[Waragainstsleep]

I think there are probably other reasons why blaming rape victims is a fallacy. Not to mention a travesty.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Begging the question. If what's in your mind is not what locks you away for life, then it's irrelevant whether it's manufactured or not. Since mind-reading is impossible, it stands to reason that it is not necessary in order to do that which occurs frequently (conviction).

Bingo! There are those who would rather manufacture racial animus than deal with the available evidence.

It's funny, It used to be that conservatives would talk a big game about personal responsibility and being accountable for one's actions, while it was the liberal pastime to equivocate about feelings and emotional truths, and whether being a good inner person was an excuse for doing actual actions that are evil. I'll try to remember this the next time conservatives pretend to know what's in someone's mind....

While I can appreciate your frustration and no one could stop you from employing this perspective; a woeful lack of regard for evidence or contextual relevance would certainly retard any meaningful conversations with you going forward.

abortion? You can't prove the woman's mind isn't afraid for her life.

No, but you can simply ask them what's in their minds and they can tell you. For example, we know from the evidence made available by the CDC that 25% resort to abortion because they feel unready for child/responsibility, 23% feel they can't afford a baby, 19% has all the children she wants/Other family responsibilities, 8% Relationship problem/Single motherhood, 7% Feels she isn't mature enough, 4% Interference with education/career plans, 4% Mother's Health, etc... So yes, you can certainly conclude that the woman's mind is afraid for her life, but the available evidence does not corroborate that supposition in the overwhelming majority of cases. As far as I know, no one, not even the most staunch, card-carrying conservatives on the planet have advocated that these women be brought up on murder charges for malice aforethought and sentenced to lifelong imprisonment.

Obama a socialist or controlling? No sorry you can't prove what's in his mind.

No, but you can read his books, his speeches, and you can follow his life story. You can assess the nature of his attendance at the annual Socialist Scholars Conferences in Cooper Union or question his speaking at the Democratic Socialists of America forum at the University of Chicago, or served as MC at the Debs - Thomas - Harrington Dinner as an awards banquet for noteworthy contributors to the Democratic Socialists of America or you can decry their endorsement of his Senate campaign. You can measure this against the Church he and his family attended for more than 20 years with their connections to "social-justice" campaigns and the like. You can gauge him by his legislative achievements and in light of any working definition of socialism, determine whether these achievements move toward or away from the aforementioned inclinations. This is certainly more substantive evidence than mere gut feelings on what he's thinking.

As far as him being "controlling", well... I don't know. That's probably subjective and debatable. For starters, while CNN can interview the alleged #1 guy behind the Benghazi attacks -- the only one who has actually been questioned and imprisoned over the affair is an American who produced a short film on Muslim extremism. If the buck stops at the President, we've got a lot of evidence of controlling people. Drones, snooping, distributing private information for political gain, harassing the press, conservative groups, etc...

Illegal immigration? For all we know they were just running from a scary street youth, not coming over for free health care.

In many cases, they are seeking asylum from certain conditions and actually, conservatives have always supported political asylum; those truly fearful for their lives. Otherwise, this is an argument over the symptoms of immigration, not the immigrants themselves. This is just more of the left's tendency for character assassination in projecting racial animus onto others. Doing what you claim impossible.

Terrorists? We can't prove it wasn't self-defense, even if they do absolutely nothing to prove that it is. Sure it's obvious by their actions, but aparently that would be manufacturing something since you can't prove what's in their minds.

With terrorists, all you can do is go by what the founders and leadership express as their goals and the goals of the minions who carry the organizations' message. This is evidence. It's not sitting and wondering what's in their minds as that has been made abundantly clear to anyone paying attention.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I think there are probably other reasons why blaming rape victims is a fallacy.

Like what? I'm not doubting it, I just can't think of them and I wouldn't mind being helped.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I can appreciate your frustration

I think you mean "amusement." Role reversal is one of my favorite genres of our little soap operas.

No, but you can simply ask them what's in their minds and they can tell you.

So if Zimmerman told the recorded phone operator what's on his mind, that doesn't count, but when pregnant women tick a box on a survey, that does count?

No, but you can read his books, his speeches, and you can follow his life story.... You can measure this against the Church he and his family attended for more than 20 years

I don't remember being allowed to follow Zimmerman's life story or past racial bias, or associations, or friends' associations, when deducing what was in his mind (only at the prompting of certain posters here and their hypotheticals, of course, because you and I agree that such pursuits are not relevant to a courtroom...).

Originally Posted by ebuddy

In many cases, they are seeking asylum from certain conditions

Of illegals, really? Why wouldn't they immigrate legally, if they have a real excuse?
If they're as I actually described though (afraid of individual people not of political persecution), then asylum doesn't really apply to them, unless by "asylum" you're talking about the movie studio.

Otherwise, this is an argument over the symptoms of immigration, not the immigrants themselves.

I don't understand the distinction. If you do the same for murder policy, characterize it as about the "symptoms" of murders not about the murderers themselves, it changes nothing. Murder needs to be discouraged, whether it's because of the "symptoms" or because of any other reason (and if you could find a way to solve the "symptoms" without stopping murders somehow, the problem would become moot). The same is true of any analogy like immigration.

This is just more of the left's tendency for character assassination in projecting racial animus onto others. Doing what you claim impossible.

Who said anything about race? I certainly wasn't thinking of it. Is there no other reason to be against illegal immigration besides racism?

With terrorists, all you can do is go by what the founders and leadership express as their goals and the goals of the minions who carry the organizations' message. This is evidence. It's not sitting and wondering what's in their minds as that has been made abundantly clear to anyone paying attention.

Ok, guilt by association is cool then. Gotcha.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Like what? I'm not doubting it, I just can't think of them and I wouldn't mind being helped.

In my eyes the only thing you can blame a rape victim for is lying about the fact they were raped. In which case they aren't actually a rape victim.

When someone is actually raped (ie someone has sexual contact with them without their consent), I don't see how it can ever be their fault.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

In my eyes the only thing you can blame a rape victim for is lying about the fact they were raped. In which case they aren't actually a rape victim.

When someone is actually raped (ie someone has sexual contact with them without their consent), I don't see how it can ever be their fault.

Ok, but those aren't logical fallacies, they're just good manners. Adding insult to injury isn't a fallacy. It's immoral, but it's not illogical.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ok, but those aren't logical fallacies, they're just good manners. Adding insult to injury isn't a fallacy. It's immoral, but it's not illogical.

I'd say the general fallacy is going to center around correlation shows causation.

A perception exists which says certain behaviors increase your chance of getting raped. For example, dressing provocatively. I say "perception" because I honestly have no idea if that increases your chance of being raped.

Regardless of the truth, there are some who have this perception, and make the conclusion if one dresses provocatively, they are consciously engaging in an activity which they know increases their chances of being raped. This makes them complicit to some degree.

If the correlation was because of causation, then the argument would be valid. If dressing a certain way caused rape, then it'd be your fault for dressing that way. The problem, of course, is provocative dress has nothing to do with the cause of rape. The cause of rape is an individual choosing to rape. Full stop.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'd say the general fallacy is going to center around correlation shows causation.

I've never seen the "she was asking for it" crowd cite correlation, only common sense. Have you?

The problem, of course, is provocative dress has nothing to do with the cause of rape. The cause of rape is an individual choosing to rape. Full stop.

The way you say that makes it sound like you have some evidence to back it up. If so I would like to see it.

Also:

The problem, of course, is provocative dress has nothing to do with the cause of rape. The cause of rape is an individual choosing to rape. Full stop.

Isn't that what I said? That the victim's guilt or innocence doesn't tell us anything about the defendant's guilt or innocence, that the two are unrelated?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think you mean "amusement." Role reversal is one of my favorite genres of our little soap operas.

So if Zimmerman told the recorded phone operator what's on his mind, that doesn't count, but when pregnant women tick a box on a survey, that does count?

Since when is second-hand better than first? What exactly did he say that demonstrated a willingness to kill a man? As opposed to information offered by respondents who had already killed.

I don't remember being allowed to follow Zimmerman's life story or past racial bias, or associations, or friends' associations, when deducing what was in his mind (only at the prompting of certain posters here and their hypotheticals, of course, because you and I agree that such pursuits are not relevant to a courtroom...).

We do agree and I suspect the 6 jurors had to grapple with this, but I think the responsibility of locking someone away for life over this potentiality is a little weightier. That's when evidence matters. That's also why contextual-relevance is important. I don't hear any sane (because that's important regardless of the (R) or (D) after your name) American conservatives wagering on the President being sentenced to life imprisonment.

Of illegals, really? Why wouldn't they immigrate legally, if they have a real excuse?

That's what I've always thought! I mean, few would argue whether or not abject poverty, corruption, and all its dangers would be a real enough excuse. The problem is, you have to apply and wait in lines, and you may be granted permanent residency after one year so... many don't apply and are hence -- illegal. Otherwise, I don't think anyone's calling for a life sentence in prison here.

I don't understand the distinction. If you do the same for murder policy, characterize it as about the "symptoms" of murders not about the murderers themselves, it changes nothing. Murder needs to be discouraged, whether it's because of the "symptoms" or because of any other reason (and if you could find a way to solve the "symptoms" without stopping murders somehow, the problem would become moot). The same is true of any analogy like immigration.

Wait, how does locking Zimmerman away for life solve anything? Yes, murder needs to be discouraged, but you and the judicial system disagree on what constitutes murder. Now what? Kangaroo court?

Who said anything about race? I certainly wasn't thinking of it. Is there no other reason to be against illegal immigration besides racism?

Oh... I thought this was the "compartmentalize views" hour. You didn't like my contribution? After all, I'm not going to pretend I know what YOU think.

Ok, guilt by association is cool then. Gotcha.

They're terrorists. It's -- guilt by terrorism. Guilt by association is having my aspirations sullied for responding to you.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Since when is second-hand better than first? What exactly did he say that demonstrated a willingness to kill a man? As opposed to information offered by respondents who had already killed.

Both are first-hand, when both are recorded for posterity right from the horse's mouth. It is my opinion that people tend to be more forthcoming with what they believe to be the truth, when they're calling for police assistance than when they're filling out sociological surveys after completing a surgery. Maybe your opinion about that is different.

That's what I've always thought! I mean, few would argue whether or not abject poverty, corruption, and all its dangers would be a real enough excuse. The problem is, you have to apply and wait in lines, and you may be granted permanent residency after one year so... many don't apply and are hence -- illegal.

How do you know that's the reason? Are you reading their minds? For that matter, how do you know that any of the illegals are asylum seekers without reading their minds?

Otherwise, I don't think anyone's calling for a life sentence in prison here.

It is if their fears are accurate. If Zimmerman's fear for his life was accurate, then any law or regulation that introduces more friction between him and the shooting dead of whomever he so pleases amounts to a death sentence. Likewise, if abortion-seekers' or immigration-seekers' fears are accurate, then any regulations preventing them from getting the abortion or from immigrating illegally amounts to a death sentence.

Wait, how does locking Zimmerman away for life solve anything?

Deterrence. Moral hazard. If people see that it's allowed to kill people for no reason, they'll do it for fun. That's not mind-reading, that's just what I would do, natch.

Oh... I thought this was the "compartmentalize views" hour. You didn't like my contribution? After all, I'm not going to pretend I know what YOU think.

People generally take ambiguity as implying the best about themselves, not the worst

They're terrorists. It's -- guilt by terrorism. Guilt by association is having my aspirations sullied for responding to you.

It's not guilt by any measure unless you can prove what's in their minds. Apparently.
if we don't find them guilty then they get to hang out with virgins. VIRGINS.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I've never seen the "she was asking for it" crowd cite correlation, only common sense. Have you?



The way you say that makes it sound like you have some evidence to back it up. If so I would like to see it.

Also:

Isn't that what I said? That the victim's guilt or innocence doesn't tell us anything about the defendant's guilt or innocence, that the two are unrelated?

My argument is mainly based on me not being able to come up with a rape scenario wherein the victim is guilty.

That's where I see the difference. Merely pointing out they are unrelated doesn't address the part where there isn't a guilty scenario for the victim.

By all means though (and that's not snark) come up with a scenario wherein the victim of rape is guilty, and I'll withdraw or modify the argument depending.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Both are first-hand, when both are recorded for posterity right from the horse's mouth. It is my opinion that people tend to be more forthcoming with what they believe to be the truth, when they're calling for police assistance than when they're filling out sociological surveys after completing a surgery. Maybe your opinion about that is different.

What did the horse say to the dispatcher that would lead you to believe he would kill Trayvon? Now I'm not the murdering type, but if I truly set out to kill someone, I likely wouldn't be talking to a dispatcher requesting police presence before or during the crime. Understanding how tempting it might be to pick and choose which evidence of mindset we'd like to use for the death sentence of course.

How do you know that's the reason? Are you reading their minds? For that matter, how do you know that any of the illegals are asylum seekers without reading their minds?

All I know is that there is a legal way to do it, albeit a lengthy process and most are opting out of that process and are hence -- illegal. I'm working from your premise that they're doing it in self-defense. Should I now be working from some other, as yet stated premise?

It is if their fears are accurate. If Zimmerman's fear for his life was accurate, then any law or regulation that introduces more friction between him and the shooting dead of whomever he so pleases amounts to a death sentence. Likewise, if abortion-seekers' or immigration-seekers' fears are accurate, then any regulations preventing them from getting the abortion or from immigrating illegally amounts to a death sentence.

Are you, or anyone else for that matter, suggesting an equal sentence for the offenses committed by the woman who had an abortion and the illegal immigrant? No. They've all been acquitted, so to speak. They may have committed the act in self-defense and as such they will not be charged with life in prison. JUSTICE!

Deterrence. Moral hazard. If people see that it's allowed to kill people for no reason, they'll do it for fun. That's not mind-reading, that's just what I would do, natch.

Interesting. Well... we know that you can terminate fetuses and get away with it -- how many fetuses have you terminated for fun? How many countries' borders have you crossed illegally for fun? That's what I mean by contextual relevance. You can certainly employ this new chip on your shoulder for all discussions, but you're going to run into one intellectual conundrum after another. Otherwise I disagree. I still don't think most armed people inside or outside law enforcement are going to wait for their attacker to be on top of them bloodying them up prior to drawing their weapon. For them, a reason may have been the first blow to the head.

If I were to guess what's in your mind and indict you for that, I'd say your problem is with guns, not GZ or self defense. Am I right?

People generally take ambiguity as implying the best about themselves, not the worst

What I cited of the left is their tactic when reason fails them. You didn't appreciate my contribution.

It's not guilt by any measure unless you can prove what's in their minds. Apparently.
if we don't find them guilty then they get to hang out with virgins. VIRGINS.

If they martyr themselves, they get their virgins regardless of what Americans think, right? I don't have to prove what's in the mind of someone who detonates a deadly blast in a highly populated area though I might want to trend it. Being associated with terrorists would likely not get you a life sentence just as GZ's brother is not facing charges, committing terrorism will. Unless of course you killed an ambassador in a politically inconvenient attack on a US consulate.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

My argument is mainly based on me not being able to come up with a rape scenario wherein the victim is guilty.

Ok I'm getting it, maybe. Do you mean guilty of "the" crime (the self-same crime the defendant is accused of, as in shares additional guilt for the rape in question)? Or do you mean guilty of _any_ crime that they were committing at the time, that could be claimed to justify the defendant's actions?

That's where I see the difference. Merely pointing out they are unrelated doesn't address the part where there isn't a guilty scenario for the victim.

By all means though (and that's not snark) come up with a scenario wherein the victim of rape is guilty, and I'll withdraw or modify the argument depending.

Challenge accepted!

If it's the former (from above), then what about this. The rape is statutory rape, and the victim is guilty of misrepresenting her age (defrauding the defendant).

If it's the latter (from above), then what about this. The victim was engaged in the crimes of prostitution and robbery at the time (robbing her clients while distracting them with her sweet sweet whoring). The defendant discovers the plot, and decides to get what he came for regardless.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What did the horse say to the dispatcher that would lead you to believe he would kill Trayvon?

That he didn't want to let him get away. And he didn't. It takes a depraved mind regardless of human life to initiate a deadly confrontation, while armed, just to stop someone from getting away who turned out to be innocent.

Now I'm not the murdering type, but if I truly set out to kill someone, I likely wouldn't be talking to a dispatcher requesting police presence before or during the crime.

It would take a depraved mind for you to do that. So only if we assume our conclusion (that his mind was not depraved) can we draw additional information from that event.

Understanding how tempting it might be to pick and choose which evidence of mindset we'd like to use for the death sentence of course.

Good thing survey results are so well known for agreement and invariance, otherwise that might be cherry picking evidence as well.

All I know is that there is a legal way to do it, albeit a lengthy process and most are opting out of that process and are hence -- illegal. I'm working from your premise that they're doing it in self-defense. Should I now be working from some other, as yet stated premise?

I don't see how your work could have led from that premise to that outcome. Can you show your work?

Are you, or anyone else for that matter, suggesting an equal sentence for the offenses committed by the woman who had an abortion and the illegal immigrant? No. They've all been acquitted, so to speak.

If you won the abortion debate and abortion was outlawed, you wouldn't advocate for treating illegal abortions as murders? "Abortion is murder" isn't a mainstream anti-abortion slogan?

Interesting. Well... we know that you can terminate fetuses and get away with it -- how many fetuses have you terminated for fun?

As many as willing partners will impregnate me. 0.

How many countries' borders have you crossed illegally for fun? That's what I mean by contextual relevance. You can certainly employ this new chip on your shoulder for all discussions, but you're going to run into one intellectual conundrum after another.

That problem didn't stop you from inferring immigrant's minds based on their actions. It shan't stop me either.

Otherwise I disagree. I still don't think most armed people inside or outside law enforcement are going to wait for their attacker to be on top of them bloodying them up prior to drawing their weapon. For them, a reason may have been the first blow to the head.

Ah but you forget, self defense was moot in this case. We don't need any reason to shoot someone, all we need is an inscrutable mind, and the prosecution can't touch us because they can't prove our mind. I could walk up to a stranger and shoot them in the groin for no reason at all, and since there is no evidence of my depraved mind I will be untouchable.

If I were to guess what's in your mind and indict you for that, I'd say your problem is with guns, not GZ or self defense. Am I right?

Oops, sorry let me amend my last statement. I could walk up to a stranger and stab them in the groin, and since there is no evidence of my depraved mind I will be untouchable.

What I cited of the left is their tactic when reason fails them. You didn't appreciate my contribution.

I think it went over my head.

If they martyr themselves, they get their virgins regardless of what Americans think, right?

Fair point. IF they martyr themselves.

I don't have to prove what's in the mind of someone who detonates a deadly blast in a highly populated area though I might want to trend it.

But if you catch them before they succeed, then you have to prove what's in their mind if you want to convict them of attempted <crime>. How are you going to do it?

Being associated with terrorists would likely not get you a life sentence just as GZ's brother is not facing charges, committing terrorism will.

But committing attempted terrorism can only get you a life sentence if we're allowed to use guilt-by-association to associate your mind with your movement's leaders' minds or writings. That's what I was getting at.

[Shaddim]

Weird evening. Went out to eat tonight with my family and one of the waiters saw that I was armed (belt holster), so the manager walked up and asked me to leave. I told him I was an on-call reserve deputy (showed my ID), he didn't care, then told me that unless I'm on-duty at the time I can't be armed there. Fine, we got up from the table and were walking out when the owner stopped us and asked what was going on, I explained that I'm an on-call county deputy, carrying a handgun, and was asked to leave the premises. He asked us to stay, emphatically, and walked us back to the table. Then he pulled the manager to the side and (quietly) flipped out on him, the whole time the manager is staring daggers at me. In under a minute he's walking towards the door, gives me the finger, then leaves. WTF?

[ghporter]

It sounds like a "personality conflict" between the boss and the manager. Whether you're on-call or on duty, in or out of uniform, a peace officer is still a peace officer, and to most people, having an LEO in the restaurant is a Good Thing. I think that having officers in a restaurant or other establishment makes everyone feel that the officers are a real part of the community instead of some external, abstract thing that acts apart from the community. Of course I'm not pathologically afraid of guns. Freud is misquoted as saying "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." (The misquote comes from essentially abstracting some of his statements about emotional development, but it seems to be an effective expression of what he meant.)

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That he didn't want to let him get away. And he didn't. It takes a depraved mind regardless of human life to initiate a deadly confrontation, while armed, just to stop someone from getting away who turned out to be innocent.

Where did he say HE didn't want TM to get away? Sounds like he was hoping the cops wouldn't let him get away. He followed TM, but TM initiated the deadly confrontation by hitting, jumping on top of, and beating up on a guy he didn't know. How do you know TM was innocent? From the evidence presented, (including any mind-reading we choose to employ) TM may have been casing his next burglary.

It would take a depraved mind for you to do that. So only if we assume our conclusion (that his mind was not depraved) can we draw additional information from that event.

You're presupposing depravity here, not basing it on the evidence presented. Without assumed depravity, it would be counterintuitive to call for police presence before or during the commission of a crime.

Good thing survey results are so well known for agreement and invariance, otherwise that might be cherry picking evidence as well.

No, it's just evidence in and of itself. If that happens to show some bias, that's not my fault.

I don't see how your work could have led from that premise to that outcome. Can you show your work?

Uncle proclaims he will be wearing the chip of self-defense upon his shoulder for wielding against conservatives who decry illegal immigration; that the immigrants were committing the illegal act out of self defense and as such should be acquitted.

• Illegal immigration + self defense = asylum.
• Illegal immigration + charges ≠ death sentence.
• illegal immigrants have already been acquitted, they will not serve life imprisonment and no one is suggesting they should based on anything up to and including the thoughts of their minds.

If you won the abortion debate and abortion was outlawed, you wouldn't advocate for treating illegal abortions as murders? "Abortion is murder" isn't a mainstream anti-abortion slogan?

Wait a minute then, if carrying the baby to term equates to a death sentence; why are you not calling for the life imprisonment of me and others who oppose abortion? Isn't that at least, attempted murder? Yes, there are those who would like to see a death sentence against the abortion doctor and they do often equate abortion to murder, but I've not once heard anyone suggest the exploited woman be brought up on charges for life imprisonment. If you could show me some evidence to the contrary, I'll certainly entertain it.

As many as willing partners will impregnate me. 0.

I apologize for your loss.

That problem didn't stop you from inferring immigrant's minds based on their actions. It shan't stop me either.

I'm not trying to divine the thoughts of their minds, you are. You gave the premise of self-defense. Should I be working from some other premise now?

Ah but you forget, self defense was moot in this case. We don't need any reason to shoot someone, all we need is an inscrutable mind, and the prosecution can't touch us because they can't prove our mind. I could walk up to a stranger and shoot them in the groin for no reason at all, and since there is no evidence of my depraved mind I will be untouchable.

So -- evidence doesn't matter to you right? You keep saying; no reason. Do you refuse to accept that GZ was on the bottom of an altercation between he and TM in which TM was bloodying him up? That's the reason. It's not a thought that was in TM's mind, it was the force of his punches to GZs face and the evidence of damage those blows left behind for all to see. Evidence.

Oops, sorry let me amend my last statement. I could walk up to a stranger and stab them in the groin, and since there is no evidence of my depraved mind I will be untouchable.

True, with caveat. You'd best wait for the stranger to get on top of you reigning blows down upon you before you draw that knife and it'd behoove you to have at least one eye witness corroborating your vulnerability. If you think you can line this all up, jump the next cracker-ass freak you can find and let me know how it all turns out.

Fair point. IF they martyr themselves.

I don't think there's a suitable charge for life sentence anywhere up until that point quite frankly.

But if you catch them before they succeed, then you have to prove what's in their mind if you want to convict them of attempted <crime>. How are you going to do it?

You don't have to read their minds. Here's a CRS report for Congress on terrorist identification, screening, and tracking under Homeland Security Presidential Directive; let me know if this addresses your query. I'd be particularly interested in anything that suggests the need for mind-reading. I couldn't find anything on that.

But committing attempted terrorism can only get you a life sentence if we're allowed to use guilt-by-association to associate your mind with your movement's leaders' minds or writings. That's what I was getting at.

It's actually much more involved than that. See above.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Weird evening. Went out to eat tonight with my family and one of the waiters saw that I was armed (belt holster), so the manager walked up and asked me to leave. I told him I was an on-call reserve deputy (showed my ID), he didn't care, then told me that unless I'm on-duty at the time I can't be armed there. Fine, we got up from the table and were walking out when the owner stopped us and asked what was going on, I explained that I'm an on-call county deputy, carrying a handgun, and was asked to leave the premises. He asked us to stay, emphatically, and walked us back to the table. Then he pulled the manager to the side and (quietly) flipped out on him, the whole time the manager is staring daggers at me. In under a minute he's walking towards the door, gives me the finger, then leaves. WTF?

Originally Posted by ghporter 

It sounds like a "personality conflict" between the boss and the manager. Whether you're on-call or on duty, in or out of uniform, a peace officer is still a peace officer, and to most people, having an LEO in the restaurant is a Good Thing. I think that having officers in a restaurant or other establishment makes everyone feel that the officers are a real part of the community instead of some external, abstract thing that acts apart from the community. Of course I'm not pathologically afraid of guns. Freud is misquoted as saying "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." (The misquote comes from essentially abstracting some of his statements about emotional development, but it seems to be an effective expression of what he meant.)

Could be he was to told to leave or fired.

If I were the owner, I wouldn't want it to get around that LEO's were not welcome in my shop, on or off duty. Besides, I thought a LEO was "always on duty."

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Where did he say HE didn't want TM to get away? Sounds like he was hoping the cops wouldn't let him get away.

That interpretation is inconsistent with him leaving his truck to continue pursuit.

He followed TM, but TM initiated the deadly confrontation by hitting, jumping on top of, and beating up on a guy he didn't know.

The only source of that info is the accused's word, after the fact. Credibility zero.

How do you know TM was innocent? From the evidence presented, (including any mind-reading we choose to employ) TM may have been casing his next burglary.

That's not even a crime, and there's no reason to believe it might be true. There is some reason to believe it is not true, as chatting with your lady-friend is an activity that conflicts with stealthily casing a burglary.

You're presupposing depravity here, not basing it on the evidence presented. Without assumed depravity, it would be counterintuitive to call for police presence before or during the commission of a crime.

Yeah that's what I said: we can't learn anything from the fact that he called. It is consistent with both depravity and un-depravity.

Uncle proclaims he will be wearing the chip of self-defense upon his shoulder for wielding against conservatives...

Oh I see the problem already (thanks for the write-up, exactly what I was asking). The chip was not self-defense, the chip was demanding to know what's in your mind before taking action, as if your action alone is not sufficient to justify statutory counter-actions. It was in response to your comment about "thank goodness the government can't convict you without proving what's in your mind."

Wait a minute then, if carrying the baby to term equates to a death sentence; why are you not calling for the life imprisonment of me and others who oppose abortion?

Because you won't win, I don't believe the threat from you is credible

Yes, there are those who would like to see a death sentence against the abortion doctor and they do often equate abortion to murder, but I've not once heard anyone suggest the exploited woman be brought up on charges for life imprisonment. If you could show me some evidence to the contrary, I'll certainly entertain it.

I'm sure you'll see wiggle room here, but there was indeed a case of a mother facing life imprisonment for having killed her fetus, and there was also a MacNN thread that we both posted in, over a proposal to establish legal personhood starting at conception, in obvious preparation for a change in abortion law. It failed, but there was still support for it.

I apologize for your loss.

Thank you, that's nice of you

I'm not trying to divine the thoughts of their minds, you are. You gave the premise of self-defense. Should I be working from some other premise now?

I gave it as a counter-example of what you can't rule out without divining the thoughts within their minds. I didn't say we could ever know that was their mind, only that they must be as innocent as a Zimmerman unless or until we can prove that it isn't in their minds.

So -- evidence doesn't matter to you right? You keep saying; no reason. Do you refuse to accept that GZ was on the bottom of an altercation between he and TM in which TM was bloodying him up?

Snow-i taught us that self-defense was moot in this trial. That's why it doesn't matter if I accept or reject that it happened. The outcome would have been the same if there was no reason, self-defense or otherwise.

True, with caveat. You'd best wait for the stranger to get on top of you reigning blows down upon you before you draw that knife and it'd behoove you to have at least one eye witness corroborating your vulnerability.

Then how could self-defense have been a moot point in this trial?

I don't think there's a suitable charge for life sentence anywhere up until that point quite frankly.

What? You don't think there's a life sentence for attempted (rather than successful) martyrdom? According to the internet, the shoe bomber received a life sentence, and he was stopped before the bombing.

You don't have to read their minds. Here's a CRS report for Congress on terrorist identification, screening, and tracking under Homeland Security Presidential Directive; let me know if this addresses your query. I'd be particularly interested in anything that suggests the need for mind-reading. I couldn't find anything on that.

So you CAN'T thank goodness that we don't live under a court system that can lock you away for life without proving what's in your mind? I'm getting mixed signals from you.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Of course I'm not pathologically afraid of guns. Freud is misquoted as saying "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." (The misquote comes from essentially abstracting some of his statements about emotional development, but it seems to be an effective expression of what he meant.)

To be fair though, there are definitely people who have fear of weapons because they've had weapons pulled on them. I know at least two.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That interpretation is inconsistent with him leaving his truck to continue pursuit.

How so? Many people leave their trucks to watch many things, this isn't sufficient evidence alone that he personally meant to seize that which he was watching. He was calling the police in the hopes that they might however and was using his proximity outside the truck to continue spotting TM and reporting his whereabouts back to police dispatch.

The only source of that info is the accused's word, after the fact. Credibility zero.

No, that evidence was corroborated not only by the multiple injuries sustained by GZ, but by the phone conversation as cited by the Prosecution's star witness and the eyewitness to the event as it transpired.

That's not even a crime, and there's no reason to believe it might be true. There is some reason to believe it is not true, as chatting with your lady-friend is an activity that conflicts with stealthily casing a burglary.

Neither is getting out of your truck or following someone for that matter. Talking to your girlfriend during the plotting of a crime might indicate depravity or un-depravity as well. The only useful evidence from this fact was the subject of conversation as cited by Jeantel which in fact has TM initiating the confrontation. She was asked to repeat herself and she did, frustratingly.

Yeah that's what I said: we can't learn anything from the fact that he called. It is consistent with both depravity and un-depravity.

I disagree. There is some reason to believe chatting with police dispatch is an activity that conflicts with stealthily plotting someone's murder.

Oh I see the problem already (thanks for the write-up, exactly what I was asking). The chip was not self-defense, the chip was demanding to know what's in your mind before taking action, as if your action alone is not sufficient to justify statutory counter-actions. It was in response to your comment about "thank goodness the government can't convict you without proving what's in your mind."

Got it, but this just goes back to what I've been saying all along. When another's entire life hangs in the balance contingent upon those statutory counter-actions, it is a weightier matter. In other words, if you're going to sentence someone to life imprisonment based on what's in their mind, you'd better be prepared to prove it. Otherwise the physical evidence of the defense is going to win over the divinations of emotion. And thank goodness. It's one thing for folks to sit and ponder what must've gone through both of their minds the night TM's life was taken, but when this exercise occurs in a courtroom and someone's life hangs in the balance of that judgment, the evidence must be taken into account.

Because you won't win, I don't believe the threat from you is credible

Death by a thousand cuts. I will win eventually, but you're right -- I've not really even gotten out of the truck yet.

I'm sure you'll see wiggle room here, but there was indeed a case of a mother facing life imprisonment for having killed her fetus

Actually, not as much wiggle room as I might've thought though I must ask you, do you believe she will be convicted of 2nd degree murder in court? That they won't be equally burdened with proving depravity and will ultimately fail? i.e. I don't think that's going anywhere and might be evidence that State prosecutions are getting out of hand with perhaps more a political agenda than any real pursuit of justice.

and there was also a MacNN thread that we both posted in, over a proposal to establish legal personhood starting at conception, in obvious preparation for a change in abortion law. It failed, but there was still support for it.

A life sentence proposition will likely never enter into the discussion just as it was predictably missing in that discussion. A change in abortion law does not necessitate a life sentence for the woman who performs one or has one performed. I'm guessing you'd say thank goodness because a great deal of mind-reading would become critical in sentencing these women to life imprisonment.

Thank you, that's nice of you

I'm nothing if not a giving person.

I gave it as a counter-example of what you can't rule out without divining the thoughts within their minds. I didn't say we could ever know that was their mind, only that they must be as innocent as a Zimmerman unless or until we can prove that it isn't in their minds.

This is where I think you're missing the boat. The Prosecution did attempt to give evidence of what was in GZs mind, but the defense offered more compelling evidence across the board. In other words, what's in your mind might be more important to a prosecution when all other evidences suggest something contrary to the outcome the prosecution is seeking. The fact that the prosecution lost should not be construed as a failure to read minds, but a failure to provide as much evidence as the defense overall.

Snow-i taught us that self-defense was moot in this trial. That's why it doesn't matter if I accept or reject that it happened. The outcome would have been the same if there was no reason, self-defense or otherwise.

Why are you beating me up with what you believe Snow-i said? Not only do I believe he's been misunderstood, I've asserted that self-defense was absolutely central to this case.

Then how could self-defense have been a moot point in this trial?

When did I say it was?

What? You don't think there's a life sentence for attempted (rather than successful) martyrdom? According to the internet, the shoe bomber received a life sentence, and he was stopped before the bombing.

Not based on anything in his mind of course. He was sentenced on eight charges in total, including attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction and attempted murder. He was actually in the commission of a crime that failed, not merely thinking about it or discussing it with his associates.

So you CAN'T thank goodness that we don't live under a court system that can lock you away for life without proving what's in your mind? I'm getting mixed signals from you.

You're getting mixed signals, but not from me. I said; "Thank goodness. Imagine a court system that would manufacture what's in your mind to lock you away for life." and in the example I provided, physical evidence is used to profile potential criminals with specific care not to manufacture what's in their mind.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ok I'm getting it, maybe. Do you mean guilty of "the" crime (the self-same crime the defendant is accused of, as in shares additional guilt for the rape in question)? Or do you mean guilty of _any_ crime that they were committing at the time, that could be claimed to justify the defendant's actions?


Challenge accepted!

If it's the former (from above), then what about this. The rape is statutory rape, and the victim is guilty of misrepresenting her age (defrauding the defendant).

If it's the latter (from above), then what about this. The victim was engaged in the crimes of prostitution and robbery at the time (robbing her clients while distracting them with her sweet sweet whoring). The defendant discovers the plot, and decides to get what he came for regardless.

I was thinking of your first example. Likewise I was thinking of (in the words of Whoopi Goldberg) "rape rape", not statutory rape, so your first scenario doesn't really apply.

If you add the wrinkle of state mandated lack of consent as opposed to actual lack of consent, I agree the responsibility of the victim comes into play with the former in a way it does not with the latter, though I'll note the bulk of the victim blaming phenomenon is addressed to the latter.

For your second question, what pops into mind is the counter-question: can you assault someone purely for comitting a non-violent robbery? In other words, is it morally justified to beat the shit out of someone for robbing you in a non-violent manner?

I need to clarify these questions precisely in regards to your scenario. I'm not asking if it's okay to beat someone up to stop a robbery. That's not what's happening in your scenario. The rape isn't to stop the robbery, it's purely retaliatory.

I'd say in both situations it's morally wrong to inflict retaliatory violence, but more importantly, I wouldn't blame the robber for the retaliatory violence. That's on the person being violent.

I want to state again though, I'm not talking about beating the robber up in the pursuit of stopping the robbery. That's on the robber, no question.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Could be he was to told to leave or fired.

If I were the owner, I wouldn't want it to get around that LEO's were not welcome in my shop, on or off duty. Besides, I thought a LEO was "always on duty."

Originally Posted by ghporter 

It sounds like a "personality conflict" between the boss and the manager. Whether you're on-call or on duty, in or out of uniform, a peace officer is still a peace officer, and to most people, having an LEO in the restaurant is a Good Thing. I think that having officers in a restaurant or other establishment makes everyone feel that the officers are a real part of the community instead of some external, abstract thing that acts apart from the community. Of course I'm not pathologically afraid of guns. Freud is misquoted as saying "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." (The misquote comes from essentially abstracting some of his statements about emotional development, but it seems to be an effective expression of what he meant.)

To me it seemed personal, but I don't know the guy from Adam. So I have to assume that he has either a strong fear of guns or a hatred of police (or both). It was very unusual behavior for this area, and since I'd never seen him before I can only guess that he's a misplaced yankee.

As you said, most stores and restaurants are very happy to see officers frequent them, to the point I often get free coffee and food at a lot of places around here (they won't ring up the sale no matter how much I try to pay). I don't feel comfortable with it, so I stuff money into the tip/donation jar instead.

[subego]

He hates cars.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Snow-i taught us that self-defense was moot in this trial. That's why it doesn't matter if I accept or reject that it happened. The outcome would have been the same if there was no reason, self-defense or otherwise.

I said self-defense as an affirmative defense was moot as a counter for your confusion as to why GZ was acquitted. I was simply highlighting the legal reasoning behind the acquittal. Stop twisting what I'm saying man. Reread my posts if you have to but lets cut the dishonesty here.

I cited it, highlighted the relevant example within the citation, and applied it to the case at hand. I'm really not sure how I can be any more clear and I don't think it's fair for you to continue erecting strawmans in my name. If you have a question about my assertions overall, by all means, ask away.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

How so? Many people leave their trucks to watch many things, this isn't sufficient evidence alone that he personally meant to seize that which he was watching.

How many people chase that which they are watching as it runs, yet with no intention to "catch" it at the end of the chase?

No, that evidence was corroborated not only by the multiple injuries sustained by GZ, but by the phone conversation as cited by the Prosecution's star witness and the eyewitness to the event as it transpired.

Which part informs us at all about who started it? You said "initiated."

Neither is getting out of your truck or following someone for that matter.

I said it informed his state of mind (something which I still doubt is required), not that it was a crime or that he was not "innocent" of doing it, like you said of Martin. "Innocent" distinctly implies there is a crime of which one could be guilty.

The only useful evidence from this fact was the subject of conversation as cited by Jeantel which in fact has TM initiating the confrontation. She was asked to repeat herself and she did, frustratingly.

Sorry but I have to ask you what you're referring to here. I've tried to do my due diligence, but I can find nothing that indicates this. Admittedly, coverage of this trial is a disaster and it's a needle in a haystack.

I disagree. There is some reason to believe chatting with police dispatch is an activity that conflicts with stealthily plotting someone's murder.

Did anyone claim he plotted it beforehand?

Got it, but this just goes back to what I've been saying all along. When another's entire life hangs in the balance contingent upon those statutory counter-actions, it is a weightier matter. In other words, if you're going to sentence someone to life imprisonment based on what's in their mind, you'd better be prepared to prove it.

You seem to be awfully eager to accept/adopt/endorse the premise that all of this is "based on" what's in their mind, in light of your upcoming comments.

Death by a thousand cuts. I will win eventually, but you're right -- I've not really even gotten out of the truck yet.

Ballsy joke. Props.

Actually, not as much wiggle room as I might've thought though I must ask you, do you believe she will be convicted of 2nd degree murder in court? That they won't be equally burdened with proving depravity and will ultimately fail? i.e. I don't think that's going anywhere and might be evidence that State prosecutions are getting out of hand with perhaps more a political agenda than any real pursuit of justice.

I have no idea what her chances are, but... so you're good with the "proving their mind" premise....?

A life sentence proposition will likely never enter into the discussion just as it was predictably missing in that discussion.

Well, her trial would have to be manslaughter; Zimmerman admitted to intentional killing while it would be outlandish to think the miscarriage was intentional. And even Zimmerman could have gotten a sentence far short of life if convicted of 2nd degree murder, or lesser included offenses. Don't get too attached to a false equivalency.

The fact that the prosecution lost should not be construed as a failure to read minds, but a failure to provide as much evidence as the defense overall.

I won't pretend to understand the reasoning that the prosecution failed to read minds, that is merely received wisdom I got from this thread. It makes no sense to me. So if you have a rebuttal to it, I have no choice but to refer your point to the person who I received that wisdom from.

Why are you beating me up with what you believe Snow-i said? Not only do I believe he's been misunderstood, I've asserted that self-defense was absolutely central to this case.

You're getting mixed signals, but not from me. I said; "Thank goodness. Imagine a court system that would manufacture what's in your mind to lock you away for life."

Twice already in this post, and in addition, my post begged the question (of whether proving of the mind was relevant). In the abstract, building off a begged question without calling on it constitutes acceptance of the implicit assumption. Doesn't it?


PS, "Not only do I believe he's been misunderstood,"
I would be grateful if you could explain it, because it's quite clear by this point that he can't. And I am curious.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I said self-defense as an affirmative defense was moot

Self-defense is an affirmative defense.

Open letter: if anyone can translate this repetitious nonsense into sense for me, I would appreciate it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

I was thinking of your first example. Likewise I was thinking of (in the words of Whoopi Goldberg) "rape rape", not statutory rape, so your first scenario doesn't really apply.

If you add the wrinkle of state mandated lack of consent as opposed to actual lack of consent, I agree the responsibility of the victim comes into play with the former in a way it does not with the latter, though I'll note the bulk of the victim blaming phenomenon is addressed to the latter.

Ok then, no statutory rape, but the victim has additional responsibility for the rape in question...
How about this then. Prostitute changes her mind afterwards (or too late to stop it, like right before the end).
Or
That story in Texas about the prostitute taking the money but refusing service, but instead of him shooting her for stealing the money, he "steals" the service. So now it's not retaliation, it's just enforcing a verbal contract.

For your second question, what pops into mind is the counter-question: can you assault someone purely for comitting a non-violent robbery?

That's not exactly a fair comparison. If rape is automatically violent due purely to the sexual parts, then why is the prostitute-thief's sexual crime not considered violent as well? If a woman rapes a man is that not considered a violent crime? Or is there even still an unspoken assumption on your part that "rape rape" is the kind that comes with a beating too?

If rape steals the victim's proverbial virtue, then a better question is can you steal that which someone has already given away, as part of their criminal enterprise against you no less?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Self-defense is an affirmative defense.

Open letter: if anyone can translate this repetitious nonsense into sense for me, I would appreciate it.

If you'd continue after the word "moot" it makes sense, but you keep stopping there.

Originally Posted by subego 

He hates cars.

Huh?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Adding insult to injury isn't a fallacy. It's immoral, but it's not illogical.

I'm not sure how its logical though, and surely if it isn't logical, it must be illogical.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That story in Texas about the prostitute taking the money but refusing service, but instead of him shooting her for stealing the money, he "steals" the service. So now it's not retaliation, it's just enforcing a verbal contract.

In most places, verbal contracts have little worth. Certainly without witnesses. Also, if you're going to steal something, why not just steal back your money? When it comes to goods (and presumably services) possession is supposedly 9/10ths of the law as they say.
When the "contract" you have entered into is known to be entirely illegal by all parties involved, I don't think the law regarding contractual obligations or trade descriptions or whatever really applies. Its no different to a drug deal or the sale of stolen property. There is a reason most people don't call the cops when their dealer rips them off.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

That's not exactly a fair comparison. If rape is automatically violent due purely to the sexual parts, then why is the prostitute-thief's sexual crime not considered violent as well? If a woman rapes a man is that not considered a violent crime? Or is there even still an unspoken assumption on your part that "rape rape" is the kind that comes with a beating too?

The violence component is not the same as 'traditional' violence. The trauma involved is considered emotional or psychological. Women raping men definitely IS considered a crime, but its very difficult to accomplish and even more difficult to prove in court because most men do not take much persuading when it comes to sex. Its always much more likely that she just kept asking and he eventually decided to go for it, than it is that she managed to overpower him or drug and then force-feed him Viagra or whatever. Now if a woman were to pose as another woman wearing some kind of disguise, and have sex with a man having deliberately mislead him into believing she was someone else, that might be easier to prove, but if he has a wife or a girlfriend or a job in the public eye, most juries are still going to assume he is trying to get away with cheating or misbehaving, so again its tricky to prove.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

If rape steals the victim's proverbial virtue, then a better question is can you steal that which someone has already given away, as part of their criminal enterprise against you no less?

I personally don't think theft of virtue has anything to do with the crime. It probably has a lot to do with the sentence, but its really more religious thing than a legal one. If the law can't define common sense, I see no way it can hope to adequately define virtuousness.

As for them having given it away, husbands can be charged with raping their wives and prostitutes can be (and very frequently are) raped too. Many prostitutes these days are not in the trade by choice so they are raped by every customer. Unless a prostitute has the freedom from pressure to change her mind and turn down a punter she considers too ugly, dirty or otherwise offensive, rape is always a risk. She might risk the wrath of a pimp if she turned you down so she is being coerced and there is an argument that that is rape, but I think many people probably think the way you describe. Even prostitutes themselves tend to be blasé about being raped once its happened a few times.

It all boils down to consent in every case except for statutory. If there is no consent, it is rape. If someone withdraws consent, then something else needs to be withdrawn immediately, or that becomes rape. While I understand that sometimes its no less traumatic for the perceived victim, it cannot be possible to withdraw consent after the fact. You aren't going to stop unless someone asks you to and this has been the key point in many rape trials I believe, whether or not the victim has has words like "no" or "stop".

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How many people chase that which they are watching as it runs, yet with no intention to "catch" it at the end of the chase?

There's no evidence from his phone conversation that TM had been running. At one point in fact, per Jeantel's testimony; TM "lost" GZ.

Which part informs us at all about who started it? You said "initiated."

According to GZs testimony prior to the altercation, there had been no proximity for conversation and per Jeantel's testimony - none had occurred until TM says "that cracker ass freak is behind me" and then asks "why are you following me?" That produces both proximity and initiation.

I said it informed his state of mind (something which I still doubt is required), not that it was a crime or that he was not "innocent" of doing it, like you said of Martin. "Innocent" distinctly implies there is a crime of which one could be guilty.

He wasn't in court for not doing something questionable. Correct.

Sorry but I have to ask you what you're referring to here. I've tried to do my due diligence, but I can find nothing that indicates this. Admittedly, coverage of this trial is a disaster and it's a needle in a haystack.

I believe it's somewhere between 2:05 and 3:00 in this video clip of Jeantel's testimony.

Did anyone claim he plotted it beforehand?

Okay, stealthily stalking.

You seem to be awfully eager to accept/adopt/endorse the premise that all of this is "based on" what's in their mind, in light of your upcoming comments.

How am I eager to accept/adopt/endorse the premise that this is based on what's in their mind? I'm saying the exact opposite; that if this all you've got, you'd better be prepared to prove it. Granted, this is an extremely weighty burden and I maintain we'd want that no other way in light of the fact that someone's life hangs in the balance. I'd rather you read my posts than read into them. I'm not interested in being your next Snow-i.

Ballsy joke. Props.

I was hoping you'd appreciate that.

I have no idea what her chances are, but... so you're good with the "proving their mind" premise....?

No, I'm saying it's an awfully weighty burden of proof and will likely fail. They certainly have the right to try, but I believe it will ultimately fail -- as well it should, void of any other evidence. Not unlike GZ trial, it is possible this Prosecution was acting out a political agenda over any honest pursuit of justice.

Well, her trial would have to be manslaughter; Zimmerman admitted to intentional killing while it would be outlandish to think the miscarriage was intentional. And even Zimmerman could have gotten a sentence far short of life if convicted of 2nd degree murder, or lesser included offenses. Don't get too attached to a false equivalency.

So, you're upset the Prosecution didn't offer lesser offenses? Got it. What does that have to do with mind-reading? You feel that mind-reading would not have been necessary had they included perhaps some lesser offense? Hmm... you might be onto something.

I won't pretend to understand the reasoning that the prosecution failed to read minds, that is merely received wisdom I got from this thread. It makes no sense to me. So if you have a rebuttal to it, I have no choice but to refer your point to the person who I received that wisdom from.

I don't buy it, but I am willing to flesh out your available free time.

Twice already in this post, and in addition, my post begged the question (of whether proving of the mind was relevant). In the abstract, building off a begged question without calling on it constitutes acceptance of the implicit assumption. Doesn't it?

Not in exchange with someone who has repeatedly challenged that implicit assumption. Anything else is just being facetious. Ring a bell?

PS, "Not only do I believe he's been misunderstood,"
I would be grateful if you could explain it, because it's quite clear by this point that he can't. And I am curious.

I already did.

*Edited to include my earlier question; If I were to guess what's in your mind and indict you for that, I'd say your problem is with guns, not GZ or self defense. Am I right?

[subego]

@Uncle Skeleton

Re: statutory rape. Maybe I've failed to get my head around the semantics here, but doesn't the term "statutory rape" mean "this is not rape except by statute"?

I'm having trouble with your new example. I assume the prostitute angle is required. If a non-prostitute changes their mind right near the end, does that change the scenario? In the non-prostitute scenario, I think either party can change their mind at any moment, and once they make that known, it stops at that moment.

I can personally drop from Mach 10 to zero almost instantaneously. I've heard tales of men who have a problem with that. Frankly, I think they're full of shit. Edit: or to put it more constructively, this defense needs to be shown to be possible far more rigorously than I've ever seen it shown if I'm going to buy it.

WRT violence, you can replace "violence" with "threat of violence". If there's no threat of violence, then how is the person coerced into doing something against their will?

Maybe the guy was dressed so hot she couldn't help but let herself get raped.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

Re: statutory rape. Maybe I've failed to get my head around the semantics here, but doesn't the term "statutory rape" mean "this is not rape except by statute"?

yep

Consent is given, but one of the parties is below the age to leaglly give consent.
that's reminds me of an old joke.
Cop comes up to a car in an empty field around midnight. He sees a male sitting in the front seat reading a newspaper and a female in the back seat reading a book. Cop asks the male how old he is. He replies 21. He asks the female. Her reply as she looks at her watch, in about 2 minutes, 18.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

If you'd continue after the word "moot" it makes sense, but you keep stopping there.

Huh? What came next was "as a counter," and I am pretty sure that what I included was a self-contained clause. Is "moot as a counter" a term I'm not familiar with?

Can you please be more specific about what part that I overlooked that was expository?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I'm not sure how its logical though <adding insult to injury>, and surely if it isn't logical, it must be illogical.

Eh, insults can be accurate, the best ones are. Imagine a fat person slips and falls, and you laugh and tell them they're fat (adding insult to injury). Calling a fat person fat is perfectly logical, and not illogical.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Huh? What came next was "as a counter," and I am pretty sure that what I included was a self-contained clause. Is "moot as a counter" a term I'm not familiar with?

Can you please be more specific about what part that I overlooked that was expository?

You've been ignoring the substance of what he's saying and playing rope-a-dope with his posts for the last 2 weeks. I'm quite sure you've caught his meaning by now.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You've been ignoring the substance of what he's saying and playing rope-a-dope with his posts for the last 2 weeks. I'm quite sure you've caught his meaning by now.

Honestly, I haven't. If you want to keep playing the whole "if you don't know I'm not going to tell you" game, then this post really makes you a hypocrite doesn't it?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The violence component is not the same as 'traditional' violence. The trauma involved is considered emotional or psychological.
...
I personally don't think theft of virtue has anything to do with the crime.

That's what I was referring to. The "emotional or psychological," not the reputation part.

If someone withdraws consent, then something else needs to be withdrawn immediately, or that becomes rape. While I understand that sometimes its no less traumatic for the perceived victim, it cannot be possible to withdraw consent after the fact. You aren't going to stop unless someone asks you to and this has been the key point in many rape trials I believe, whether or not the victim has has words like "no" or "stop".

You're missing the point. This "it's rape period no excuses" business is exactly what my point was: whatever you can pin to the victim doesn't affect whether the suspect is guilty of a crime. Her guilt, if any for anything, doesn't lessen his guilt.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

@Uncle Skeleton

Re: statutory rape. Maybe I've failed to get my head around the semantics here, but doesn't the term "statutory rape" mean "this is not rape except by statute"?

Is that in conflict with my post?

I'm having trouble with your new example. I assume the prostitute angle is required.

Not required, just optimal. It removes as much ambiguity as possible about consent and motives. It also satisfies the "guilt" or "crime" requirement, and it's even a crime that's automatically relevant to the sexual act. I debated about trying to avoid seeming to be obsessed with prostitutes, but it just seems like I have to make things as extreme as possible for this divide to be bridged.

If a non-prostitute changes their mind right near the end, does that change the scenario?

It would be more muddied. Don't you think?

WRT violence, you can replace "violence" with "threat of violence". If there's no threat of violence, then how is the person coerced into doing something against their will?

What about threat of blackmail, or drugging them, or fraud (I'll pay you after, or something)?

Maybe the guy was dressed so hot she couldn't help but let herself get raped.

Or so pathetically that she couldn't help but pity him...

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There's no evidence from his phone conversation that TM had been running. At one point in fact, per Jeantel's testimony; TM "lost" GZ.

Huh? GZ didn't tell the dispatcher "Shit, he's running?" TM having "lost" GZ, or thought he did, is inconsistent with a running chase? Isn't that one of two expected outcomes of any such chase?

According to GZs testimony prior to the altercation, there had been no proximity for conversation and per Jeantel's testimony - none had occurred until TM says "that cracker ass freak is behind me" and then asks "why are you following me?" That produces both proximity and initiation.

You moved the goalposts from "TM initiated the deadly confrontation by hitting, jumping on top of, and beating up on a guy he didn't know" to merely initiating a spoken conversation after GZ surprised him from behind.

He wasn't in court for not doing something questionable. Correct.

I believe it's somewhere between 2:05 and 3:00 in this video clip of Jeantel's testimony.

Ok so now that I know what you're talking about, you had raised this in support of your hypothesis that TM actually was casing a burglary at the time. If TM was first to speak, and his first words were "why are you following me" (and both sides agree that GZ was in fact following him), then how does that support your theory that he was casing a burglary? Are burglars more likely to speak first, and seek conversation with neighbors, and make true-to-fact statements? I'm just curious about your logical process here.

Okay, stealthily stalking.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the prosecution's claim was a crime that is not premeditated. RIght? Plotting, stalking, or in any way anticipating the proceeding crime, aren't implied by that prosecution. His behavior beforehand reveals his personality (defects, allegedly), not his preparation, or part of his crime or another independent crime.

How am I eager to accept/adopt/endorse the premise that this is based on what's in their mind? I'm saying the exact opposite; that if this all you've got, you'd better be prepared to prove it.

I have asked only about requirement, not exclusivity. On what basis did you think this thread was about exclusivity?

I'm not interested in being your next Snow-i.

Hilarious. Tell me, which of us (you and I) initiated this exchange? This ought to be revealing...

So, you're upset the Prosecution didn't offer lesser offenses?

Impossible, because they did

I don't buy it, but I am willing to flesh out your available free time.

So you're just trolling? That explains a lot

Not in exchange with someone who has repeatedly challenged that implicit assumption. Anything else is just being facetious. Ring a bell?

Let's see... there was an "I'm only just getting out of my truck" joke, that was pretty facetious. Is being facetious something to be ashamed of?

I already did.

Well ok, that post didn't make any sense as a defense of snow-i's (instead it read as something that contradicted his, but was on the same general "side", which invariably leads to no challenges), but I didn't want to criticize it at the time because it wasn't addressed to me... why should I pick a fight? Now that it is....

I don't really know what snow-i has been claiming, but it's one of two things. Either self-defense was moot, or "affirmative defense" was moot (in this trial). These two may or may not be equivalent in his vocabulary, but it's clear that at least one of them is his point.

You don't provide explanation for the claim that self-defense was moot; instead you say the opposite, "GZ claimed self-defense" (if it was moot, then why did he claim it and why did you feel it was relevant enough to describe? There was no "he claimed it, but..." which would have been a good start).

You don't provide explanation for the claim that affirmative defense is moot; instead you say the opposite, "no one is arguing whether the affirmative defense is meritorious at that point -- it's the only suitable defense for taking someone's life." Your description of it is the opposite of moot; it's paramount.

*Edited to include my earlier question; If I were to guess what's in your mind and indict you for that, I'd say your problem is with guns, not GZ or self defense. Am I right?

I answered that right away. No you're not right because the same is true if I exchange a knife for a gun in the story. Does that answer not satisfy?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Honestly, I haven't. If you want to keep playing the whole "if you don't know I'm not going to tell you" game, then this post really makes you a hypocrite doesn't it?

Sorry, I'm not spending the next couple weeks locked in a conversational Mobius strip with you.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Huh? GZ didn't tell the dispatcher "Shit, he's running?" TM having "lost" GZ, or thought he did, is inconsistent with a running chase? Isn't that one of two expected outcomes of any such chase?

No, having "lost" GZ the expected outcome would be TM at home, calling the police on the cracker-ass freak. That's not what happened. GZ was on the phone with dispatch and as far we know was not running at all. If TM was running and GZ was not, this may explain why TM "lost" GZ. You're suggesting TM was running as if in fear which is entirely inconsistent with questioning your stalker. You generally elude your fearsome stalker, not question them. I've been chased, I know.

You moved the goalposts from "TM initiated the deadly confrontation by hitting, jumping on top of, and beating up on a guy he didn't know" to merely initiating a spoken conversation after GZ surprised him from behind.

We have an eye witness with TM on top of GZ reigning blows down upon GZ and we have a bloodied GZ. Why would I move that goalpost? That evidence has not been refuted. I've in fact, moved on and am very curious about your apparent inability to. He hit and was on top of the fearsome stranger/stalker. We were talking about the moments prior to the obvious self-defense because you've not wanted to accept the irrefutable evidence. Yes, TM said; "that cracker-ass freak is behind me" just as he said "he at the back of his daddy's house". Okay, which is it? Both imply close proximity. GZ could've been 70 yards behind TM just as TM was supposedly half a block away from his Daddy's house. I have a hard time conceiving a scenario where they're both in full-on run with TM questioning GZ and then GZ questioning TM. In fact, there's nothing from the phone conversation with Jeantel at the moment of first words with GZ that there was any running at all. You would have to manufacture that evidence.

You're talking to ebuddy here. I know it seems absurd to remind you, but...

Ok so now that I know what you're talking about, you had raised this in support of your hypothesis that TM actually was casing a burglary at the time. If TM was first to speak, and his first words were "why are you following me" (and both sides agree that GZ was in fact following him), then how does that support your theory that he was casing a burglary? Are burglars more likely to speak first, and seek conversation with neighbors, and make true-to-fact statements? I'm just curious about your logical process here.

ebuddy: "The only useful evidence from this fact was the subject of conversation as cited by Jeantel which in fact has TM initiating the confrontation. She was asked to repeat herself and she did, frustratingly."

You were trying to act as if you somehow know Trayvon; that he was innocent. I was telling you that you don't know this and for all we know he was casing a burglary. You said it wouldn't make sense to be talking to a lady friend while casing a burglary at the same time trying to make the point that one would be talking to a police dispatcher while stalking an innocent kid.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the prosecution's claim was a crime that is not premeditated. RIght? Plotting, stalking, or in any way anticipating the proceeding crime, aren't implied by that prosecution. His behavior beforehand reveals his personality (defects, allegedly), not his preparation, or part of his crime or another independent crime.

Well... for starters, there was no crime at all until the point of first blow of physical altercation. To that point, how is GZs behavior any more damning than TMs behavior? The "defect" was alleged because it was manufactured. It just didn't hold up.

I have asked only about requirement, not exclusivity. On what basis did you think this thread was about exclusivity?

All I know is that you were decrying the inability to manufacture behavioral defects and I thanked goodness this was so when someone else's life hangs in the balance. The rest has been your inability to accept the outcome of multiple investigations, by multiple parties, and multiple jurors, over multiple months in court.

Hilarious. Tell me, which of us (you and I) initiated this exchange? This ought to be revealing...

Why is that revealing? I felt you were being unfair to snow-i and I initiated our exchange. Shouldn't this be further evidence of my victimhood?!?

Impossible, because they did

Lesser offense than that which requires depravity?

So you're just trolling? That explains a lot

No, I'm letting the conversation do what it do... and trying to follow your line of thought until your point has been exhausted for the forum.

Let's see... there was an "I'm only just getting out of my truck" joke, that was pretty facetious. Is being facetious something to be ashamed of?

Do you feel ashamed?

Well ok, that post didn't make any sense as a defense of snow-i's (instead it read as something that contradicted his, but was on the same general "side", which invariably leads to no challenges), but I didn't want to criticize it at the time because it wasn't addressed to me... why should I pick a fight? Now that it is....

I don't really know what snow-i has been claiming, but it's one of two things. Either self-defense was moot, or "affirmative defense" was moot (in this trial). These two may or may not be equivalent in his vocabulary, but it's clear that at least one of them is his point.

You don't provide explanation for the claim that self-defense was moot; instead you say the opposite, "GZ claimed self-defense" (if it was moot, then why did he claim it and why did you feel it was relevant enough to describe? There was no "he claimed it, but..." which would have been a good start).

You don't provide explanation for the claim that affirmative defense is moot; instead you say the opposite, "no one is arguing whether the affirmative defense is meritorious at that point -- it's the only suitable defense for taking someone's life." Your description of it is the opposite of moot; it's paramount.

My take away from snow-i was that he was saying the point was moot upon trial; that the affirmative defense either has the police drop potential charges upon completing their initial investigation (as was the case) or it goes to court (which from your citation could be the pursuit of politics over justice) at which point it is the prosecution's burden to establish guilt. Would I call it "moot"? No, but I feel I have a pretty good idea what he's talking about in context and feel you've been unfair.

I answered that right away. No you're not right because the same is true if I exchange a knife for a gun in the story. Does that answer not satisfy?

At this point, I'll accept it and I'm glad I was wrong on this because there would be no satisfaction for either of us had I been right.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, having "lost" GZ the expected outcome would be TM at home, calling the police on the cracker-ass freak. That's not what happened. GZ was on the phone with dispatch and as far we know was not running at all. If TM was running and GZ was not, this may explain why TM "lost" GZ.

But he didn't lose him. He thought he had, and then the next thing he said was nope he's right behind me. Are you saying neither was running, despite GZ's clear description "he's running?" Was GZ talking about a different "he" besides TM?

You're suggesting TM was running as if in fear which is entirely inconsistent with questioning your stalker. You generally elude your fearsome stalker, not question them. I've been chased, I know.

"Generally," eh? "Generally" implies exceptions. Is one of the exceptions when you just tried running, only to find that when you thought you had lost them, they were still right behind you?

We have an eye witness with TM on top of GZ reigning blows down upon GZ and we have a bloodied GZ. Why would I move that goalpost?

Um, you said he initiated by hitting (etc). I asked you what evidence of this, and you gave:
1. TM speaks first (that was picked up by the phone, at least)
2. There is a gap where something makes a noise
3. TM says "get off, get off"
4. At some later point TM is hitting GZ
Is that a fair summary? I can see how you would argue that (1) is TM "initiating" (but not by hitting), and I can see where you would argue that (4) is TM "hitting" (but not in initiating), but you haven't shown anything about the relationship implied by "A by B", and in between (1) and (4) there is evidence that someone is "on" TM prompting him to instruct "get off." Are you trying to claim that TM saying "get off" should be understood as TM launching the "hitting, jumping on, beating," etc? How are we to infer that?

I'll be honest, I didn't watch any of the video of the trial (except what you just linked; for you, ebuddy, I will watch videos), so if there's something in the video that indicates this, that doesn't translate to text, I am willing to admit I was wrong.

Yes, TM said; "that cracker-ass freak is behind me" just as he said "he at the back of his daddy's house". Okay, which is it? Both imply close proximity. GZ could've been 70 yards behind TM just as TM was supposedly half a block away from his Daddy's house. I have a hard time conceiving a scenario where they're both in full-on run with TM questioning GZ and then GZ questioning TM. In fact, there's nothing from the phone conversation with Jeantel at the moment of first words with GZ that there was any running at all. You would have to manufacture that evidence.

I would have to manufacture evidence like GZ saying on his recorded conversation, "shit, he's running"?

ebuddy: "The only useful evidence from this fact was the subject of conversation as cited by Jeantel which in fact has TM initiating the confrontation. She was asked to repeat herself and she did, frustratingly."

Yeah, I don't follow your reasoning of how this evidence is "useful" for that. What is the use you're noticing that I'm not?

Well... for starters, there was no crime at all until the point of first blow of physical altercation. To that point, how is GZs behavior any more damning than TMs behavior?

One person is chasing the other. This isn't ambiguous

All I know is that you were decrying the inability to manufacture behavioral defects...

Why is that revealing? I felt you were being unfair to snow-i and I initiated our exchange. Shouldn't this be further evidence of my victimhood?!?

I guess if you're "not interested in being the next snow-i," then your instincts about how to achieve that are impeccable. Taking up the flag of his arguments, which you don't even agree with the accuracy of the wording of, is a good strategy for that.

Lesser offense than that which requires depravity?

Um, yes(?) Which lesser offenses require depravity?
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

No, I'm letting the conversation do what it do... and trying to follow your line of thought until your point has been exhausted for the forum.

I suppose you think that's not what I was doing with snow-i?

Do you feel ashamed?

Not in the slightest. It's just that your grammatical structure "anything else is just being X" clearly implies that X is something you believe to be negative.

My take away from snow-i was that he was saying the point was moot upon trial; that the affirmative defense either has the police drop potential charges upon completing their initial investigation (as was the case) or it goes to court (which from your citation could be the pursuit of politics over justice) at which point it is the prosecution's burden to establish guilt.

What is "moot upon trial?" How does anything you just said distinguish this case's affirmative defense from any other affirmative defense, one that would not be "moot upon trial?" Or is being "moot upon trial" something that's part of being an affirmative defense in the first place?

Would I call it "moot"? No, but I feel I have a pretty good idea what he's talking about in context

You've just described what a dog-whistle argument is.

At this point, I'll accept it and I'm glad I was wrong on this because there would be no satisfaction for either of us had I been right.

I like you too.

[OAW]

You know when it comes to this entire "who 'initiated' the confrontation" question it sort of reminds me of my days playing basketball in school. My coaches would always instruct us to never retaliate for a flagrant foul by one of your opponents ... because chances are the ref would catch you in the midst of retaliation instead of the other guy in the midst of initiation. But anyone who watches the game can see such flagrant fouls that the ref might have missed. Similarly on the streets it's not uncommon for there to be more witnesses to how a fight ends than there are to how it began.

As I've stated before, there is no evidence ... none whatsoever ... to think that TM initiated a physical confrontation with GZ other than his word. And for reasons I've made abundantly clear his credibility is bunk. There is ample evidence that TM retaliated when GZ tried to detain him. Something that he had no authority to do because he's not a police officer. But as Det. Serino said ... GZ had a "little hero complex" so he tried to do it anyway because he was strapped. The only earwitness to the initial confrontation testified that GZ came up to TM and she heard a bump and TM's bluetooth headset was knocked off. How do GZ supporters think that happened? From the wind?

We know from the evidence that TM ran away from GZ and hid. We also know from the evidence that GZ followed TM in his truck and on foot. We can reasonably infer that GZ continued to look for TM because his whereabouts were unexplained for 2 minutes from the time he ended his call to non-emergency 911 to the time the first 911 call was made by a neighbor ... and it would have taken him 30 seconds or so to return to his truck. We can reasonably infer this because GZ said originally to have the police meet him at his truck then he changed it to just have them call me and I'll tell them where I am. IOW ... he wasn't going back to the truck. We also have "state of mind" evidence with his recorded statements of "f*cking punks" and "these assholes they always get away".

All I can say is that at some point common sense has to kick in. Or at least one would think it would. Who is more likely to start a physical confrontation? The unarmed kid who runs away and hides from the strange man who's following him? Or the armed man who is clearly determined to stalk this kid through the neighborhood even after being told not to by the 911 dispatcher? When Atty. West suggested that TM went from running and hiding one minute and transformed into "super thug" the next by sucker punching GZ for no reason ... Rachel Jeantel said "That would be retarded sir!" And you know what? She's absolutely right! That would be retarded. Because one of the fundamental rules of the hood is that you don't roll up on someone you don't know on the streets like that ... ESPECIALLY if you are unarmed. As epitomized in this verse by the hip hop group Arrested Development in their song "Everyday People":

The moral of the story is that you never know who you are stepping to. You might get stabbed, shot, killed, or hurt. And it's not even worth it.

In my view it is far more likely that the physical confrontation was initiated because GZ tried to detain TM ... than it is because TM sucker punched GZ for no reason. But at this stage in the game, that doesn't even matter anymore. Because the bigger tragedy in all of this is the reason I started this thread in the first place. Self-defense laws in the State of Florida ... including SYG ... allowed an armed man with minor injuries from a confrontation he could have easily avoided to shoot and kill an unarmed kid and still walk. And that's just not right. Which is why I agree wholeheartedly with what the POTUS had to say about it:

Originally Posted by President Obama

Along the same lines, I think it would be useful for us to examine some state and local laws to see if it — if they are designed in such a way that they may encourage the kinds of altercations and confrontations and tragedies that we saw in the Florida case, rather than diffuse potential altercations.

I know that there’s been commentary about the fact that the “stand your ground” laws in Florida were not used as a defense in the case. On the other hand, if we’re sending a message as a society in our communities that someone who is armed potentially has the right to use those firearms even if there’s a way for them to exit from a situation, is that really going to be contributing to the kind of peace and security and order that we’d like to see?

And for those who resist that idea that we should think about something like these “stand your ground” laws, I’d just ask people to consider, if Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened? And if the answer to that question is at least ambiguous, then it seems to me that we might want to examine those kinds of laws.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

I do have to say, I'm somewhat surprised at the certitude being displayed by a few posters as to Travyon initiating the confrontation. Particularly how prior to the trial I feel like the unknowable uncertainty of it all was being a constantly beaten drum due to so many rushing to judgement.

I mean, I suppose you could come to that conclusion if you believe Zimmerman, but you'd have to demonstrate to me why he's worth believing. It's a classic He Said, She Said, except the latter is incapable of giving their story.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I do have to say, I'm somewhat surprised at the certitude being displayed by a few posters as to Travyon initiating the confrontation. Particularly how prior to the trial I feel like the unknowable uncertainty of it all was being a constantly beaten drum due to so many rushing to judgement.

I mean, I suppose you could come to that conclusion if you believe Zimmerman, but you'd have to demonstrate to me why he's worth believing. It's a classic He Said, She Said, except the latter is incapable of giving their story.

I didn't, until I heard the neighbor's testimony (saying TM was on top of GZ; confident it was GZ yelling for help). Found out that Martin was a druggie, the Watermelon punch (not "tea" as the media insisted) and Skittles were for making more Lean. Discovered TM's recent violent history, truancy (also suspended for fighting), and lack of regard for the welfare of others. Then saw the tweets written by R Jeantel, which were hurriedly scrubbed by the prosecution when they found out about them, detailing her own abuse of drugs and alcohol. All of that, and more, mixed together to paint a picture of a thug who would start a violent altercation with some "creepy ass cracker" who was following him.

[OAW]

^^^^^



So where'd you hear all of that? The same sites repeatedly claiming that "The media won’t publish a real photo of Trayvon Martin"?



A real photo of Trayvon Martin? Chain email makes false claim | Politifact.com

Jeez. Something as simple as fruit punch and skittles are freaking ingredients to drug mixture now! Being suspended because of marijuana residue found in his locker magically becomes being suspended for fighting. GZ was reportedly on anti-anxiety medications with aggression being one of the known side effects. Of course, nothing about GZ's drug and/or alcohol use came out in court because the Sanford PD didn't see fit to test him. I mean if he had ran over TM with a car that would have been routine ... regardless of whether he was showing symptoms of intoxication or not. It just seems to me that when the only reports of this "Lean" sh*t are coming from right-wing blogs (including Stormfront.org I might add) .... when Fox News doesn't even appear to be going there ... that ought to be one massive freaking clue!

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Shaddim

All of that, and more, mixed together to paint a picture of a thug who would start a violent altercation with some "creepy ass cracker" who was following him.

But only AFTER he runs away first and hides? Yeah ... that's a real thugged out move right there. All kinds of "street cred" in some gangsta sh*t like that huh? Especially when you are telling a GIRL about it in real-time.

OAW

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by OAW 

^^^^^

I expect you to laugh, you've been doing it all through this thread. Your obsession over what you want to believe regarding this subject is akin to talking with dyed in the wool evangelicals about Jesus. The fact of the matter is, you don't. Your mind is completely fixed and inflexible, like dry cement, and to attempt to change its state now would cause it to crumble. The only subject I'm close to being so intractable about is the right to keep and bear firearms, but even I would sacrifice mine if there was a way to make all guns disappear from the world for good. In the future, you might want to leave a little room for malleability, otherwise you run the risk of turning into a slavering fanatic.