitive bias as it applies to the criminal justice system. It turns out, research on the topic confirmed and clarified my theory (which is a little ironic given the subject).

 

The two types of bias most relevant to this case are selective information processing and belief perseverence.

 

Selective information processing is pretty self explanatory. You weigh evidence consistent with your beliefs greater than equally reliable evidence to the contrary. So if you believe that young black males are regularly shot down by racists who are then given a wink and a pat on the back by racist law enforcement, then that's what you'll see. Similarly, if you believe that such phenomena is overstated, you will weigh the evidence accordingly. We all do this. All of us. It's human nature.

 

To me what is more interesting is the belief perseverence part. Studies have shown that people will cling to beliefs (as well as guns and bibles, but I digress) even after the initial basis of those beliefs has been discredited. We've seen that here as well. Most everyone who assumed Zimmerman was guilty at the outset still holds that belief. When the evidence that clouds the issue started to come out they clung to whatever they could to maintain that belief ("he disobeyed the cop's order" - which is a false statement; "he was stalking Trayvon" - an unfounded statement, etc.) Some have backed off the zealotry with which they initially argued their case, but I can't think of think of any who don't still think Zimmerman should go to prison.

Edited May 31, 2013 by Rob's House

[DC Tom]

People are getting too caught up in the actual case. What is most noteworthy about this case, and the ONLY reason it's being discussed nationally, is because of the shameful way it was depicted in the media and used as a political football.

 

This case was eye opening for me. It illustrated and filled in the details of a theory I've developed over the years about the way people process information. It led me to do a research paper on cognitive bias as it applies to the criminal justice system. It turns out, research on the topic confirmed and clarified my theory (which is a little ironic given the subject).

 

The two types of bias most relevant to this case are selective information processing and belief perseverence.

 

Selective information processing is pretty self explanatory. You weigh evidence consistent with your beliefs greater than equally reliable evidence to the contrary. So if you believe that young black males are regularly shot down by racists who are then given a wink and a pat on the back by racist law enforcement, then that's what you'll see. Similarly, if you believe that such phenomena is overstated, you will weigh the evidence accordingly. We all do this. All of us. It's human nature.

 

To me what is more interesting is the belief perseverence part. Studies have shown that people will cling to beliefs (as well as guns and bibles, but I digress) even after the initial basis of those beliefs has been discredited. We've seen that here as well. Most everyone who assumed Zimmerman was guilty at the outset still holds that belief. When the evidence that clouds the issue started to come out they clung to whatever they could to maintain that belief ("he disobeyed the cop's order" - which is a false statement; "he was stalking Trayvon" - an unfounded statement, etc.) Some have backed off the zealotry with which they initially argued their case, but I can't think of think of any who don't still think Zimmerman should go to prison.

 

Is your paper a professional work? If so, I'd like to read it.

[3rdnlng]

People are getting too caught up in the actual case. What is most noteworthy about this case, and the ONLY reason it's being discussed nationally, is because of the shameful way it was depicted in the media and used as a political football.

 

This case was eye opening for me. It illustrated and filled in the details of a theory I've developed over the years about the way people process information. It led me to do a research paper on cognitive bias as it applies to the criminal justice system. It turns out, research on the topic confirmed and clarified my theory (which is a little ironic given the subject).

 

The two types of bias most relevant to this case are selective information processing and belief perseverence.

 

Selective information processing is pretty self explanatory. You weigh evidence consistent with your beliefs greater than equally reliable evidence to the contrary. So if you believe that young black males are regularly shot down by racists who are then given a wink and a pat on the back by racist law enforcement, then that's what you'll see. Similarly, if you believe that such phenomena is overstated, you will weigh the evidence accordingly. We all do this. All of us. It's human nature.

 

To me what is more interesting is the belief perseverence part. Studies have shown that people will cling to beliefs (as well as guns and bibles, but I digress) even after the initial basis of those beliefs has been discredited. We've seen that here as well. Most everyone who assumed Zimmerman was guilty at the outset still holds that belief. When the evidence that clouds the issue started to come out they clung to whatever they could to maintain that belief ("he disobeyed the cop's order" - which is a false statement; "he was stalking Trayvon" - an unfounded statement, etc.) Some have backed off the zealotry with which they initially argued their case, but I can't think of think of any who don't still think Zimmerman should go to prison.

 

This is the problem I have with Juror #8. He initially stated that GZ hunted TM down and they had an altercation. I always felt that the proximity of GZ's vehicle to where the altercation took place was a crucial point in GZ's contention that he was returning to his vehicle. The location of the vehicle didn't come out right away. When it did, it backed GZ's story. That wasn't good enough for Juror #8. He then claimed TM could have gotten lost in the dark and rain and just stumbled back upon GZ. That's why I don't think he truly has evolved to a neutral position. I started out neutral and have evolved (with the caveat that there is no substantial hidden evidence) towards believing in GZ's story, but only because the evidence would appear to back that story up.

[Rob's House]

Is your paper a professional work? If so, I'd like to read it.

B+, so not really. It was a casualty of a time crunch and narrower scope than I'd have liked, but the footnotes reference solid research (which references even more solid research). I'll email it to you if you'd like.

 

This is the problem I have with Juror #8. He initially stated that GZ hunted TM down and they had an altercation. I always felt that the proximity of GZ's vehicle to where the altercation took place was a crucial point in GZ's contention that he was returning to his vehicle. The location of the vehicle didn't come out right away. When it did, it backed GZ's story. That wasn't good enough for Juror #8. He then claimed TM could have gotten lost in the dark and rain and just stumbled back upon GZ. That's why I don't think he truly has evolved to a neutral position. I started out neutral and have evolved (with the caveat that there is no substantial hidden evidence) towards believing in GZ's story, but only because the evidence would appear to back that story up.

I agree to a point, but to his credit I think he's been more open minded than most in that regard.

[3rdnlng]

B+, so not really. It was a casualty of a time crunch and narrower scope than I'd have liked, but the footnotes reference solid research (which references even more solid research). I'll email it to you if you'd like.

 

 

I agree to a point, but to his credit I think he's been more open minded than most in that regard.

 

I think he's trying to be open minded but his initial impression of GZ was so bad that it's lingering in his mind. The part about GZ should have taken the beating like a man being the cause of Juror's disgust toward him is rather silly. Who knows at the point when GZ's head was being slammed into the cement what TM might have said to him or even if he reached for the pistol himself. All I can say is if I was GZ, I wouldn't want Juror #8 to be on my jury.

[Gene Frenkle]

People are getting too caught up in the actual case. What is most noteworthy about this case, and the ONLY reason it's being discussed nationally, is because of the shameful way it was depicted in the media and used as a political football.

 

This case was eye opening for me. It illustrated and filled in the details of a theory I've developed over the years about the way people process information. It led me to do a research paper on cognitive bias as it applies to the criminal justice system. It turns out, research on the topic confirmed and clarified my theory (which is a little ironic given the subject).

 

The two types of bias most relevant to this case are selective information processing and belief perseverence.

 

Selective information processing is pretty self explanatory. You weigh evidence consistent with your beliefs greater than equally reliable evidence to the contrary. So if you believe that young black males are regularly shot down by racists who are then given a wink and a pat on the back by racist law enforcement, then that's what you'll see. Similarly, if you believe that such phenomena is overstated, you will weigh the evidence accordingly. We all do this. All of us. It's human nature.

 

To me what is more interesting is the belief perseverence part. Studies have shown that people will cling to beliefs (as well as guns and bibles, but I digress) even after the initial basis of those beliefs has been discredited. We've seen that here as well. Most everyone who assumed Zimmerman was guilty at the outset still holds that belief. When the evidence that clouds the issue started to come out they clung to whatever they could to maintain that belief ("he disobeyed the cop's order" - which is a false statement; "he was stalking Trayvon" - an unfounded statement, etc.) Some have backed off the zealotry with which they initially argued their case, but I can't think of think of any who don't still think Zimmerman should go to prison.

That sounds great. I think the first principal is also known as confirmation bias. A classic example is the nurse believing that a full moon produces more and more bizarre nightly cases in an emergency room. On an especially heavy night, a nurse might say "must be a full moon tonight". If there is one, the tendency is for that nurse to remember it, thus confirming the bias. If there isn't one, the nurse writes it off as an anomaly and soon forgets it. The hits are the only thing remembered over time and that nurse will swear that the myth is absolutely true. The only way to accurately say such a thing is to collect hard data over time and then do statistical analysis, which is much more boring than saying "must be a full moon tonight".

 

The second is even more self-evident to me than the first. You see it everywhere you look, though I won't go off on a religious rant here. It takes a critical mind I think to get to a point where one can change one's beliefs based on empirical evidence and logical thought processes. It also requires one to be humble enough to realize that you are capable of being wrong from time to time, but I digress. In my experience, critical thinking seems to fly in the face of human nature and must be learned. An interesting thing I read a while ago that highlights what you're talking about is the penchant for the humans to remember a fact as being true if told that thing was true once, but then later told that it is false, even on multiple occasions. Simple example: I tell you that Polaris (the North Star) is the brightest star in the night sky (it is not). A week later I tell you that Sirius is actually the brightest star in the night sky. The tendency is for you to remember Polaris as the brightest even through multiple corrections.

 

I'd be interested in reading your B+ as well if you feel like sharing it. I mean, you could even start a new thread and paste away. It would do this group some good!

 

I think he's trying to be open minded but his initial impression of GZ was so bad that it's lingering in his mind. The part about GZ should have taken the beating like a man being the cause of Juror's disgust toward him is rather silly. Who knows at the point when GZ's head was being slammed into the cement what TM might have said to him or even if he reached for the pistol himself. All I can say is if I was GZ, I wouldn't want Juror #8 to be on my jury.

You need to come up with a better name than GZ for George...errr...Zimmerman....errr....George Zimmerman. All I can think of is:

 

 

And he's not even white-hispanic.

[3rdnlng]

That sounds great. I think the first principal is also known as confirmation bias. A classic example is the nurse believing that a full moon produces more and more bizarre nightly cases in an emergency room. On an especially heavy night, a nurse might say "must be a full moon tonight". If there is one, the tendency is for that nurse to remember it, thus confirming the bias. If there isn't one, the nurse writes it off as an anomaly and soon forgets it. The hits are the only thing remembered over time and that nurse will swear that the myth is absolutely true. The only way to accurately say such a thing is to collect hard data over time and then do statistical analysis, which is much more boring than saying "must be a full moon tonight".

 

The second is even more self-evident to me than the first. You see it everywhere you look, though I won't go off on a religious rant here. It takes a critical mind I think to get to a point where one can change one's beliefs based on empirical evidence and logical thought processes. It also requires one to be humble enough to realize that you are capable of being wrong from time to time, but I digress. In my experience, critical thinking seems to fly in the face of human nature and must be learned. An interesting thing I read a while ago that highlights what you're talking about is the penchant for the humans to remember a fact as being true if told that thing was true once, but then later told that it is false, even on multiple occasions. Simple example: I tell you that Polaris (the North Star) is the brightest star in the night sky (it is not). A week later I tell you that Sirius is actually the brightest star in the night sky. The tendency is for you to remember Polaris as the brightest even through multiple corrections.

 

I'd be interested in reading your B+ as well if you feel like sharing it. I mean, you could even start a new thread and paste away. It would do this group some good!

 

 

You need to come up with a better name than GZ for George...errr...Zimmerman....errr....George Zimmerman. All I can think of is:

 

 

And he's not even white-hispanic.

 

Did you know that continued use of crack will rot your teeth?

[Gene Frenkle]

Did you know that continued use of crack will rot your teeth?

Somehow the rap game remind me of the crack game.

[dayman]

I started out neutral and have evolved (with the caveat that there is no substantial hidden evidence) towards believing in GZ's story, but only because the evidence would appear to back that story up.

 

I have not read through this entire beastly thread but what evidence backs up that he didn't get out of the car to pursue Trayvon and what evidence supports that Trayvon came out of nowhere and started violently attacking George who at that point was not trying to engage Trayvon? I understand George's story...but you are saying the evidence supports it...these are two of the more important points imo.....the 911 call he says he was following him and -while I could be missing something- I have heard of nothing other than Zimmerman's own words that suggest Trayvon ran, then came back and started fighting...

Edited May 31, 2013 by SameOldBills

[Gene Frenkle]

I have not read through this entire beastly thread but what evidence backs up that he didn't get out of the car to pursue Trayvon and what evidence supports that Trayvon came out of nowhere and started violently attacking George who at that point was not trying to engage Trayvon? I understand George's story...but you are saying the evidence supports it...these are two of the more important points imo.....the 911 call he says he was following him and -while I could be missing something- I have heard of nothing other than Zimmerman's own words that suggest Trayvon ran, then came back and started fighting...

Prepare to be attacked for talking facts. Luckily for you, if you haven't posted in this thread before, the focus can't easily shifted to you evolving your opinion, which is obviously bad. There are other strategies though.

[Oxrock]

 

 

I have not read through this entire beastly thread but what evidence backs up that he didn't get out of the car to pursue Trayvon and what evidence supports that Trayvon came out of nowhere and started violently attacking George who at that point was not trying to engage Trayvon? I understand George's story...but you are saying the evidence supports it...these are two of the more important points imo.....the 911 call he says he was following him and -while I could be missing something- I have heard of nothing other than Zimmerman's own words that suggest Trayvon ran, then came back and started fighting...

no, the 911 call says he said "ok" when told "you don't need to do that". He stopped following. That's what the 911 call says.