Blablahb:
Sharpton and Jackson campaign against such scaremongering, so it makes sense for them to pick up this case, but not the other.

Oh God, the irony of this statement makes me want to slam my own head into concrete.

Tyler Perry:

Seekster:

Volf:
NBC news has now commented on the "mistake" they made...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/08/nbc-news-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-error_n_1410913.html

NBC is just another ethically bankrupt media company like most of the mainstream media is nowadays. Whether they were willfully or accidentally negligent in this doesnt change the fact that they were negligent.

As for scum like Al Sharpton, I have nothing nice to say about the man so I wont say anything more.

Is my memory failing me, or is the same guy who defended Rush Limbaugh calling Al Sharpton "scum"?

Why not refute his point instead of using an ad hominem?

Volf:

Tyler Perry:

Seekster:

NBC is just another ethically bankrupt media company like most of the mainstream media is nowadays. Whether they were willfully or accidentally negligent in this doesnt change the fact that they were negligent.

As for scum like Al Sharpton, I have nothing nice to say about the man so I wont say anything more.

Is my memory failing me, or is the same guy who defended Rush Limbaugh calling Al Sharpton "scum"?

Why not refute his point instead of using an ad hominem?

Because that would require critical thought and why do that when you can launch personal attacks in an effort to smear someone?

Yeah Ill defend Rush Limbaugh if I think he is being attack unfairly. Hell I've even defended Obama when I think he is being attacked unfairly. I've even been called a liberal for doing so before. I can't help that I try and keep my views consistent.

Ok I don't normally reply to people on my ignore list but I don't want people getting the wrong idea. No I criticized Limbaugh for his words during the Sandra Fluke incident. They were uncalled for and completely inappropriate. I don't see how that can be seen as defending him.

Tyler Perry:

I was simply using an ad hominem towards someone who has an opinion on a previous topic that I disagreed with.

You made a couple typos, but I fixed them for you.

Tyler Perry:
He didn't make a point, so there's nothing to refute.

His point was that Al Sharpton is "scum", something clearly possibly to debate/refute.

Tyler Perry:
Seekster doesn't need you to white knight for him, TYVM.

You welcome but I was hardly being a white knight by pointing out your blatant use of an ad hominem.

Tyler Perry:

Cute.

Not as cute as you, sweet heart.

Tyler Perry:

That's not a "point." That's a completely subjective character assessment.

That seems like a pretty obvious point. His point is that Al Sharpton is such "scum" that it isn't even worth going into, which is obviously debatable. You could argue that Mr.Sharpton isn't scum and that Seeker should provide evidence of the low character of the reverend, instead of completely dismissing him with the label "scum"...but you didn't. You decided to take the cheap way out and use an ad hominem.

Tyler Perry:

Who died and appointed you the debate police?

Nobody, but I see no reason to not call you out on your use of an ad hominem.

Tyler Perry:
Who died and appointed you the debate police?

Pointing out debate fallacies somehow is equitable to being the police of debate now?

Hokay. Sure. Whatever you say

Volf:
Nobody, but I see no reason to not call you out on your use of an ad hominem.

Well, we can fix that. I hereby deputize you as a member of the debate police

Tyler Perry:

Volf:
You could argue that Mr.Sharpton isn't scum and that Seeker should provide evidence of the low character of the reverend, instead of completely dismissing him with the label "scum"...but you didn't. You decided to take the cheap way out and use an ad hominem.

Too fucking bad. When one makes such a completely content-free assessment of Sharpton's character (one I might even agree with, if he provided any reasons for claiming it), why should I bother with anything else?

If you don't like it, The Escapist has an excellent ignore feature.

well with my new badge as police of debates, I am required to point out when you use ad hominem's. Feel free to keep up failing to refute Seeksters comments. :D

Tyler Perry:
snip

and I repeat again, you could refute that Sharpton is scum.

Tyler Perry:
snip

So you didn't disagree with him, but just felt the need to use an ad hominem?

farson135:
The fact is that ANY MAJOR attack to the head is dangerous and must be considered potential lethal force especially when you are on the ground and someone is on top of you.

Which we still only have Zimmerman's word for.

I think they messed it up. Once again it seems like an odd lie to make especially from his lawyer. The court of public opinion is not going to help him in this case.

Not that odd, frankly. It is a common and unfortunately extremely successful tactic to simply repeat a lie until enough people believe it. Just think of the birther thing. That actually got pretty big at one point. Truth is often less important than repetition.

No actually. If we are going to speculate at all on his innocence or guilt (which is what this entire debate is about) then we only have those stories.

Which is why we don't believe them off the bat. We need to look at the evidence and decide whether their story is plausible based on that. I don't accept the idea that his being the only story is somehow validating his story itself.

We can go with pure speculation or we can go off of available evidence. I am going off available evidence from both Zimmerman, the girlfriend, and the police.

Zimmerman made a testimony. The testimony itself isn't evidence. The evidence is objective and it's to be found on Martin's corpse as well as the gun, the pavement, Zimmerman's clothes etc.. You need to take Zimmerman's testimony into account and evaluate it based on the evidence, you don't accept it as evidence on its own.

I have neither convicted or exonerated Zimmerman. I will leave that bullshit the Blablahb. I am simply using my experience to tell what I see.

I am still weirded out by how one-sided your rationalizations are, though. I do not see you as applying the same standards to both sides. I don't want you to condemn Zimmerman, but I want you to be much more skeptical of him, his story and the evidence we know of so far.

That is an odd order of events. The screaming and calling for help would imply that the immediate struggle has ended and it is one side attacking the other.

Not necessarily, it can also be a situation where one has the other at gun point and the first is screaming for help because he is in a situation without exit at that point. And I could construct many more scenarios that would fit here. It's inconceivable to me that you would settle on one at this early point and even the alternatives you present seem to direct more guilt towards Martin than is justified with the knowledge we have (like things stated earlier regarding Martin sneaking up and so on). I would, again, urge you not to base your hypotheses on the testimony of the shooter himself as if that testimony were credible evidence. The other testimonies and evidence you mention would not automatically lead you to the scenarios you described, as you yourself agreed ("...(which would match the GF's story) BUT the conversation does not imply the draw."). So something doesn't match up here, yet you're willing to consider one version and one testimony more likely than the other already.

I was in a high dust/dirt environment and needed some sort of wrap, he was in rather clean conditions.

And didn't see a stitched up wound, either. You can adapt the wound, but you can't make it vanish. I would really like to see the high-resolution video in full, without those stupid banners and without the freeze-frame to make my own judgement on this issue.

If anything, this topic is a fascinating example of how people approach cases like this (i.e., making up their minds about what happened early on, and then picking pieces of evidence to support that position, rather than the other way around).

Tyler Perry:

Volf:

Tyler Perry:
snip

and I repeat again, you could refute that Sharpton is scum.

1. I don't really feel the need to, since I don't particularly care for Sharpton. I wasn't arguing against his assessment of Sharpton. Allll I was doing was pointing out his giving a pass to one person while crucifying another; and my recollection of the Rush-Fluke incident was something I was incorrect about and apologized for. Do you know how to read?

2. He provided no criteria by which to gauge Sharpton's Scumminess Quotient.

Tawana Bradley. Oh look, proof he's a scumbag race huckster. Any other non-issues you want to scrum over?

hardlymotivated:
If anything, this topic is a fascinating example of how people approach cases like this (i.e., making up their minds about what happened early on, and then picking pieces of evidence to support that position, rather than the other way around).

Yeah, the biggest detriment to our system of justice is pretty much just the people.

Skeleon:
Which we still only have Zimmerman's word for.

Zimmerman, the police report, the fact that the EMTs apparently looked at him, and his lawyer saying so.

Not that odd, frankly. It is a common and unfortunately extremely successful tactic to simply repeat a lie until enough people believe it. Just think of the birther thing. That actually got pretty big at one point. Truth is often less important than repetition.

There is a big difference between an internet lie and a lie that has to be repeated to a jury and judge.

Which is why we don't believe them off the bat. We need to look at the evidence and decide whether their story is plausible based on that.

I didn't believe him either. Hell, I am still leaving the door WIDE open for manslaughter. In my opinion Zimmerman was reckless for following Martin.

I don't accept the idea that his being the only story is somehow validating his story itself.

Once again his story, combined with the girlfriend, combined with the police report, etc is about the only evidence we do have.

We can go with pure speculation or we can go off of available evidence. I am going off available evidence from both Zimmerman, the girlfriend, and the police.

Zimmerman made a testimony. The testimony itself isn't evidence. The evidence is objective and it's to be found on Martin's corpse as well as the gun, the pavement, Zimmerman's clothes etc.. You need to take Zimmerman's testimony into account and evaluate it based on the evidence, you don't accept it as evidence on its own.

I am using all the evidence we do have. People are trying to condemn him based upon current evidence and I am trying to show that that is not necessarily the case.

I am still weirded out by how one-sided your rationalizations are, though. I do not see you as applying the same standards to both sides. I don't want you to condemn Zimmerman, but I want you to be much more skeptical of him, his story and the evidence we know of so far.

I am. The problem is that no one is giving me the chance to defend Martin. Here is my first post in this topic-

In other words my stance has changed based on the evidence I have seen. You can read through my posts and see that, one so many people are attacking Zimmerman when there is evidence that he may be innocent (so fairness dictates that someone defend him) and two more and more evidence keeps coming to light that helps Zimmerman's statement.

Not necessarily, it can also be a situation where one has the other at gun point and the first is screaming for help because he is in a situation without exit at that point.

Screaming like that does not tend to imply "help he has a gun" it tends to imply you are on the defensive end of an attack.

And I could construct many more scenarios that would fit here.

Of all the scenarios I have heard and come up with that is the most likely. If you have a nother one please present it.

(like things stated earlier regarding Martin sneaking up and so on)

When did I say that? That doesn't sound like one of my arguments.

I'm starting to see why this thread has made me loose what little faith I had in humanity.

The Gentleman:
I'm starting to see why this thread has made me loose what little faith I had in humanity.

Its not just one side that is like that, the other side is quite as bad as well.

Volf:

The Gentleman:
I'm starting to see why this thread has made me loose what little faith I had in humanity.

Its not just one side that is like that, the other side is quite as bad as well.

Those really aren't fair comparisons. Not discounting what happened to Watts, but I would try to find a more relevant article for your argument.

EClaris:

Volf:

The Gentleman:
I'm starting to see why this thread has made me loose what little faith I had in humanity.

Its not just one side that is like that, the other side is quite as bad as well.

Those really aren't fair comparisons. Not discounting what happened to Watts, but I would try to find a more relevant article for your argument.

Your missing my point, I'm not trying to say that one side is worse than the other, just that both sides have shameful people.

Volf:

EClaris:

Volf:
Its not just one side that is like that, the other side is quite as bad as well.

Those really aren't fair comparisons. Not discounting what happened to Watts, but I would try to find a more relevant article for your argument.

Your missing my point, I'm not trying to say that one side is worse than the other, just that both sides have shameful people.

You're missing my point, it's not clear that what happened to Watts was related to Trayvon and was possibly just some stupid kids. If you're argument is to show that there are people from both perspectives act grossly inappropriately, bring a source that shows someone who is undoubtedly supporting your argument.

EClaris:

Volf:

EClaris:
Those really aren't fair comparisons. Not discounting what happened to Watts, but I would try to find a more relevant article for your argument.

Your missing my point, I'm not trying to say that one side is worse than the other, just that both sides have shameful people.

You're missing my point, it's not clear that what happened to Watts was related to Trayvon and was possibly just some stupid kids. If you're argument is to show that there are people from both perspectives act grossly inappropriately, bring a source that shows someone who is undoubtedly supporting your argument.

I think that you are raising the goal post, I have provided an example of people who are "act[ing] grossly inappropriately".

Volf:

EClaris:

Volf:
Your missing my point, I'm not trying to say that one side is worse than the other, just that both sides have shameful people.

You're missing my point, it's not clear that what happened to Watts was related to Trayvon and was possibly just some stupid kids. If you're argument is to show that there are people from both perspectives act grossly inappropriately, bring a source that shows someone who is undoubtedly supporting your argument.

I think that you are raising the goal post, I have provided an example of people who are "act[ing] grossly inappropriately".

I'm not raising a goalpost, I'm telling you do actually do what you were trying to do. I haven't even posted in this thread saying what "side" I'm on. You did provide an article that showed people "act[ing] grossly inappropriately", but did not provide a source that shows that happening because of what happened to Trayvon beyond a shadow of a doubt. You provided proof that people act inappropriately, not people from the "other side". Please read my posts more carefully, especially when I offer help to make your post more solid.

EClaris:
snip

The attackers are quoted as saying, This is for Trayvon ... Trayvon lives, white [man]. Kill that white [man]."

The editing of the police phone call also comes to mind.

evilneko:
snip

Just a small update.

Volf:

EClaris:
snip

The attackers are quoted as sayingWatts recalls that the youths responded to him with a remark that went something like, This is for Trayvon ... Trayvon lives, white [man]. Kill that white [man]."

The editing of the police phone call also comes to mind.

I fixed that for you. Don't say things your source does not back up and use relevant sources for your arguments. If you say people one the other "side" are just as bad, provide proof of that not a story where a man was mugged and he thinks it may be connected to something else, where even the police doubt it.

Just admit it was a terrible source and do better next time.

Volf:

evilneko:
snip

Just a small update.

I'll add that to the OP. I think this case is definitely gonna go to trial, and that's good. It desperately needs to go to trial and moreover needs a clear jury verdict, so we can all just put it to bed.

Something I noticed in the article:

Several sites purporting to raise money for Zimmerman, 28, have popped up since he shot Martin, 17, on Feb. 26 in Sanford, Fla., but "I cannot attest to the validity of these other websites," Zimmerman writes on therealgeorgezimmerman.com.

Shysters! Shysters everywhere! Well, I guess you gotta expect it, with something that gets so much coverage.