Mother-fuck. It's happened again.

First topic message reminder :

New York (CNN) -- Protesters poured onto the streets of New York late Wednesday, upset over a grand jury's decision not to indict a police officer in the death of Eric Garner.

They marched at the same time U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that federal officials were moving ahead with a civil rights investigation.

Garner, an unarmed black man, died in July after a white officer, Daniel Pantaleo, put him in a chokehold. Garner's death was later ruled a homicide.

"This fight ain't over. It just begun. I'm determined to get justice for my husband because he shouldn't have been killed in that way. He shouldn't have been killed in any way," said Esaw Garner, his widow.

"He should be here, celebrating Christmas and Thanksgiving and everything else, with his children and his grandchildren. And he can't. Why? Because a cop did wrong. Somebody that gets paid to do right did wrong and he's not held accountable for it. But my husband's death will not be in vain. As long as I have a breath in my body I will fight the fight till the end."

Protesters gathered at various points in Manhattan, including Times Square and Union Square, marching peacefully north as crowds formed near Rockefeller Center for the lighting of the Christmas tree. Columbus Circle was blocked for a time.

There were demonstrations in other cities too, including Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Oakland, California.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/03/justice/new-york-grand-jury-chokehold/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Original Quill wrote:

We have only George Zimmerman's testimony as to what occurred.  The other witness was murdered by Zimmerman.  That makes the sole witness' testimony--that of the murderer--highly suspect.  After all, crooks lie to get out of the trouble they are in; that's just a basic axiom of Anglo-American jurisprudence.

No, we have Jonathan Good's testimony as well. We also have the evidence from the recorded phone call from another neighbour to the police. One could argue about who was doing the shouting before the gunshot, but I would say it was Zimmerman - based on Jonathan Good's testimony.

Original Quill wrote:

That leaves us with only the powers of reasonable inference to reconstruct what happened.  We know Zimmerman, already in a foul mood because of his altercation with his wife, was probably out in the evening looking for trouble.   He spots a lone black child walking home from the store.  Carrying a loaded firearm, and assuming his faux mantle as some kind of official, he plays this game of stalking the black child...he want's someone to beat up on, to appease his foul mood.  What better victim than an inexperienced child, of the wrong race.  Zimmernan eventually catches up to the child.  He is abusive and confrontational, and the meeting turns into a physical altercation.  Incredibly, Zimmerman finds himself losing the fight that he started, so he pulls his gun and kills the child.

We don't know that Zimmerman was in a foul mood - he might have been relieved - or indifferent. He didn't know that Trayvon was walking back from the store.

We know where Zimmerman's car was parked, and I think we can assume that Trayvon passed the car and went down the pathway. By the time Zimmerman got out of his car, Trayvon was on that path going down between the houses. There's no way Zimmerman could have caught up with him whilst he was on the phone to the dispatcher - for a further two minutes. The only way that Zimmerman and Trayvon could have encountered each other is if Trayvon had either waited or had come back along that path towards Zimmerman.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

We have only George Zimmerman's testimony as to what occurred.  The other witness was murdered by Zimmerman.  That makes the sole witness' testimony--that of the murderer--highly suspect.  After all, crooks lie to get out of the trouble they are in; that's just a basic axiom of Anglo-American jurisprudence.

No, we have Jonathan Good's testimony as well. We also have the evidence from the recorded phone call from another neighbour to the police. One could argue about who was doing the shouting before the gunshot, but I would say it was Zimmerman - based on Jonathan Good's testimony.

He is just an inferential witnesses, at best. Other than Zimmerman there were no eyewitnesses.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That leaves us with only the powers of reasonable inference to reconstruct what happened.  We know Zimmerman, already in a foul mood because of his altercation with his wife, was probably out in the evening looking for trouble.   He spots a lone black child walking home from the store.  Carrying a loaded firearm, and assuming his faux mantle as some kind of official, he plays this game of stalking the black child...he want's someone to beat up on, to appease his foul mood.  What better victim than an inexperienced child, of the wrong race.  Zimmernan eventually catches up to the child.  He is abusive and confrontational, and the meeting turns into a physical altercation.  Incredibly, Zimmerman finds himself losing the fight that he started, so he pulls his gun and kills the child.

We don't know that Zimmerman was in a foul mood - he might have been relieved - or indifferent. He didn't know that Trayvon was walking back from the store.

Read my lips.  All we can do is infer.  We have only the inferential picture.

Raggamuffin wrote:We know where Zimmerman's car was parked, and I think we can assume that Trayvon passed the car and went down the pathway. By the time Zimmerman got out of his car, Trayvon was on that path going down between the houses. There's no way Zimmerman could have caught up with him whilst he was on the phone to the dispatcher - for a further two minutes. The only way that Zimmerman and Trayvon could have encountered each other is if Trayvon had either waited or had come back along that path towards Zimmerman.

You need facts in order to infer.  Where Zimmerman parked has no factual bearing on Trayvon's actions.  You are just making this up.

I think from this you should be able to see how far you have to stretch in order to blame Trayvon for anything.  It's just fantasy bullshit.  Yet, that's precisely what the jury did, too. They wanted to acquit a white man, and they did.

When everything is taken into account, only racism accounts for the jury's verdict.

Raggamuffin wrote:You're assuming that Zimmerman thought that Trayvon was suspicious because he was black. Zimmerman said nothing to indicate that at all.  

Zimmerman referred to blacks in his 911 call.

Raggamuffin wrote:That is incorrect - listen to it again.

No, it is correct.  You posted the tape that confirms it.

Raggamuffin wrote:You're the one who said that Zimmerman is white, so why are you bringing his appearance into it? I can't help it if Americans say he's white - I say he's not white. If people are going to bring race into it at all, they can't concentrate on Trayvon's race only.

It’s irrelevant what you think.  The simple fact is that Zimmerman wanted to vent his frustrations, and along came a black child he felt he could freely harm.  Furthermore, what is more important is that he was considered white by a Southern jury, which acquitted him for that reason.

Raggamuffin wrote:The jury heard the evidence and concluded that Zimmerman did not murder Trayvon based on that evidence. They didn't side with "the white man" because Zimmerman is not white.

The only evidence the jury heard were the false, but exculpatory words of the killer...Zimmerman.  Apart from his lies, a part of the problem with this case is that the jury was/is racist as well.  In fact, I think it's the major issue for all of the rest of the US population.

Raggamuffin wrote:How so? Trayvon had a head start on Zimmerman, and he really wasn't far from his father's house.

How do you know that Trayvon didn't run?

Because there is no evidence that he was running.  One of the things you cannot do in a court of law is argue something for which there is no evidence.  You may argue from inference, but there has to be facts establishing the inference.  

Furthermore, Trayvon had no reason to run.  He was walking home from the store.  Zimmerman was stalking him, met up with him and murdered him.  You don't need to invent a lot of suppositions when there are straight-forward, real facts from which to piece together what happened.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, we have Jonathan Good's testimony as well. We also have the evidence from the recorded phone call from another neighbour to the police. One could argue about who was doing the shouting before the gunshot, but I would say it was Zimmerman - based on Jonathan Good's testimony.

He is just an inferential witnesses, at best.  Other than Zimmerman there were no eyewitnesses.

You'll have to define what you mean by "inferential witness", but Jonathan Good's testimony was very clear to me.

Original Quill wrote:

You need facts in order to infer.  Where Zimmerman parked has no factual bearing on Trayvon's actions.  You are just making this up.

I think from this you should be able to see how far you have to stretch in order to blame Trayvon for anything.  It's just fantasy bullshit.  Yet, that's precisely what the jury did, too.  They wanted to acquit a white man, and they did.

When everything is taken into account, only racism accounts for the jury's verdict.

Where Zimmerman was parked has everything to do with whether Zimmerman could have caught up with Trayvon or not. I didn't say it had anything to do with Trayvon's actions. You're the one making things up to suit your agenda. Please tell me how Zimmerman could have caught Trayvon up when Trayvon was already going down the path towards his father's house. Go on - stop deflecting and just explain it properly.

The only thing that could account for your complete bias and refusal to accept the facts is that you cannot accept that Trayvon could have confronted Zimmerman and overpowered him. Why do you not accept that? Do you think that a black person would never do something like that?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:You're assuming that Zimmerman thought that Trayvon was suspicious because he was black. Zimmerman said nothing to indicate that at all.  

Zimmerman referred to blacks in his 911 call.

No he didn't. Please quote from the tape what he said about "blacks".

He was asked if the person was white, black, or Hispanic. He replied "he looks black". A little later he said "he's a black male". I think he said that because at first he wasn't sure, so he was confirming it. At no point did Zimmerman make any reference to "blacks".

Original Quill wrote:

It’s irrelevant what you think.  The simple fact is that Zimmerman wanted to vent his frustrations, and along came a black child he felt he could freely harm.  Furthermore, what is more important is that he was considered white by a Southern jury, which acquitted him for that reason.

It's very relevant what I think when you keep telling me that Zimmerman is white because I don't think he's white. If you don't want me to comment about that, don't keep telling me that he's white.

So now you say it's a "fact" that Zimmerman wanted to vent his frustrations. Please provide some evidence of that or just admit that you're making assumptions.

What is your evidence that the jury acquitted him because they considered him to be white? Please provide proper evidence, not just another of your daft assumptions.

The fact that you keep calling Trayvon a "child" says a lot really. Are you trying to convince me that he wasn't capable of overpowering Zimmerman because he was a "child"?

Original Quill wrote:

No, it is correct.  You posted the tape that confirms it.

This is what you said:

I think you are wrong. His exact words were: 'Fucking punks, these assholes always get away'.

Those were not his exact words. His exact words were "these assholes, they always get away".

The "fucking punks" bit came later.

Original Quill wrote:

The only evidence the jury heard were the false, but exculpatory words of the killer...Zimmerman.  Apart from his lies, a part of the problem with this case is that the jury was/is racist as well.  In fact, I think it's the major issue for all of the rest of the US population.

Not true. Zimmerman didn't even testify.

They heard a lot of evidence from other people. You really are just trolling now aren't you?

Please provide evidence that the jury was racist.

Original Quill wrote:

Because there is no evidence that he was running.  One of the things you cannot do in a court of law is argue something for which there is no evidence.  You may argue from inference, but there has to be facts establishing the inference.  

Furthermore, Trayvon had no reason to run.  He was walking home from the store.  Zimmerman was stalking him, met up with him and murdered him.  You don't need to invent a lot of suppositions when there are straight-forward, real facts from which to piece together what happened.

George Zimmerman had no reason to falsely claim that Trayvon was running, so I think that was true. I think that Trayvon stopped running though and he went back to find Zimmerman.

Are you now suggesting that Trayvon was not aware of Zimmerman's presence at all before the altercation?

Your post is just full of assumptions. Don't you hold yourself up as some kind of legal expert? You're not doing very well at it.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

He is just an inferential witnesses, at best.  Other than Zimmerman there were no eyewitnesses.

You'll have to define what you mean by "inferential witness", but Jonathan Good's testimony was very clear to me.

Gladly.  Inferential evidence is distinguished from direct evidence.  If I see (perceived) John leave for work at 7 am, I am a direct witness of when he left for work.  On the other hand, if I did not see John leave for work this morning, but I know he is in the habit of leaving at 7 am, every day without exception, I may infer that he left at 7 am.

In the first case I was a percipient (I perceived) witness.  In the latter case, I connected his departure time to his habit, and I inferred what time he left.  In the latter case I was an inferential witness.

An inferential witness must give foundational evidence--that is, he must establish the factual foundation on which he bases his inference.  What are the surrounding circumstances on which he bases his inference?  This is because an inferential witness is considered inherently less reliable a source, than one who actually perceived an event.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You need facts in order to infer.  Where Zimmerman parked has no factual bearing on Trayvon's actions.  You are just making this up.

I think from this you should be able to see how far you have to stretch in order to blame Trayvon for anything.  It's just fantasy bullshit.  Yet, that's precisely what the jury did, too.  They wanted to acquit a white man, and they did.

When everything is taken into account, only racism accounts for the jury's verdict.

Where Zimmerman was parked has everything to do with whether Zimmerman could have caught up with Trayvon or not. I didn't say it had anything to do with Trayvon's actions. You're the one making things up to suit your agenda. Please tell me how Zimmerman could have caught Trayvon up when Trayvon was already going down the path towards his father's house. Go on - stop deflecting and just explain it properly.

The only thing that could account for your complete bias and refusal to accept the facts is that you cannot accept that Trayvon could have confronted Zimmerman and overpowered him. Why do you not accept that? Do you think that a black person would never do something like that?

Or, you simply don't have any facts on which to back-up your conclusions. Where was Trayvon? Where did he start from? How far away was Zimmerman? How fast does Trayvon walk? How fast does a stalker walk? How fast does a stalker walk when he wants to catch up with his victim? You are building your argument on inferential evidence.

Remember, an inferential witness must give the foundational facts on which he bases his conclusion. You have none. You just assert your conclusion and stamp your foot.



That's not proper argument form.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Zimmerman referred to blacks in his 911 call.

No he didn't. Please quote from the tape what he said about "blacks".

He was asked if the person was white, black, or Hispanic. He replied "he looks black". A little later he said "he's a black male". I think he said that because at first he wasn't sure, so he was confirming it. At no point did Zimmerman make any reference to "blacks".

But that was the topic of the conversation, wasn't it? Again, you are trying to build inferential claims without any facts. What facts do you have to say Zimmerman "wasn't sure?" What facts do you have that "he was confirming it?" What facts do you have to say what Zimmerman was thinking? None.

On your last point (At no point did Zimmerman make any reference to "blacks"), I beg to differ with you. Nobody but Zimmerman made any reference to race ("blacks"). Those were Zimmerman's very words. The policeman only asked what was the description of the person; he was in no position to say what was the race of the person. All the talk about blacks came from Zimmerman, including the comment that 'they always get away.'

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It’s irrelevant what you think.  The simple fact is that Zimmerman wanted to vent his frustrations, and along came a black child he felt he could freely harm.  Furthermore, what is more important is that he was considered white by a Southern jury, which acquitted him for that reason.

It's very relevant what I think when you keep telling me that Zimmerman is white because I don't think he's white. If you don't want me to comment about that, don't keep telling me that he's white.

So now you say it's a "fact" that Zimmerman wanted to vent his frustrations. Please provide some evidence of that or just admit that you're making assumptions.  

What is your evidence that the jury acquitted him because they considered him to be white? Please provide proper evidence, not just another of your daft assumptions.

The fact that you keep calling Trayvon a "child" says a lot really. Are you trying to convince me that he wasn't capable of overpowering Zimmerman because he was a "child"?

If your opinion of the facts of this case is relevant to the case, that means that you were there.  Or at least your opinion figures into the facts in some material way...such as, you were on the jury.  Otherwise, your opinion does not figure into the facts, which, by definition, means it is irrelevant.  

I don't say you can't have an opinion of the case.  I do too.  But don't confuse your opinion with being relevant to the case.

Turning to the jury, we have been discussing my evidence of the racial bias of the jury for some four pages.  There is the fact that the jury accepted the perp's story wholesale, when everybody knows crooks always lie (the defense always gives exculpatory reasons).  There is the fact that the perp was admittedly stalking the victim for no reason whatsoever.  There is the fact that the perp confronted the victim.  There is the the fact that the perp was carrying a loaded firearm.  There is the fact that having initiated all of the above, the perp ends up murdering the victim.  Afterwards, there is the fact that Zimmerman had only barely detectable scratches--which easily could have been self-inflicted--when he claimed some big altercation took place.

Against all of the facts of the case, the jury comes up with an acquittal.  Focusing on that decision, we have a white perp, and a black victim.  There being no logical reason for an acquittal, and this being in a southern state, I am left with no alternative but to conclude that this was a racially motivated verdict.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The only evidence the jury heard were the false, but exculpatory words of the killer...Zimmerman.  Apart from his lies, a part of the problem with this case is that the jury was/is racist as well.  In fact, I think it's the major issue for all of the rest of the US population.

Not true. Zimmerman didn't even testify.

They heard a lot of evidence from other people. You really are just trolling now aren't you?

Please provide evidence that the jury was racist.

A defendant rarely testifies, leaving himself vulnerable to cross-examination. So the defense story is inevitably gleaned from those interviews given to the police right after the crime. (This is why you should listen to lawyers when they tell you to shut up per Miranda rules; you are just providing evidence to be used by the other side.) In this case, Zimmerman was playing the role of the completely cooperative person, so he gave full, if suspect, statements.

If you didn't know that, you don't watch enough TV.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Because there is no evidence that he was running.  One of the things you cannot do in a court of law is argue something for which there is no evidence.  You may argue from inference, but there has to be facts establishing the inference.  

Furthermore, Trayvon had no reason to run.  He was walking home from the store.  Zimmerman was stalking him, met up with him and murdered him.  You don't need to invent a lot of suppositions when there are straight-forward, real facts from which to piece together what happened.

George Zimmerman had no reason to falsely claim that Trayvon was running, so I think that was true. I think that Trayvon stopped running though and he went back to find Zimmerman.

Veracity of a witness is always in question. Zimmerman has every reason to lie on any given point. After all, he was on trial for his life. Zimmerman had the time, and opportunity, to concoct a story that would exculpate him.

Raggamuffin wrote:Are you now suggesting that Trayvon was not aware of Zimmerman's presence at all before the altercation?

To the contrary, at some point the stalking by Zimmerman drew Trayvon's attention. This was established by the testimony about the cell phone conversation that Trayvon was having with Rachel Jeantel during his walk home. What the facts clearly show is that Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon with a loaded firearm, he confronted him and murdered him. The rest is smoke.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You'll have to define what you mean by "inferential witness", but Jonathan Good's testimony was very clear to me.

Gladly.  Inferential evidence is distinguished from direct evidence.  If I see (perceived) John leave for work at 7 am, I am a direct witness of when he left for work.  On the other hand, if I did not see John leave for work this morning, but I know he is in the habit of leaving at 7 am, every day without exception, I may infer that he left at 7 am.

In the first case I was a percipient (I perceived) witness.  In the latter case, I connected his departure time to his habit, and I inferred what time he left.  In the latter case I was an inferential witness.

An inferential witness must give foundational evidence--that is, he must establish the factual foundation on which he bases his inference.  What are the surrounding circumstances on which he bases his inference?  This is because an inferential witness is considered inherently less reliable a source, than one who actually perceived an event.

Jonathan Good described what he saw - one bloke on top of another, and according to his description of those two people, Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman in a straddling position, and there were arm movements going downwards. He didn't see the actual shooting because he went to call the police, and then after the shooting he saw Trayvon lying on the ground and Zimmerman standing up. That is direct eyewitness evidence and there's nothing "inferential" about it.

Did you actually see his evidence at all? He was very careful not to let either the prosecution or defence put words into his mouth - he described exactly what he saw and heard. He was a very credible witness IMO.

If you'd like to actually see what he said, here is his testimony. It's long of course, but of course you would like to be accurate when discussing this issue, wouldn't you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsdLMBUvhAM

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Not true. Zimmerman didn't even testify.

They heard a lot of evidence from other people. You really are just trolling now aren't you?

Please provide evidence that the jury was racist.

A defendant rarely testifies, leaving himself vulnerable to cross-examination.  So the defense story is inevitably gleaned from those interviews given to the police right after the crime.  (This is why you should listen to lawyers when they tell you to shut up per Miranda rules; you are just providing evidence to be used by the other side.)  In this case, Zimmerman was playing the role of the completely cooperative person, so he gave full, if suspect, statements.
If you didn't know that, you don't watch enough TV.  

So you acknowledge that the jury did not hear the words of Zimmerman, as you claimed in your previous post.

Good.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Where Zimmerman was parked has everything to do with whether Zimmerman could have caught up with Trayvon or not. I didn't say it had anything to do with Trayvon's actions. You're the one making things up to suit your agenda. Please tell me how Zimmerman could have caught Trayvon up when Trayvon was already going down the path towards his father's house. Go on - stop deflecting and just explain it properly.

The only thing that could account for your complete bias and refusal to accept the facts is that you cannot accept that Trayvon could have confronted Zimmerman and overpowered him. Why do you not accept that? Do you think that a black person would never do something like that?

Or, you simply don't have any facts on which to back-up your conclusions.  Where was Trayvon?  Where did he start from?  How far away was Zimmerman?  How fast does Trayvon walk?  How fast does a stalker walk?  How fast does a stalker walk when he wants to catch up with his victim?  You are building your argument on inferential evidence.

Remember, an inferential witness must give the foundational facts on which he bases his conclusion.  You have none.  You just assert your conclusion and stamp your foot.



That's not proper argument form.  

Your whole argument has been based on vague and unsubstantiated assumptions made by you.

There are several possibilities as to where Trayvon was at the time Zimmerman was on the phone to the dispatcher. The point is that he did not go home, and don't bother to say that he didn't go home because he was dead on the floor - I'm talking about the period of time before the altercation and the shooting when Zimmerman was on the phone to the dispatcher. There was plenty of time for Trayvon to get home during that period, but he did not do so. Can you suggest why he did not?

Have you looked at a map of the area at all?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No he didn't. Please quote from the tape what he said about "blacks".

He was asked if the person was white, black, or Hispanic. He replied "he looks black". A little later he said "he's a black male". I think he said that because at first he wasn't sure, so he was confirming it.  At no point did Zimmerman make any reference to "blacks".

But that was the topic of the conversation, wasn't it?  Again, you are trying to build inferential claims without any facts.  What facts do you have to say Zimmerman "wasn't sure?"  What facts do you have that "he was confirming it?"  What facts do you have to say what Zimmerman was thinking?  None.

On your last point (At no point did Zimmerman make any reference to "blacks"), I beg to differ with you.  Nobody but Zimmerman made any reference to race ("blacks").  Those were Zimmerman's very words.  The policeman only asked what was the description of the person; he was in no position to say what was the race of the person.  All the talk about blacks came from Zimmerman, including the comment that 'they always get away.'

The dispatcher said "is he white, black, or Hispanic?". Therefore, it's clear that you have not listened to the phone call at all. Try doing so before you make claims which turn out to be false. Zimmerman did not mention "blacks", as you falsely claim - I've told you what he said, and nowhere did he mention "blacks". When Zimmerman said "they always get away", he did not mention blacks, he mentioned "assholes". Are you now suggesting that "asshole" means a black person?

You clearly know nothing about this case, and you're just making it up as you go along. When you've listened to the phone call, come back and correct all the lies you've told.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's very relevant what I think when you keep telling me that Zimmerman is white because I don't think he's white. If you don't want me to comment about that, don't keep telling me that he's white.

So now you say it's a "fact" that Zimmerman wanted to vent his frustrations. Please provide some evidence of that or just admit that you're making assumptions.  

What is your evidence that the jury acquitted him because they considered him to be white? Please provide proper evidence, not just another of your daft assumptions.

The fact that you keep calling Trayvon a "child" says a lot really. Are you trying to convince me that he wasn't capable of overpowering Zimmerman because he was a "child"?

If your opinion of the facts of this case is relevant to the case, that means that you were there.  Or at least your opinion figures into the facts in some material way...such as, you were on the jury.  Otherwise, your opinion does not figure into the facts, which, by definition, means it is irrelevant.  

I don't say you can't have an opinion of the case.  I do too.  But don't confuse your opinion with being relevant to the case.

Turning to the jury, we have been discussing my evidence of the racial bias of the jury for some four pages.  There is the fact that the jury accepted the perp's story wholesale, when everybody knows crooks always lie (the defense always gives exculpatory reasons).  There is the fact that the perp was admittedly stalking the victim for no reason whatsoever.  There is the fact that the perp confronted the victim.  There is the the fact that the perp was carrying a loaded firearm.  There is the fact that having initiated all of the above, the perp ends up murdering the victim.  Afterwards, there is the fact that Zimmerman had only barely detectable scratches--which easily could have been self-inflicted--when he claimed some big altercation took place.

Against all of the facts of the case, the jury comes up with an acquittal.  Focusing on that decision, we have a white perp, and a black victim.  There being no logical reason for an acquittal, and this being in a southern state, I am left with no alternative but to conclude that this was a racially motivated verdict.

There was a logical reason for the acquittal - the evidence that Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman before the shooting - ie, self defence. The injuries to Zimmerman's head were there, whether you like it or not. There is nothing to suggest those injuries were self-inflicted.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

George Zimmerman had no reason to falsely claim that Trayvon was running, so I think that was true. I think that Trayvon stopped running though and he went back to find Zimmerman.

Veracity of a witness is always in question.  Zimmerman has every reason to lie on any given point.  After all, he was on trial for his life.  Zimmerman had the time, and opportunity, to concoct a story that would exculpate him.

Raggamuffin wrote:Are you now suggesting that Trayvon was not aware of Zimmerman's presence at all before the altercation?

To the contrary, at some point the stalking by Zimmerman drew Trayvon's attention.  This was established by the testimony about the cell phone conversation that Trayvon was having with Rachel Jeantel during his walk home.  What the facts clearly show is that Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon with a loaded firearm, he confronted him and murdered him.  The rest is smoke.

What reason did Zimmerman have for telling the dispatcher that Trayvon ran?

If Trayvon was being followed and he knew that he was being followed, you don't think that's a good reason to run?

The second part of your post is just speculation, and it doesn't tie in with the evidence given at the trial.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Gladly.  Inferential evidence is distinguished from direct evidence.  If I see (perceived) John leave for work at 7 am, I am a direct witness of when he left for work.  On the other hand, if I did not see John leave for work this morning, but I know he is in the habit of leaving at 7 am, every day without exception, I may infer that he left at 7 am.

In the first case I was a percipient (I perceived) witness.  In the latter case, I connected his departure time to his habit, and I inferred what time he left.  In the latter case I was an inferential witness.

An inferential witness must give foundational evidence--that is, he must establish the factual foundation on which he bases his inference.  What are the surrounding circumstances on which he bases his inference?  This is because an inferential witness is considered inherently less reliable a source, than one who actually perceived an event.

Jonathan Good described what he saw - one bloke on top of another, and according to his description of those two people, Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman in a straddling position, and there were arm movements going downwards. He didn't see the actual shooting because he went to call the police, and then after the shooting he saw Trayvon lying on the ground and Zimmerman standing up. That is direct eyewitness evidence and there's nothing "inferential" about it.

Did you actually see his evidence at all? He was very careful not to let either the prosecution or defence put words into his mouth - he described exactly what he saw and heard. He was a very credible witness IMO.

If you'd like to actually see what he said, here is his testimony. It's long of course, but of course you would like to be accurate when discussing this issue, wouldn't you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsdLMBUvhAM

You have to take each witness's testimony and evaluate the credibility.  Credibility of a witness involves opportunity or extent to perceive, perception, memory and veracity or trustworthiness.  Whenever there is testimony of fast moving action, it draws into question the opportunity or extent of perception element.  It's like, which frame in the motion picture film do you want to describe?  Things move...what Mr. Good saw in the instant he looked, may be completely different in the next second.  In his testimony he reflects a limited extent of perception.

He is not a good witness for a fast moving event because he only describes the event in static terms...or he only gives one frame in the film.  Common sense says his credibility goes right out the window.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Or, you simply don't have any facts on which to back-up your conclusions.  Where was Trayvon?  Where did he start from?  How far away was Zimmerman?  How fast does Trayvon walk?  How fast does a stalker walk?  How fast does a stalker walk when he wants to catch up with his victim?  You are building your argument on inferential evidence.

Remember, an inferential witness must give the foundational facts on which he bases his conclusion.  You have none.  You just assert your conclusion and stamp your foot.



That's not proper argument form.  

Your whole argument has been based on vague and unsubstantiated assumptions made by you.

There are several possibilities as to where Trayvon was at the time Zimmerman was on the phone to the dispatcher. The point is that he did not go home, and don't bother to say that he didn't go home because he was dead on the floor - I'm talking about the period of time before the altercation and the shooting when Zimmerman was on the phone to the dispatcher. There was plenty of time for Trayvon to get home during that period, but he did not do so. Can you suggest why he did not?

Have you looked at a map of the area at all?

Right. You see? There are several possibilities, as you say, and you don't know. If we are unable to know, then we we can't engage in any speculation.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Jonathan Good described what he saw - one bloke on top of another, and according to his description of those two people, Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman in a straddling position, and there were arm movements going downwards. He didn't see the actual shooting because he went to call the police, and then after the shooting he saw Trayvon lying on the ground and Zimmerman standing up. That is direct eyewitness evidence and there's nothing "inferential" about it.

Did you actually see his evidence at all? He was very careful not to let either the prosecution or defence put words into his mouth - he described exactly what he saw and heard. He was a very credible witness IMO.

If you'd like to actually see what he said, here is his testimony. It's long of course, but of course you would like to be accurate when discussing this issue, wouldn't you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsdLMBUvhAM

You have to take each witness's testimony and evaluate the credibility.  Credibility of a witness involves opportunity or extent to perceive, perception, memory and veracity or trustworthiness.  Whenever there is testimony of fast moving action, it draws into question the opportunity or extent of perception element.  It's like, which frame in the motion picture film do you want to describe?  Things move...what Mr. Good saw in the instant he looked, may be completely different in the next second.  In his testimony he reflects a limited extent of perception.

He is not a good witness for a fast moving event because he only describes the event in static terms...or he only gives one frame in the film.  Common sense says his credibility goes right out the window.

I did evaluate Jonathan Good's testimony, and it was very credible IMO. He didn't embellish anything, he didn't say he saw something when he didn't, he was very careful about his replies, and he corrected both the prosecution and the defence if they tried to imply he said something that he didn't say.

Common sense says that you reject his evidence just because it doesn't fit with your agenda.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Your whole argument has been based on vague and unsubstantiated assumptions made by you.

There are several possibilities as to where Trayvon was at the time Zimmerman was on the phone to the dispatcher. The point is that he did not go home, and don't bother to say that he didn't go home because he was dead on the floor - I'm talking about the period of time before the altercation and the shooting when Zimmerman was on the phone to the dispatcher. There was plenty of time for Trayvon to get home during that period, but he did not do so. Can you suggest why he did not?

Have you looked at a map of the area at all?

Right.  You see?  There are several possibilities, as you say, and you don't know.  If we are unable to know, then we we can't engage in any speculation.

Of course I don't know - I wasn't there. What I am sure of is that Trayvon could have got home by the time Zimmerman got off the phone with the dispatcher. I say that because I've looked at the map and the distances involved. Have you done that?

Speaking of speculation, nearly all your posts have involved speculation, and the rest have involved downright lies.

Did anyone watch the trial?

I did.

Stooo wrote:Did anyone watch the trial?

I did.

I did!

Did you wonder why the prosecution were calling defence witnesses? I thought that was a bit odd really.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If your opinion of the facts of this case is relevant to the case, that means that you were there.  Or at least your opinion figures into the facts in some material way...such as, you were on the jury.  Otherwise, your opinion does not figure into the facts, which, by definition, means it is irrelevant.  

I don't say you can't have an opinion of the case.  I do too.  But don't confuse your opinion with being relevant to the case.

Turning to the jury, we have been discussing my evidence of the racial bias of the jury for some four pages.  There is the fact that the jury accepted the perp's story wholesale, when everybody knows crooks always lie (the defense always gives exculpatory reasons).  There is the fact that the perp was admittedly stalking the victim for no reason whatsoever.  There is the fact that the perp confronted the victim.  There is the the fact that the perp was carrying a loaded firearm.  There is the fact that having initiated all of the above, the perp ends up murdering the victim.  Afterwards, there is the fact that Zimmerman had only barely detectable scratches--which easily could have been self-inflicted--when he claimed some big altercation took place.

Against all of the facts of the case, the jury comes up with an acquittal.  Focusing on that decision, we have a white perp, and a black victim.  There being no logical reason for an acquittal, and this being in a southern state, I am left with no alternative but to conclude that this was a racially motivated verdict.

There was a logical reason for the acquittal - the evidence that Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman before the shooting - ie, self defence. The injuries to Zimmerman's head were there, whether you like it or not. There is nothing to suggest those injuries were self-inflicted.

But that evidence lacks credibility.

There were no injuries.  A scratch is ordinary wear and tear. I think that is the point of why the Police didn't take Zimmerman to the hospital. Only after Zimmerman concocted his story did he have to come up with the claim of a head injury.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Veracity of a witness is always in question.  Zimmerman has every reason to lie on any given point.  After all, he was on trial for his life.  Zimmerman had the time, and opportunity, to concoct a story that would exculpate him.



To the contrary, at some point the stalking by Zimmerman drew Trayvon's attention.  This was established by the testimony about the cell phone conversation that Trayvon was having with Rachel Jeantel during his walk home.  What the facts clearly show is that Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon with a loaded firearm, he confronted him and murdered him.  The rest is smoke.

What reason did Zimmerman have for telling the dispatcher that Trayvon ran?

If Trayvon was being followed and he knew that he was being followed, you don't think that's a good reason to run?

Did Trayvon ever tell you or Zimmerman why he ran, if he did (that is Zimmerman's contention, not Trayvon's)? You can't speculate on another person's state of mind.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Stooo wrote:Did anyone watch the trial?

I did.

I did!

Did you wonder why the prosecution were calling defence witnesses? I thought that was a bit odd really.

But unfortunately, you didn't understand anything of what was going on.  It would be like me watching an open heart surgery, and going away thinking I'm an expert now.

It was a good experience for you, no doubt.  Now go attend 3-years of law school, and a couple of years post-grad in trial law and evidence, and another couple of years in criminal law.  Seven years from now we could have this conversation.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There was a logical reason for the acquittal - the evidence that Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman before the shooting - ie, self defence. The injuries to Zimmerman's head were there, whether you like it or not. There is nothing to suggest those injuries were self-inflicted.

But that evidence lacks credibility.

There were no injuries.  A scratch is ordinary wear and tear.  I think that is the point of why the Police didn't take Zimmerman to the hospital.  Only after Zimmerman concocted his story did he have to come up with the claim of a head injury.

I don't think the evidence lacks credibility. There were injuries - they were there when he was taken to the police station.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

What reason did Zimmerman have for telling the dispatcher that Trayvon ran?

If Trayvon was being followed and he knew that he was being followed, you don't think that's a good reason to run?

Did Trayvon ever tell you or Zimmerman why he ran, if he did (that is Zimmerman's contention, not Trayvon's)?  You can't speculate on another person's state of mind.

Why not? You've been doing it for several pages.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I did!

Did you wonder why the prosecution were calling defence witnesses? I thought that was a bit odd really.

But unfortunately, you didn't understand anything of what was going on.  It would be like me watching an open heart surgery, and going away thinking I'm an expert now.

It was a good experience for you, no doubt.  Now go attend 3-years of law school, and a couple of years post-grad in trial law and evidence, and another couple of years in criminal law.  Seven years from now we could have this conversation.

I know that it's not usual for the prosecution to call defence witnesses. They can't cross-examine them you see.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:



You have to take each witness's testimony and evaluate the credibility.  Credibility of a witness involves opportunity or extent to perceive, perception, memory and veracity or trustworthiness.  Whenever there is testimony of fast moving action, it draws into question the opportunity or extent of perception element.  It's like, which frame in the motion picture film do you want to describe?  Things move...what Mr. Good saw in the instant he looked, may be completely different in the next second.  In his testimony he reflects a limited extent of perception.

He is not a good witness for a fast moving event because he only describes the event in static terms...or he only gives one frame in the film.  Common sense says his credibility goes right out the window.

I did evaluate Jonathan Good's testimony, and it was very credible IMO. He didn't embellish anything, he didn't say he saw something when he didn't, he was very careful about his replies, and he corrected both the prosecution and the defence if they tried to imply he said something that he didn't say.

Common sense says that you reject his evidence just because it doesn't fit with your agenda.

Common sense says the earth is flat.  There is no such thing as common sense.  Let's leave that one alone.

Correct and appropriate evaluation of Good's testimony is not the free-wheeling toss-off that you envision.  There are standards.  The standards in evaluating testimony I have mentioned above: opportunity to perceive, perception, memory and trustworthiness.  Between these four, there must be no inconsistencies.  For example, if a witness says it was day, when in fact we know it was night, we have reason to doubt that witness' testimony.  These are the standards to be applied, which they teach you in law school.

In Good's case we have a witness describing a static picture, when we know it was a tussle with the two rolling around in action.  Good says Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman; we know that can't be true throughout.  How did they get on the ground?  Who went down first?  Who pulled who down first?  I know some martial arts moves in which you pull your opponent down on top of you; it doesn't mean he has the upper hand!  He could be completely incapacitated.  At the point where Good just describes a frozen image, when we know it was action, we know Good didn't see it all.  (This is all to be brought out in cross-examination.)  Good's testimony becomes completely suspect.  We know he either had a perception problem, or he has veracity (trustworthiness) problems (remember, these are Southerners).

(A good display of this is in the trial scene of Joe Pesci's My Cousin Vinny, when he cross-examines the percipient witnesses each, and finishes with: I got no more use for this witness!!  It is classic cross-examination of a percipient witness--albeit, with a brusque Brooklyn attitude and accent.)

It's only inexperienced people, who don't think about all the inconsistencies--who don't put themselves in the circumstances of the witness--who get sucked in by false testimony.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But unfortunately, you didn't understand anything of what was going on.  It would be like me watching an open heart surgery, and going away thinking I'm an expert now.

It was a good experience for you, no doubt.  Now go attend 3-years of law school, and a couple of years post-grad in trial law and evidence, and another couple of years in criminal law.  Seven years from now we could have this conversation.

I know that it's not usual for the prosecution to call defence witnesses. They can't cross-examine them you see.

It happens all the time.  In fact, the judge usually insists upon it in order to move the trial along.  Otherwise, you would have overwhelming and time-consuming redundancy.

And yes, you can cross-examine any witnesses that are adverse, regardless of which side calls them.  You work all that out before hand, in motions-in-limine or procedural motions.  http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1291  There’s a whole world that goes on behind the scenes that you know nothing about.

Raggamuffin wrote:Why not? You've been doing it [speculation] for several pages.

To the contrary, I have been pointing out the proper way to transform speculation into valid inference.  Haha...you just haven't been listening in class.  There’s a well-established way to get inference into evidence…you have to have foundational facts to establish the difference between speculation and reasonable inference.  We have already covered all of this.

Quill, come back when you've watched the trial and established the facts. You don't know enough about it to make informed comments.

RAGGS obviously has the hots for Zimmerman !!!

WHY ELSE does she repeatedly claim the fallacious existence of non-existent "eyewitnesses", despite all evidence to the contrary ???

WHY does she continue to put the KKK/NRA argument forward claiming it to be part of her "court transcripts" ~ and despite the fact that Raggs's excerpts clearly aren't the same trial transcripts that the rest of us will have seen !      


NOTE ALSO, that after publicly declaring me a "liar and a racist" last week, that brainless diminutive piece of crap 'Raggamuffin' has still failed utterly in finding one minute skerrick of proof to back up her weak scurrilous libelous and slanderous filth.      

Lone Wolf wrote:

RAGGS obviously has the hots for Zimmerman !!!

WHY ELSE does she repeatedly claim the fallacious existence of non-existent "eyewitnesses", despite all evidence to the contrary ???

WHY does she continue to put the KKK/NRA argument forward claiming it to be part of her "court transcripts" ~ and despite the fact that Raggs's excerpts clearly aren't the same trial transcripts that the rest of us will have seen !      


NOTE ALSO, that after publicly declaring me a "liar and a racist" last week, that brainless diminutive piece of crap 'Raggamuffin' has still failed utterly in finding one minute skerrick of proof to back up her weak scurrilous libelous and slanderous filth.      

Racist!

Raggamuffin wrote:Quill, come back when you've watched the trial and established the facts. You don't know enough about it to make informed comments.

Come back when I've watched the movIe?? Hahaha...I already know the ending.

I've read the book.



...in that order.

Raggs seems to be doing her level best on here to single-handedly fill the racist/sexist/fascist voids left behind with the departures of the likes of smellybum', Li'lAndy, Tess, Scrat and goodol'whats'ername over the past year...

We all come at such an issue from our own perspective, if not biases. Raggs' debating style does tend to keep to the issues, and she is not always playing 'gotcha', if you know what I mean. She occasionally tosses a personal flame, but mostly sticks to the subject matter.

At least the issue gets a good airing.