Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« One And A Half Leaders | Main | I Almost Preferred No Explanation... »

April 25, 2012

Comments

Annoying Old Guy
a cell phone is not a weapon, [...] NO WEAPON OTHER THAN Skittles and tea

Skittles and tea are just as much not weapons as a cellphone, so why not include the cell phone in the list? Or why not just describe Martin as "unarmed"? Describing just the skittles and teas but not the cellphone as meaning "unarmed" make no sense to me, leaving only a literal interpretation as reasonable. Count me as one who thinks your "only skittles and tea" implied "no cell phone".

But as I am sure you will inform us it is far more plausible that we were all being mendacious rather than you were unclear and presuming a context we don't share.

On a philosophical note, if everyone else disagrees with you, that doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does make it something you should consider.

boris

Trayvon was relying on the element of surprise ...

... well the element of surprise and the potent heft of a can of ice tea ...

... so, Trayvon's TWO weapons were the element of surprise, the potent heft of a very large container of ice tea, ... and ruthless effeciency ...

wait ... THREE weapons ... er ... surprise ... potent heft ... and ah RUTHLESS effeciency .... and of course FEAR ... um yes ...

Anyway ... FOUR weapons ....

Rick Ballard

boris,

Don't forget the $22. I'll take 2/1 odds there was a little dope as well.

So that settles it.  He stalked George with a depraved mind.

It would take a depraved mind not to hustle back to the TV to watch the game once he'd scored his tea and skittles and whatever.
==============

Kathy Kattenburg

"No offense, but were you a better writer you could have said all that in about two or three sentences."

I'm a decent writer, but I won't win any prizes for conciseness. ;-)

Kathy Kattenburg

"So KK, if he had a cell phone, why didn't Trayvon call 911 when he saw he was being stalked by the hulking white Hispanic?"

Well, I don't know the answer to that question, Strawman. Maybe because he was already on the phone with his girlfriend, and so started telling her what was happening instead of cutting off the call and calling 911. Maybe he would have called 911 but everything happened too quickly. I really don't know why Martin didn't call 911 when he realized he was being followed, any more than I know why George Zimmerman DID call 911 when he saw a young man walking along a path in his apartment complex.

I also don't think, whatever the reason why TM didn't call 911, it means that he wanted to kill George Zimmerman or that he deserved to be shot.

Kathy Kattenburg

"Skittles and tea are just as much not weapons as a cellphone, so why not include the cell phone in the list?"

I don't know, Annoying Old Guy. Maybe because I was taking it for granted that everyone here already knew and agreed that he was carrying a cell phone. Maybe because the assertion that he was carrying only Skittles and tea was being disputed, but nobody had disputed that he was carrying a cell phone. Maybe because I was thinking about the Skittles and tea, and wasn't thinking about the cell phone.

Maybe you can tell me why arguing with me why I should have said he had a cell phone too when no one was disputing he had a cell phone is so much more important than arguing the larger issue of why George Zimmerman felt he had to shoot an unarmed teenager, or why he felt he had to follow that teenager in the first place. We can disagree about why those things are, but maybe you can tell me why that larger question is so much less urgent a question to you than why I said he had only Skittles and tea, and did not say that he had a cell phone. As you say, none of these three items are weapons, right? So what does it matter? What difference does it make to the question of why Zimmerman shot Martin, or what happened in the moments before he shot Martin?

"Count me as one who thinks your "only skittles and tea" implied "no cell phone"."

Okay, but what difference does it make? How does having the cell phone change the point that he had no weapon?

"Or why not just describe Martin as "unarmed"?"

I have, many times. That's one of the reasons why I don't understand why you are so upset and angry that I didn't say "TM had only Skittles and tea and a cell phone," when with or without the cell phone mentioned, the young man was unarmed? Why are you arguing totally meaningless points instead of arguing meaningful points?

"But as I am sure you will inform us it is far more plausible that we were all being mendacious rather than you were unclear and presuming a context we don't share."

Because I give you enough credit for common sense to believe you realize that it makes no difference to the point of TM's being unarmed whether I say he had only skittles and tea or whether I say he had only skittles and tea and a cell phone. Because I think the more likely explanation is not that I was unclear but that you don't want to grapple with the actual central issues in this case but would rather pick apart irrelevancies and trivial unimportant points.

"On a philosophical note, if everyone else disagrees with you, that doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does make it something you should consider."

Not necessarily. If everyone disagrees with me, it could mean I am wrong, or it could mean that I am arguing on a conservative blog where most people, or everyone, disagrees with me. I'm sure if you were to argue this subject on a liberal blog, everyone would disagree with your opinions, too. Would that make you believe that you were wrong?

NO_LIMIT_NIGGA

I really don't know why Martin didn't call 911 when he realized he was being followed, any more than I know why George Zimmerman DID call 911 when he saw a young man walking along a path in his apartment complex.

Aside from noting that this latest pile of merde containing a least one more blatant lie ("George Zimmerman DID call 911"), I'll simply make the point that the recording of Zimmerman's police call has been available to the public for review for quite some time. On it, Zimmerman explains why he is calling the police to report Martin. Anyone who doesn't know why Zimmerman called the police has made a conscious decision to not know.

We get it, Kathy. You're stupid. You're ignorant. You're dishonest. You don't understand the Socratic method. You don't understand what the word "only" means. You haven't bothered to review the available evidence.

But you've devoted your heart and soul to sustaining the Riefenstahlian narrative that the evil Zimmerman hunted down poor baby Trayvon that Mother Jones and the rest of the left-wing echo chamber has fed you.

Congratulations on your achievement of becoming a mindless propaganda tool.

boris

"what difference does it make?"

To the extent your extended drivel makes any sense to me it seems you want to evaluate the incident based on the nature of the participants ... unarmed teenager vs armed adult stalker/profiler ... rather than on what happened.

And you frame the nature of the participants in a false and incomplete fashion. Had Trayvon assaulted and beat GZ to death or to the point of brain damage he would have been charged as a 6'2" 170lb adult not as a teenage child.

Kathy Kattenburg

"On it, Zimmerman explains why he is calling the police to report Martin."

Yes, that is true, but the point of our disagreement is that you accept his explanation as legitimate ("legitimate" here means that it adequately explains why he followed TM), and I do not accept his explanation as legitimate. You think his explanation makes sense and I do not. That's the heart of the disagreement. We both agree that Zimmerman explained to the 911 dispatcher why he was calling about TM. What we disagree about is whether we feel that explanation makes sense.

One of the problems here is that we cannot even begin to argue the points we disagree on, when we can't even agree on what it is we're disagreeing about.

Clarice

No, kaka, "the problem" here is that you are closed minded, disinterested in facts, and sold on a demonstrably false narrative, that you are both arrogant and none too bright.

Kathy Kattenburg

"No, kaka, "the problem" here is that you are closed minded, disinterested in facts, and sold on a demonstrably false narrative, that you are both arrogant and none too bright."

Then there's no point in talking to me, is there? I'm sure you have better things to do than to continue talking to someone who believes a false narrative, is arrogant, and none too bright.

Clarice

Exactly so.

Kathy Kattenburg

"To the extent your extended drivel makes any sense to me it seems you want to evaluate the incident based on the nature of the participants ... unarmed teenager vs armed adult stalker/profiler ... rather than on what happened.

And you frame the nature of the participants in a false and incomplete fashion. Had Trayvon assaulted and beat GZ to death or to the point of brain damage he would have been charged as a 6'2" 170lb adult not as a teenage child."

Okay, so if that's how you believe I evaluate the incident, how does it relate to whether I include the cell phone as one of the items TM was carrying? I don't see, in that frame you're positing for what I believe, anything that would be changed by whether I mention that TM had a cell phone in addition to Skittles and tea.

In other words, why don't we try to debate that framework, or evaluation, you see me making, rather than arguing about saying that TM had skittles and tea instead of saying he had skittles and tea and a cell phone?

boris

"when we can't even agree on what it is we're disagreeing about"

Oh there's not much disagreement there ... you have decided the unarmed minority teenager being stalked by a malicious race profiler is the relevant narrative.

Compared to evaluation based on what we can know of the events and a few details known about their personal lives.

My position is the latter is rational and yours is not.

boris

"how does it relate to whether I include the cell phone as one of the items TM was carrying?"

It illustrates your disregard for facts.

So where are we now?  Where's Rod Serling when we need him?

It's even worse, Clarice; I don't think she even really believes this phony narrative she's pushing.
==================

boris

"I don't think she even really believes this phony narrative she's pushing"

Ya ... like how many of the AGW alarmists really believe that carp ...

Annoying Old Guy

Ms. Kattenburg;

Maybe you can tell me why arguing with me why I should have said he had a cell phone too when no one was disputing he had a cell phone is so much more important than arguing the larger issue of why George Zimmerman felt he had to shoot an unarmed teenager, or why he felt he had to follow that teenager in the first place

The point of that is to demonstrate to you that at least one thing you consider a well established fact is not so. I was hoping this might cause you to consider whether other "facts" in your mind were also not so. A more minor point was to show how your description incorporated bias, rather than being a neutral statement of fact (e.g., "unarmed").

For me, if you are unable to get basics like what Martin was carrying at the time he was shot correct because you don't know or can't express it, then there is little point in going on to the important issues. This is because whether Zimmerman was justified in his shooting is highly dependent on facts in that context.

I'm sure if you were to argue this subject on a liberal blog, everyone would disagree with your opinions, too. Would that make you believe that you were wrong?

Not of itself, it would not. But once again you are misreading my comment. I wrote nothing about believing one was wrong because everyone else disagrees, I stated only that you should consider that as a possibility. On that basis one might, for instance, go back and thoroughly check references. And in fact, when it does happen that everyone else disagrees with me, I first double check my facts, references, and logic chains, and then I consider the possibility of miscommunication before doubling down on my claims.

Kathy Kattenburg

"Oh there's not much disagreement there ..."

Okay, so let's go over "what we can know of the events."First, a definition: "What we can know of the events" means "What we can both agree -- BOTH agree -- are the indisputable facts.

As I see it, here are the indisputable facts:

1. George Zimmerman, who was armed with a concealed handgun, fatally shot Trayvon Martin.

2. Before shooting Martin, Zimmerman had called 911 to report what he deemed to be a suspicious person walking in his apartment complex. In response to questions, he identified TM as a black male, in his late teens, wearing a hooded jacket.

2. Trayvon Martin, at the time he was shot, was unarmed. The only items found on his body were a cell phone, a bag of Skittles, and a can of tea.

3. Trayvon Martin's age was 17, and he was a black male. George Zimmerman's age is 28, and he is of mixed ethnic heritage, including being half Hispanic (on his mother's side).

If you agree that these are the indisputable facts of the case, then everything else is disputed and disputable, and must be settled in court.

The worm in the bud.

boris, it's a predictable nemesis for those with the hybris from unnatural success with narratives.
===================

boris

"everything else is disputed and disputable, and must be settled in court"

If I dispute that you are sane does that become disputable and must be settled in court?

I consider the report that Travon was on top of GZ and administering the kind of beating capable of producing injuries consistent with photographs of GZ to be credible. Such details are not inconsistant with a 6'2" 170lb black male about the same age I was when I enlisted assaulting a shorter older person who unfotunately for Trayvon was carrying.

Kathy Kattenburg

"The point of that is to demonstrate to you that at least one thing you consider a well established fact is not so. I was hoping this might cause you to consider whether other "facts" in your mind were also not so. A more minor point was to show how your description incorporated bias, rather than being a neutral statement of fact (e.g., "unarmed")."

I'm sorry, I don't see the logic in any of this.

First bolded sentence: What is the fact that you say I consider well-established when it isn't well-established? Are you saying it's not well established that TM had Skittles and tea on his person when he was shot? Are you saying it's not well established that he also had a cell phone? Are you saying it's not well established that I knew he had a cell phone even though I did not explicitly state that? What is the not well established fact that I am claiming is well established?

Second bolded sentence: "Your statement incorporated bias..." How did my statement that TM was carrying only Skittles and tea when he was shot incorporate bias? I neglected to add that he was carrying a cell phone. Are you saying that my neglecting to add that he was carrying a cell phone incorporated bias? If so, how? In what way did my neglecting to add that TM had a cell phone on his person in addition to Skittles and tea demonstrate bias? Am I biased against cell phones? Am I biased against the idea that a cell phone is not a weapon? Or what?

Extra point: Many of the statements made in this thread and others about the Trayvon Martin case have incorporated bias. Many, many, many things that have been said here are not "neutral statements of fact." Most of what has been said here constitutes conclusions drawn from facts that are not sufficient to justify those conclusions. It's a fact that GZ says he had to shoot TM because TM was punching him and smashing his head against the ground and would have killed him if he hadn't used his gun. It's a fact that he said that. It's NOT A FACT that he's telling the truth -- and even if he believe what he is saying to be the truth and is not lying because he thinks it's the truth, it's STILL NOT A FACT THAT IT IS THE TRUTH, because perceptions and judgment are involved, and there were no eyewitnesses who were physically placed to see everything that happened from beginning to end.

It's beyond my understanding how you can accuse me of being biased against neutral statements of fact when you apparently don't even know what a neutral statement of fact IS.

Kathy Kattenburg

"This is because whether Zimmerman was justified in his shooting is highly dependent on facts in that context."

HOW is whether Zimmerman was justified in his shooting highly dependent on whether he had a cell phone or not, or on whether I say that he had a cell phone?

I'm sorry, this makes zero sense.

boris

Don't pretend you are just commenting on neutral fact ...

You think his explanation makes sense and I do not
Clearly that is a statement incorporating a conclusion on your part. You are not arguing in good faith.

Oh, those lost lonely groves.

Heh, people like this get A's from people like Dana.
==================

NO_LIMIT_NIGGA

"It's beyond my understanding how you can accuse me of being biased against neutral statements of fact when you apparently don't even know what a neutral statement of fact IS."

-- Kathy Kattenburg, Triumph of the Shill

boris

"HOW is whether Zimmerman was justified in his shooting highly dependent on whether he had a cell phone or not, or on whether I say that he had a cell phone?"

It pertains to the apparent lack of good faith on your part.

Kathy Kattenburg

"And in fact, when it does happen that everyone else disagrees with me, I first double check my facts, references, and logic chains, and then I consider the possibility of miscommunication before doubling down on my claims."

As do I. And in this thread, at least, I am the ONLY person who has done that. I did not actually check the police report before say that the police report mentioned that TM was carrying only Skittles and tea. After I was called on it, and given demonstrable proof that the police report did not mention that, I stated here that I had been wrong, that I had failed to check the police report first before making this claim (because I was being lazy, not because I was deliberately lying), and that indeed the police report had NOT said anything about Skittles and tea.

I am no less human than anyone else, and I do make mistakes and get things wrong sometimes. When I do, and it's proved to me that I was wrong, I acknowledge it. So what you say you demand of yourself when told you are wrong, I actually did, and you have yet to show any evidence that you do.

My, my, such a stupid question.

Klew One for Kathy. What's got Alan Dershowitz outraged about this case?
===============

NO_LIMIT_NIGGA

I do make mistakes and get things wrong sometimes.

You have included at least one demonstrable lie in each of your comments. And even after those lies have been pointed out to you, you have continued to repeat them.

Kathy Kattenburg

"Don't pretend you are just commenting on neutral fact ...

You think his explanation makes sense and I do not

Clearly that is a statement incorporating a conclusion on your part. You are not arguing in good faith."

You are nuts, man. Of course it's a conclusion and not a neutral statement of fact. I never said otherwise. That is my assessment of the problems we're having in this "discussion," I never labeled it a "neutral statement of fact," and as a conclusion there's nothing wrong with it, unless you're telling me you don't believe GZ's explanation.

You're the one arguing in bad faith, buddy.

Kathy Kattenburg

"You have included at least one demonstrable lie in each of your comments. And even after those lies have been pointed out to you, you have continued to repeat them."

This is itself a lie. I have included no lies in any of my comments.

Kathy Kattenburg

"Klew One for Kathy. What's got Alan Dershowitz outraged about this case?"

I have no idea, Anonymous Commenter. I am not a fan of Alan Dershowitz. He used to be a fine defender of civil liberties, but he's gone so far to the right that he's practically fallen off the edge (if there even is such a thing on the right).

boris

"you're telling me you don't believe GZ's explanation"

GZ's explanation is consistant with his injuries and witness statements in the media. Yours is not.

Annoying Old Guy

Ms. Kattenburg;

Here are some errors in your "indisputable facts" of the case:

2) Zimmerman did not call 911, he called the non-emergency number.

2) What exactly Martin had on his person at the time of his shooting is not, as far as I can tell, public knowledge. Even the evidence you cited, the prosecutors affidavit, only claims he purchased skittles and ice tea, not that any were found on his body. I have yet to see any official mention of a cell phone. Result: not established.

What is the fact that you say I consider well-established when it isn't well-established?

See previous paragraph. Let me also quote this from you --

The latest and most astounding example of that being someone here (I think it was Have Blue but I wouldn't swear to that) actually telling me that IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED that Trayvon Martin had only Skittles and a can of tea on him when he was shot. I mean, someone actually BELIEVES this.

Do you not remember writing that? It seemed such a big deal that you called me "a goddamn fucking FOOL" over it, yet it has now slipped the confines of your memory?

It is difficult to discuss things when you can't remember what I write, but it's absurd when you can't remember what you wrote.

Not much interested in clues, this one.  Just in narratives and partisanship.

Are you suggesting that you aren't interested in Alan Dershowitz's opinion because 'he's gone so far to the right'?
====================

Kathy Kattenburg

"GZ's explanation is consistant with his injuries and witness statements in the media. Yours is not."

That is an opinion, not a fact. It has to be proved in court. It does not have to be proved that Trayvon Martin is dead. That's a fact. It does not have to be proved that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin. That is a fact, admitted to by Zimmerman himself.

Neither you nor any other member of the public has seen any evidence, much less proof, that is *indisputably* consistent with the injuries GZ claims. And as you well know, there are witness statements in the media that do not support GZ's explanation. Your favored witness statements are not more definitive than any others simply because you believe GZ is telling the truth.

Neither one of us has indisputable proof of anything except that the shooting occurred and that Trayvon Martin was killed. Everything else must be proved in court. Which is why we have goddamn courts and trials by jury.

NO_LIMIT_NIGGA

And as you well know, there are witness statements in the media that do not support GZ's explanation.

This is a lie.

narciso

You have to grant her willingness to do the 'Argument Clinic' bordering on abuse, some times, did she apologize for furthering the libeling of the same special forces,that later
took down Bin Laden,

Kathy Kattenburg

"Even the evidence you cited, the prosecutors affidavit, only claims he purchased skittles and ice tea, not that any were found on his body."

So if he bought Skittles and tea, how would the prosecutor even know that he had bought Skittles and tea if they hadn't been on his body when he was shot? Where did they go?

Aren't you curious who lied to you?  And made you look so foolish?

Heh, 'witness statements in the media'. You have a chance to catch another clue here, Kathy. The media narrative is false, deliberately so, and it may be found out who did the deliberating.

You are just a useful idiot, Kathy. Actually, more useful for demonstrating the intellectual poverty of you and yours.
================

Kathy Kattenburg

"Heh, 'witness statements in the media'. You have a chance to catch another clue here, Kathy. The media narrative is false, deliberately so, and it may be found out who did the deliberating."

Whoa! Wait a minute, there! You just said, "GZ's explanation is consistant with his injuries and witness statements in the media." So now all of a sudden "media narratives" are NOT reliable?

boris

"You just said ..."

Wrong commenter Kaka.

"That is an opinion, not a fact. It has to be proved in court."

GZ's explanation is consistant with his injuries and eye witness reports. That is not an opinion and illustrates why people here have a problem with your "facts".

GZ's injuries are at least as indisputable as skittles and tea.

Conclusions of consistency are based on reports we find credible and your assertions to the contrary border on silly.

An ear witness who assumes the cries for help are from the younger person is not a witness to anything but the sound of screams. Support is irrelevant in that case.

Kathy Kattenburg

"Wrong commenter Kaka."

Oh, okay, it's almost impossible to know who's commenting with all the anonymous IDs.

"GZ's explanation is consistant with his injuries and eye witness reports. That is not an opinion and illustrates why people here have a problem with your "facts"."

No, it's not, Boris, which is why I have a problem believing that anyone here knows what a fact even is. Plus, you again say that GZ's injuries are consistent with eyewitness reports when you also tell me that witness reports in the media are unreliable.

Kathy Kattenburg

"No, it's not, Boris,..."

To clarify what I meant by "No, it's not": It's not true that your statement -- "GZ's explanation is consistant with his injuries and eye witness reports." -- is a fact. You said it's not an opinion, it's a fact. Well, no, it IS an opinion and it's NOT a fact.

Kathy Kattenburg

"An ear witness who assumes the cries for help are from the younger person is not a witness to anything but the sound of screams. Support is irrelevant in that case."

Actually, she did not "assume" anything. She was asked who she thought the screams were coming from and she said she couldn't be sure, but they sounded like a younger person's screams. She did not assume anything and she did not state anything other than her own honest perceptions.

Similarly, the eyewitness report you cite to claim that GZ's injuries were consistent with the truth did not see what happened with certainty either, and in addition he did not see the incident from beginning to end. He did not see how it started, and he could not unequivocally identify who was on top and who was no bottom.

I am being accurate and honest and not making claims for the undisputable truth of anything that actually is disputable. You are being utterly dishonest about what a fact is and what an opinion is, and you are being utterly dishonest, inconsistent, and hypocritical about why the witness report that supports what you believe is accurate and the witness report that does not support what you believe is not accurate.

boris

Doesn't matter how many times you claim consistency is an "opinion", won't make it so.

boris

The eye witness statement that the person in the red sweatshirt was on the bottom taking a beating and yelling is consistent with GZ's explanation that he was on the bottom and yelling, the fact that he was wearing a red jacket, and published photographs of his injuries.

Perhaps when it is explained in such a simply manner you can grasp how a conclusion of "consistency" is not just an opinion.

Kathy Kattenburg

"Doesn't matter how many times you claim consistency is an "opinion", won't make it so."

I did not say that consistency is an opinion. YOU said that "GZ's claims are consistent with his injuries and eyewitness reports." This is untrue. You are begging the question of whether GZ even received those injuries he claims to have received. You can't say his claims are consistent with his injuries because NO ONE HAS PRESENTED ANY *INDISPUTABLE* PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of his injuries. So at this point it is still unclear whether he did, indeed, sustain the injuries he said he sustained.

boris

NO ONE HAS PRESENTED ANY *INDISPUTABLE* PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of skittles and tea either, or DeeDee's phone call you moron.

Kathy Kattenburg

"NO ONE HAS PRESENTED ANY *INDISPUTABLE* PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of skittles and tea either, or DeeDee's phone call you moron."

Technically, that's true, but it also has no bearing on the issue of self-defense in the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

NO_LIMIT_NIGGA

You are begging the question of whether GZ even received those injuries he claims to have received. You can't say his claims are consistent with his injuries because NO ONE HAS PRESENTED ANY *INDISPUTABLE* PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of his injuries.

You can't fix stupid.

Annoying Old Guy

Ms. Kattenburg;

if he bought Skittles and tea, how would the prosecutor even know that he had bought Skittles and tea if they hadn't been on his body when he was shot?

It was originally based entirely on the Crump's claims. Later there was a video that is alledgely of Martin buying those items at a 7-11. But there has been no publicly released confirmation that they were found on Martin's body. The prosecutors affidavit provides no evidentiary basis for the claim.

As for why the skittles and ice tea are important, I am just following your lead. You seem quite concerned about pointing them out and become quite enraged at any doubters, such as me. But if you want to strike them from the record and not discuss them anymore, I am fine with that.

Kathy Kattenburg

"But if you want to strike them from the record and not discuss them anymore, I am fine with that."

Awesome! Consider them stricken. :-)

Strawman Cometh

"NO ONE HAS PRESENTED ANY *INDISPUTABLE* PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of his injuries. So at this point it is still unclear whether he did, indeed, sustain the injuries he said he sustained."

Is this sad or funny? What is sad is that Gilbreath on the stand at the bond hearing admitted he hadn't seen GZ's medical report. It was funny when O'Mara offered it to him.

boris

So the whole kaka take on the case comes down to the bloody nose, and bleeding scalp wounds have to be evidence in a trial to be considered justification for self defense.

Seems to me the police on the scene could ascertain the factual nature of GZ's wounds far better than some jury months or years later and would be entirely consistent with not charging him at the time.

Who wants to bet the same injuries on a 28yr old female who shoots a 6'2" 170lb 17yr old unarmed rapist would not require a jury to justify self defense to kaka.

Kathy Kattenburg

"So the whole kaka take on the case comes down to the bloody nose, and bleeding scalp wounds have to be evidence in a trial to be considered justification for self defense."

No, dear. That's not the whole case. You are missing the point again. It's not about "the bloody nose and the bleeding scalp wounds" being evidence in a trial; it's about referring to "the bloody nose and the bleeding scalp wounds" as if these injuries were absolute confirmed fact. THEY ARE NOT. What has to be demonstrated in a courtroom is that there is actual independent objective physical evidence that there WAS a bloody nose and bleeding scalp wounds. You are accepting that as FACT, based SOLELY on Zimmerman's claim. We don't do things that way in our legal system, Boris. We don't simply accept a person's claim that he killed an unarmed teenager in self-defense because the kid gave him a bloody nose and a bleeding scalp. It doesn't go like that. The police are not supposed to just say, "Oh he said it was self-defense so we're letting him go. There has to be a trial where the prosecution tries to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the claim of self-defense doesn't bear up under the evidence, and the defense has to try to convince the jury that there IS a reasonable doubt. This is the way it works in our legal system, Boris.

NO_LIMIT_NIGGA

What has to be demonstrated in a courtroom is that there is actual independent objective physical evidence that there WAS a bloody nose and bleeding scalp wounds. You are accepting that as FACT, based SOLELY on Zimmerman's claim.

This is a lie.

From the police report that hit and run linked earlier in the thread when you were still trying to peddle the lie that the police report supported your skittles and iced tea claim:

"While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head."

Also, this.


You can't fix stupid. But you sure can point and laugh at it.

Big Bland.

You can lead a horticulture but you cannot make her think.
==================

Cboldt.blogspot.com

I don't think she's stupid. I find her to lack ethics and morals.

More geology and theometry, please.

Lacks curiosity and logic.
============

boris

Well, it's postmodern drivel like this ...

Kaka: "It's not about "the bloody nose and the bleeding scalp wounds" being evidence in a trial; it's about referring to "the bloody nose and the bleeding scalp wounds" as if these injuries were absolute confirmed fact. THEY ARE NOT. What has to be demonstrated in a courtroom is that there is actual independent objective physical evidence that there WAS a bloody nose and bleeding scalp wounds."
...that reveals her arguing in bad faith. No matter what she says you can't address it because she will not stand for what she says from one sentence to the next.

Kathy Kattenburg

Boris. You said, in your other comment, ""So the whole kaka take on the case comes down to the bloody nose, and bleeding scalp wounds have to be evidence in a trial to be considered justification for self defense."

You are putting the cart before the horse. It's not about whether a bloody nose and a bleeding scalp are JUSTIFICATION for self-defense. It's about whether GZ's injuries were as severe as he says they were, AND it's about whether his claimed injuries were SO severe that they suggest TM was trying to kill him and would have succeeded had GZ not shot him.

I know you believe all of the above to be the absolute God's truth, and fact not open to dispute, but you are wrong. They are not. What physical evidence exists -- at least as made publicly available to this moment -- is, at best, ambiguous. It does not conclusively prove that GZ actually suffered the severity of injuries he claims, and they also do not conclusively prove that GZ had no other choice but to kill TM. Because that is what is at issue here. It's not JUST self-defense in and of itself. It's whether, despite what GZ claims to be true, there is sufficient evidence to show that he HAD to kill TM, that killing TM was justified and necessary under the circumstances to save his own life. And that conclusion is a HUGE stretch from the evidence and witness testimony that exists to date, or that has been made public.

Boris, Trayvon Martin's life was JUST AS VALUABLE as George Zimmerman's is. And his life was TAKEN. He's gone, forever. He's dead. If GZ is claiming that he would have been DEAD if he hadn't fatally shot TM, he cannot just CLAIM that, he (through his lawyers) has to overcome the reasonable doubts of a jury to legally DEMONSTRATE that.

And to this:

""While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head."

posted by NO_LIMIT_NIGGA:

But do you understand, NO_LIMIT_NIGGA, that what George Zimmerman told the police, and what they wrote in the police report, is merely EVIDENCE to be used in a trial, and not LEGAL PROOF, in and of itself, that GZ was telling the truth?

The police report merely records what GZ told the police and what they were able to observe for themselves immediately after the shooting. If all every accused murderer had to do to be set free was to claim self-defense and show a few injuries, we would not need trials by jury at all, would we?

And that photo you show of GZ's scalp is from an ABC video (which suddenly is proof positive for you that GZ is telling the truth, even though it comes from the media) that has not been LEGALLY demonstrated, in a COURT OF LAW, to be legitimate.

I mean, right in these very threads, I have seen some commenters mention the possible problems with that video, such as the fact that all you're seeing is the back of someone's head, and that the "blood" does not look entirely real. Those problems were raised dismissively, but they were raised. And if the authorities were to hold such a photograph as such indisputable proof that GZ had to kill TM to save his life that there did not even need to be a trial by jury, with evidence testing, expert witnesses, and everything else that goes in a trial, then anyone could get away with murder and we would be living in a very different sort of society than the one we do live in.

jimmyk

It's about whether GZ's injuries were as severe as he says they were, AND it's about whether his claimed injuries were SO severe that they suggest TM was trying to kill him and would have succeeded had GZ not shot him.

Much as you might wish it to be otherwise, that is not the law. As has been explained to you many times, the law does not require severe injuries, or even any injuries at all. The circumstances only have to be such that the person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary "to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony." (Quoting from the statute, emphasis added)

And if the authorities were to hold such a photograph as such indisputable proof that GZ had to kill TM to save his life that there did not even need to be a trial by jury, with evidence testing, expert witnesses, and everything else that goes in a trial, then anyone could get away with murder and we would be living in a very different sort of society than the one we do live in.

Again, this idea that evidence is established if and only if there is a trial is completely at odds with the way our justice system works. Every day prosecutors and police have to make decisions about what should go to trial and what would be a waste of time. In fact, what you envision--a trial every time someone kills someone else, regardless of the circumstances--would REALLY be "a very different sort of society than the one we do live in."

And we only have to go back to the OJ trial, never mind all the people who have been exonerated by the Innocence Project, to know that there is nothing magical about a trial that suddenly confers Truth.

bgates

All I've been hearing here is about how you all are just drawing the conclusion that all the facts and evidence point to, but in reality the facts and evidence that we have all point the other way
v
what George Zimmerman told the police, and what they wrote in the police report, is merely EVIDENCE to be used in a trial

You tell 'em, K.
K, are you going to take that from her?

Kathy Kattenburg

"As has been explained to you many times, the law does not require severe injuries, or even any injuries at all. The circumstances only have to be such that the person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary "to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.""

It does not have to be explained to me; I am perfectly well aware of what the Stand Your Ground law in Florida says. That's why that law, and others like it, are so heinous. It's a license to murder. All you have to do is say you reasonably believed your life was in danger or that you feared grave bodily harm, and poof! you're off scot free.

Nevertheless, as you say, that IS the law in Florida. HOWEVER: As I am 100% sure you also know, that law may not apply in this case, since the STAND YOUR GROUND part does not apply to George Zimmerman, although it may apply to Trayvon Martin, but he's dead, so it does him no good.

"Every day prosecutors and police have to make decisions about what should go to trial and what would be a waste of time."

Of course. That is not what's at issue. What's at issue is that in THIS case, there WAS probable cause to arrest George Zimmerman. There was more than enough. Zimmerman had a concealed handgun and he shot to death a teenage boy who was unarmed, no weapon at all. Under those circumstances, there is enough probable cause to arrest Zimmerman, regardless of his self-defense claims. If both of them had been armed, it might have been different, but Zimmerman shot an unarmed 17-year-old, and that gives (or should give) the police more than enough probable cause to conclude that this could have been a murder and to arrest him.

"And we only have to go back to the OJ trial, never mind all the people who have been exonerated by the Innocence Project, to know that there is nothing magical about a trial that suddenly confers Truth."

No one made any claims for trials being "magical" or always resulting in "the Truth." Obviously, trials do not always result in what would seem to be a just verdict. But OJ's trial DID work the way it was supposed to, because the jury decided that the prosecution had failed to make their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the legal standard for murder. Now, do I believe OJ was innocent of killing his wife? Hell no. The man got away with murder. But that's not the fault of having had a trial. It's the fault of the prosecution, the evidence they presented just could not convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

But if someone *I* loved was murdered, I would much prefer to go through a fair, legal trial by jury and not get the verdict I wanted, than TO HAVE THE MURDERER SET FREE AND NEVER TRIED AT ALL. That should not be such an impossible thing to understand.

And regarding the Innocence Project, you are so full of shit. That's about THE DEATH PENALTY. That's NOT about THE TRIAL PROCESS. The whole point of having the Innocence Project is to prevent people who have been unjustly convicted FROM BEING EXECUTED. And George Zimmerman does not face the death penalty in this case. Nor should he.

Kathy Kattenburg

"You tell 'em, K.
K, are you going to take that from her?"

Those two statements ARE NOT IN CONFLICT. I can believe that Trayvon Martin was murdered (ie, that it was not self-defense)and ALSO believe that that belief should be proved to be fact in court. I said the EVIDENCE POINTS THE OTHER WAY. I did NOT say George Zimmerman is a murderer and should be put in prison without a trial.

Kathy Kattenburg

"I did NOT say George Zimmerman is a murderer and should be put in prison without a trial."

And what I should have added to that is that YOU believe that George Zimmerman DID act in justified self-defense and that HE SHOULD BE SET FREE W/O A TRIAL.

Two very different points of view.

jimmyk

It does not have to be explained to me; I am perfectly well aware of what the Stand Your Ground law in Florida says. That's why that law, and others like it, are so heinous. It's a license to murder. All you have to do is say you reasonably believed your life was in danger or that you feared grave bodily harm, and poof! you're off scot free.

First, what I was quoting had to do with self-defense, not SYG. Second, that's not what SYG says.

And regarding the Innocence Project, you are so full of shit.

Wow, I must have really gotten under your skin that you have to start cursing at me.

That's about THE DEATH PENALTY. That's NOT about THE TRIAL PROCESS.

So what? They are just the most obvious examples of trials with the wrong outcome, one of many reasons we don't subject people to the vagaries of a trial unless there is sufficient evidence to begin with.

Clarice

Tut, Jimmyk. I'm taking names for a dominatrix who asked me to find her a passel of masochists.

Strawman Cometh

That's about THE DEATH PENALTY. That's NOT about THE TRIAL PROCESS.
Wrong, again. Not limited to death penalty cases.:
"The Innocence Project is a non-profit legal clinic affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University and created by Barry C. Scheck and Peter J. Neufeld in 1992. The project is a national litigation and public policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted people through DNA testing and reforming the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice."
And jimmyk is right, so what?

Strawman Cometh

and Clarice is also correct, does she take Discover?
Similar to the "stop digging" dictum, KK is on soft ground and continues to stamp her feet.

jimmyk

And here I was thinking I was taking sadistic pleasure in making kaka look like a fool. Does your dominatrix work with women?

narciso

Her confidence in stating things, that are clearly wrong, even after it is pointed out,
is somewhat remarkable, only spunkmeyer falls
in the same category, also our frank burnish
former G man,

Kathy Kattenburg

"So what? They are just the most obvious examples of trials with the wrong outcome, one of many reasons we don't subject people to the vagaries of a trial unless there is sufficient evidence to begin with."

And that is the entire argument we're having, isn't it?

Clarice

I'm getting $10 a name, guys. Those Louboutins are in reaching distance

Kathy Kattenburg

""The Innocence Project is a non-profit legal clinic affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University and created by Barry C. Scheck and Peter J. Neufeld in 1992."

Fine, Strawman. It's still got nothing to do with the argument we're having about setting George Zimmerman free because he was only defending himself when he killed an unarmed boy versus trying him in court to determine if the evidence supports a self-defense claim. Jimmy brought up the Innocence Project to support his argument that trials don't always result in justice being done, or in the truth being revealed. And as I said, although that's true, it's not a reason to let a man who shot and killed an unarmed teenager from going free without a trial. Jimmy is arguing that GZ shouldn't be tried, that there's no need for a trial. And to support that point, he says the Innocence Project proves that trials don't always work out as expected or wanted. Well, that's a flawed argument because of course trials don't always work out as expected or wanted, but that's not a good argument for not having them.

Kathy Kattenburg

"And here I was thinking I was taking sadistic pleasure in making kaka look like a fool."

LOL. You're making yourself look like a fool.

narciso

It seems her incomprehension, is not limited to this blog;


http://soitgoesinshreveport.blogspot.com/2012/03/headlines-are-crazier-than-run-over-dog.html

Sandra Fluke chose Georgetown in order to subvert the values of that institution,

Rick Ballard

"And here I was thinking I was taking sadistic pleasure in making kaka look like a fool."

jimmyk,

Find a Short Bus stop in front of a Slow Children Playing sign and trip the kids as they get off. It's much more challenging and provides the same pleasure.

jimmyk

And that is the entire argument we're having, isn't it?

No, Kathy dear, you've been saying evidence can only be evaluated in a trial, viz:

"what George Zimmerman told the police, and what they wrote in the police report, is merely EVIDENCE to be used in a trial"

"And that photo you show of GZ's scalp is from an ABC video ... that has not been LEGALLY demonstrated, in a COURT OF LAW, to be legitimate."

You simply won't own up to the possibility that the police and prosecutor had sufficient evidence to exonerate Zimmerman, and no probable cause to arrest or indict him. You insist on a trial to evaluate the evidence, which is not too far removed from the Red Queen's view of justice.

But I'm done here, lest Clarice take aim and we have another (justifiable?) homicide on our hands.

Clarice

Ka--Ching.

Kathy Kattenburg

"You simply won't own up to the possibility that the police and prosecutor had sufficient evidence to exonerate Zimmerman, and no probable cause to arrest or indict him."

Owning up to the POSSIBILITY is not the point. Anything is possible. But if the prosecutor (not the police -- the police actually did arrest him; the prosecutor overruled them and told them to let GZ go free) ARE SAYING they have sufficient evidence to exonerate Zimmerman, that simply does not cut it, when the sufficiency of this evidence has not been made public. Based on the evidence made public, that is not sufficient evidence because it does not UNAMBIGUOUSLY show what GZ's supporters claim that it shows.

Meanwhile, set against that, are the undisputed facts that GZ had a concealed handgun and used it to kill TM. No one disputes that. Normally, a reasonable person would at least be somewhat skeptical when an armed person kills an unarmed person -- especially when the armed person is a fully grown man, 28 years old, and the unarmed person was a teenager, 17 years old. And more, those circumstances do constitute more than enough probable cause to arrest GZ and charge him with homicide. If the police had *compelling, unambiguous* evidence that GZ did have to kill TM to save his life, that evidence would have to be made public. And that has not happened.

Now, having said all this, if you're going to argue that the prosecutor (the original one) has and had the right to dismiss the case and let GZ go free, then I would say, of course, technically, you're right. He can do that if he wants to. But if he does dismiss what would appear to be an unjustified homicide by using less than compelling, ambiguous evidence to declare that it was self-defense, THEN he is going to have to expect that there will be a public outcry. As there was. If there had not been a public outcry, GZ would be free and we would not be discussing this now. The decision to appoint a new prosecutor and investigate the case further was the direct result of that public outcry. BUT, my point is that that public outcry was justified, and inevitable, and the authorities should not be surprised at it, IF they are going to release w/o charges a 28-year-old man who killed an unarmed teenager with a handgun AND not release, publicly, compelling, unambiguous evidence that that decision to release was a reasonable, just decision.

That's really, for me, the heart of this argument. That the compelling and unambiguous evidence you say the police made public as proof that GZ acted in self-defense, was NOT actually ambiguous and unconvincing. And a whole lot of people thought it wasn't. And they thought it was so outrageously insufficient that it caused a public outcry.

So tell me over and over again as many times as you want that the police had evidence to show that GZ acted in self-defense, and although I can't change your mind, you certainly cannot expect me or anyone else to agree with that.

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

Dunno about this - as KGB for SCAM, Inc., I'm certainly pleased with ongoing operation results for the ACME Pike Division but we must allow new product development to proceed if our rate of growth is to be maintained. The field test of the ACME Credentialed Moron Ego Harpoon is satisfactory to this point but halting the test would be, IMO, an error. When we have a certified Credentialed Moron engaging in Narrative Maintenance I believe that the CMEH should be tested to failure. Let's give it a few more days - this is a well tested Credentialed Moron (vide numerous AGW threads on climate blogs) and we may be able to use the thread for future advertising.

boris

It's not such a bad thing to refudiate kaka's endless repetition of inane talking points. Besides it was fun getting her to contridict her own words in the space of 3 sentences.

But it's also true that it's useless to reason with people who do that.

narciso

I don't know Rick, even the Coyote knew when he was over the cliff, as did Marvin the Martian, with the Iludium Q 36 explosive space modulator,

boris

Ah yes good times good times ...

Kaka: "It's not about "the bloody nose and the bleeding scalp wounds" being evidence in a trial; it's about referring to "the bloody nose and the bleeding scalp wounds" as if these injuries were absolute confirmed fact. THEY ARE NOT. What has to be demonstrated in a courtroom is that there is actual independent objective physical evidence that there WAS a bloody nose and bleeding scalp wounds."
heh

Rick Ballard

Narciso,

They still must be dealt with until the Great OPM Famine kills them off. I recognize the fact that they're headless chickens running around the barnyard but we might as well have a bit of sport before dinner.

Clarice

Rick, I just might steal that. I'm thinking of weaving the Warren and White House Correspondence Dinners together.

Abadan

Funny, I thought it was guilt not innocence that required "UNAMBIGUOUS" proof.

Skittles,tea, teenager vs man, boy vs man, murder, murderer. These are not arguments they are a narrative.

Clarice

Howdy, abadan. Make yourself at home.

Kathy Kattenburg

"Funny, I thought it was guilt not innocence that required "UNAMBIGUOUS" proof."

Yeah, that's done in this antiquated, quaint little practice called A TRIAL.

boris

It's not so bad wanting a trial because an unarmed teenager was shot by an armed adult. It's less bad to oppose putting a person's life and liberty at considerable risk when credible information indicates a clear cut case of self defense.

Kaka rages that her narrative means less here than the evidence available to the public.

To the extent one can glean a coherent position from her extended drivel, it appears to be something like this ...

Even if: GZ was on his back taking a beating ...

Even if: GZ was the one yelling for help ...

Even if: GZ had a bloody nose and bleeding head ...

Only a jury should decide if his injuries were severe enough to justify shooting to death an unarmed teenager.

Strawman Cometh

In another quaint practice, the prosecution needs to present probable cause to charge a defendant and bring him to trial. The local prosecutor determined that the evidence he had was insufficient to bring charges, his investigation was ongoing then interrupted for political mob appeasing purposes. The appointed Special Prosecutor, Ms. Prays with St.Trayvon, to her everlasting shame, brought forth a purely political, mob appeasing, almost fact-free charging document at the bond hearing. Probable cause has yet to be presented.

Kathy Kattenburg

"Only a jury should decide if his injuries were severe enough to justify shooting to death an unarmed teenager."

Uh, no. Only a jury should decide IF HE HAD THOSE INJURIES.

Kathy Kattenburg

"Probable cause has yet to be presented."

In your opinion.

Kathy Kattenburg

"Even if: GZ was on his back taking a beating ...

Even if: GZ was the one yelling for help ...

Even if: GZ had a bloody nose and bleeding head ..."

Even IF. Even IF, Boris.

Boris. Boris. Do you know what the word IF means? IF IF IF IF IF, Boris, IF GZ was taking a beating, yelling for help, and bleeding from the nose and scalp, IF IF IF IF.

Do you understand what the word IF means?

boris

At 3:00PM this afternoon Kaka writes ...

It's about whether GZ's injuries were as severe as he says they were, AND it's about whether his claimed injuries were SO severe that they suggest TM was trying to kill him and would have succeeded had GZ not shot him.
Now Kaka writes ...
a jury should decide IF HE HAD THOSE INJURIES
But it doesn't matter what whe writes because it can change in the next sentence, then next minute or the next hour. Apparently the narrative can't withstand acknowledgement that GZ had ANY injuries because that would mean GZ was being assaulted.

NO_LIMIT_NIGGA

Only a jury should decide IF HE HAD THOSE INJURIES.

roflmao

"Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head."


The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame