The instructions can be pretty wide open to interpretation, first of all, and second of all they can't control their subconscious coloration of the facts anyway, especially when the instructions ultimately require them to judge reasonable doubt based on their subjective feelings of "abiding conviction", invariant over time. It's not an objective standard.
From a purely philosophical or epistemic point of view, reasonable doubt isn't even a coherent concept -... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 4:06 AM on July 9, 2013
I don't disagree with you but it seems really weird to have you saying this after giving me crap for saying the jury could be swayed by theatrics and optics earlier in the thread.
Theater that affects the jury's perception of the defendant and the eyewitnesses matters, because they are going to try to judge their character. Theater about the medical examiner isn't going to have much of an effect, because it's irrelevant.... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 8:19 PM on July 9, 2013
Trayvon Martin is the victim, not the defendant. This stuff isn't relevant at all. Martin could testify to their authenticity if he was alive, but he's not. Maybe Zimmerman should have considered that before shooting him dead. posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 10:26 PM on July 9, 2013
But Martin does appear to have been a criminal - a drug user and someone who owned an illegal gun. -- corb
Bullshit. George Zimmeran was arrested for fighting an actual cop, and had a restraining order placed against him by his ex-fiancé for domestic violence. Of the two, he's the one with an actual criminal record here, for violent crimes. Trayvon martin had no criminal record, and smoking weed has nothing to do with violent crime. In fact,... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 10:17 PM on July 10, 2013
Hmm, missed my edit window, I guess when I said: "You only need to be 12-14 to be "tried as an adult", and he wasn't." I mean he's not being charged as an adult here, because he's not been charged with anything. The problem here is that you don't seem to be able to view Trayvon except through the lens of a potential criminal, a person who would be put on trial, not as a potential kidnap victim who was afraid of someone in the dark. It's... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 10:35 PM on July 10, 2013
It seems VERY likely that if he saw a guy he thought was "up to no good" and then got in a physical fight with him, he'd yell for help. He'd already called the police; why not scream for the neighbors?
According to John Good's testimony, he came out of his back door and saw the fight, and told them to cut it out. Only then did the screams for help start. They weren't screams in "general" they were specifically to get Good... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 10:42 PM on July 10, 2013
but the bottom line is it was not that serious a case or Z actually would have been convicted for it. They don't really look the other way on hitting cops if it is the real thing.
Well, the cop can still testify that Zimmerman wasn't a creampuff or couldn't fight or something like that, even if he wasn't convicted of anything.
And the other question is why they aren't having his ex take the stand. Might be she want to testify... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 10:53 PM on July 10, 2013
I dunno, it sounds like they put some witnesses to these things on the list for tomorrow, but maybe taken them off? It's strange. posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 11:21 PM on July 10, 2013
What you're "missing", I think, is that you're conflating all of those separate pieces into one coherent argument, when those pieces are not just separate pieces of one whole, they are pieces that are islands unto themselves.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
My comment wasn't about George Zimmerman, or anyone else. It was about you.
It was about the fact that you called Trayvon... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 12:05 AM on July 11, 2013
I doubt you'd call this kid a "criminal" who "owns an illegal gun". There are plenty of pictures and videos of white kids playing with real guns. posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 12:17 AM on July 11, 2013
Or maybe some of them will simply be people who attempt to apply the judge's instructions as impartially as they can, imperfectly or not.
I seriously doubt it.
what, exactly, gave Zimmerman any justification at all other than Martin being a black kid in his neighborhood.
HE LOOKED LIKE HE WAS ON THE DRUGS!!!!///
The "rioting" canard is... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 4:40 AM on July 11, 2013
I think if you polled English speakers about whether someone who has smoked pot and taken a photograph of a gun is a "criminal" you'd get ~1% saying yes. Show them a picture of a black person, though and you might be able to boost the stats a bit. posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 5:02 AM on July 11, 2013
Presumably the smart criminal would just keep a weapon to plant on the corpse.
Honestly the risk/reward on that isn't even enough. Someone might see you plant the gun, and you might have your DNA on it and not theirs. On the other hand, just claim they threatened you and you'll get off for sure.
Given the racially integrated groups of teens rampaging across Florida and killing for fun. who could blame... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 5:39 AM on July 11, 2013
Aside from agreeing with this wholeheartedly, I think it's worth saying that it also doesn't matter at all if Martin had breached the law in the past. Well, I guess that applies unless we're making the argument that having broken the law means that people deserve to be shot, and whilst I hope that's not what's being said here some of the descriptions of Martin as a 'thug' on newspaper comments come very close to openly stating this.
On the other hand,... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 9:38 AM on July 11, 2013
To what scientifically impossible reason are you referring?
"he looks like he's on drugs" - when in fact he was talking on the phone (which might make someone look like they're distracted if you didn't know they were having a conversation) posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 10:23 AM on July 11, 2013
I think I made it clear that no legal justification is required. You talk about "false pretenses" but no pretense is needed.
What are you talking about? No one is saying that, for example, if there had been no conflict that Zimmerman should have been charged with a crime simply for following Martin.
The argument is that Zimmerman following martin contributed to the conflict occurring. Why does it matter, as far as... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 10:34 AM on July 11, 2013
That actually is not how legal causation works. Rather, it is the last proximate act. Right now, "initiating pursuit" was not the last proximate act before Zimmerman shot Martin. For example, intervening proximate acts were Martin coming back to confront Zimmerman and Martin breaking Zimmerman's nose.
So what? What does this have to do with what the Jury is going to decide?
The jury aren't lawyers, they aren't going... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 11:00 AM on July 11, 2013
Hey, display some more sarcastic racism, folks. It's classy!
Well, at least we know who they are, right?
And btw, the prosecution is talking about Jeantel's testimony right this moment. posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 11:01 AM on July 11, 2013
You always see racial biased expressed using coded language, "thugs", "welfare queens", "illegals", or in this thread calling a black person with no criminal record "a criminal" while refusing to the same thing with a white person with an actual criminal record.
It's kind of interesting how, in this closing you have the use of coded language to talk about racists: "assumptions" "profiling". posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 11:13 AM on July 11, 2013
here's a livestream if you want to watch the closings yourself. I was watching HLN but the ad breaks have gotten on my nerves. posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 11:31 AM on July 11, 2013
The prosecutors are talking about Jeantel again, going on and on about her. So the idea that the prosecutors wouldn't talk about her in closing has been proven false. posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 11:35 AM on July 11, 2013
Awkward race joke of the year: "I have a dream that a witness will be judged not on the colorfulness of her personality, but the content of her testimony" posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 11:37 AM on July 11, 2013
The problem with the content of her testimony was that she was shown to be willing to lie under oath. For understandable but not exactly compelling reasons.
Are you watching the closing? The prosecutor explained why it wasn't a big deal - not material, she wasn't lying about what actually happened or anything related to the case, she just wanted to maintain her own privacy. The fact that she lied for understandable reasons early on does not mean she's... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 12:01 PM on July 11, 2013
Of course the prosecutor said that. He's a prosecutor. He's going to put the absolute best spin on his case just like the defense will put the best spin on their case!
Sure, but there's no reason to think the jury won't listen to what he said, it was completely reasonable.
It's absolutely clear that she didn't take her oath very seriously.
She may not have taken it as seriously... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 12:22 PM on July 11, 2013
Ah, sorry I wasn't really paying that much attention - I think I just wanted to ad clarity to what I was saying. My final comment was:
Not that there is NO TESTIMONY that Trayvon Martin assaulted Zimmerman in any way, what does that do to his defense?
That's a good point - Justinian, can you summarize the evidence that shows trayvon martin struck or attacked Zimmerman even once? At all, in the entire fight? How do we know,... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 12:44 PM on July 11, 2013
Ow. Someone really said that out loud?
The prosecutor, to the Jury, when talking about Rachael Jeantel. Seriously.
That said, sure. There are Zimmerman's injuries.
Common sense says that Trayvon Martin is the source of those injuries, sure. But what specific evidence is there that martin was the one who struck Zimmerman?... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 1:06 PM on July 11, 2013
Heh, they show Zimmerman every once in a while during the close. He doesn't look very happy. posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 1:26 PM on July 11, 2013
Self-defense is an affirmative defense, which means that the burden of proof is on Zimmerman there.
I think that's not the case here, It would be if he was using stand your ground not "traditional" self defense. posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 1:30 PM on July 11, 2013
Justinian: The point I'm making about the evidence is that you have this idea that the jury is going to disregard everything Jeantel says because she lied about her age.
The problem is that if they use that standard for admissibility then there is nothing to suggest that Trayvon Martin was the one who hit Zimmerman. Now I don't think that the Jury will use that standard. I think they will assume that some of the things Jeantel said was true, and they will assume that... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 1:46 PM on July 11, 2013
Justinian: I asked you this before but I don't think you answered, what proof is there that that Jodi Arias didn't act in self defense when she killed Travis Alexander?
Because she claimed self defense, and the State didn't really do anything at all to try to prove it wasn't the case, except for arguing the timeframe was too short, 51 seconds. That's it. But a lot can happen in 51 seconds.
Now, true, it was in another state - but... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 1:55 PM on July 11, 2013
Well, I would agree there is a problem proving "ill intent" beyond a reasonable doubt. But they could certainly convict on manslaughter. (Some legal analysts are on TV talking about how Zimmerman's failure to identify himself could be culpable negligence)
Delmoi: I don't know anything about the Arias case, sorry. Except that the media liked to post sexy pictures of her and pretend they were relevant.
Well, technically they could pick manslaughter if they thought Zimmerman was the aggressor, but weren't sure if he actually had any "ill will" in his mind when he pulled the trigger. posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 2:24 PM on July 11, 2013
I mean, if you ask me what I think happened, I'd say murder. But I can't prove it, and I wouldn't vote for it as a juror. The standard's too high for that.
I think it depends on what level of ill will or spite you need. I mean, people feel ill will and spite about something or other every day, but it usually doesn't result in murder.
Like, if someone gets your order wrong at a fast food place, you might... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 8:28 PM on July 11, 2013
Zimmerman lived in a gated community, while only Martin's father's girfriend did. -- corb
HOLY SHIT, MARTIN LIVED THERE TOO. Your justifications are just getting more and more insane. If you have two parents that you trade off with then you live in both places. He was a child, he lived wherever his parents lived.
Zimmerman was an unemployed adult, a college dropout who lived with his parents. When you're 29 your judged by... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 12:00 AM on July 12, 2013
No, it just means that for him (and many others) the firearm is put on with their clothes. It's just a normal fact of everyday life.
An everyday fact of life for people who are such cowards they literally can't walk down the street without being in fear for their lives. posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 12:02 AM on July 12, 2013
This is the thing: Martin was likely very attuned to the idea that someone might think him suspicious just by virtue of being a young black man in a hoodie. And it could have rightfully pissed him the hell off.
Yes, and as we all know black men become violent as soon as anyone pisses them off, right?
How is that not a racist assumption? posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 3:08 AM on July 12, 2013
This is the thing: Martin was likely very attuned to the idea that someone might think him suspicious
Even that assumption - the idea that he would have assumed that Zimmerman was a racist who was 'suspicious' of him and had some kind of 'legitimate' reason to follow him, as opposed to a rapist or a kidnapper or something like that, is racist.
The only difference between what a white kid would think and what a black kid might... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 3:22 AM on July 12, 2013
Interesting, the final Jury instructions actually don't say anything about who struck first, or who was the aggressor at all. So presumably they could find Zimmerman guilty even if Martin struck first, or find him Innocent even if Zimmerman struck first.
All it says about self defense is this: JUSTIFIABLE USE OF DEADLY FORCE
An issue in this case is whether George Zimmerman acted in self-defense. It is a defense to the crime of Second... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 4:56 AM on July 12, 2013
Here's florida's code on stalking
Key section: (2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
They also define Harass:
(a) “Harass” means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 5:24 AM on July 12, 2013
I'm not sure it's ever been suggested that Zimmerman followed Martin more than once - juries aren't supposed to just invent things. It's very unlikely that they would.
A) They're probably not going to see the legal code itself, it would just be based on their recollection that the law exists.
B) Where in the jury instructions does it say this? You're the one who said they should follow the instructions, now you're making up... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 6:39 AM on July 12, 2013
Oh. Well, maybe that's what he meant - that's a "traditional" self defense claim, while the official "stand your ground" law everyone talks about puts the burden on the defendant, and it makes them immune from prosecution entirely, it's decided by a judge before the trial even starts. It doesn't even go to the jury.
When this first came out, a bunch of people were claiming that you had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that SYG did apply.... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 7:18 AM on July 12, 2013
they claim he had no opportunity to retreat once the fight started
That seems obviously untrue. The idea that Zimmerman was a total creampuff who couldn't fight at a all and was just being dragged around by Martin? That seems preposterous.
as if by being brought into the wider world they'd magically become middle class with access to education and opportunity.
I'm sure the complete lack of modern healthcare is going really well for them.
Honestly, I don't understand the opposite - there is no reason to for "the prime directive" to apply to a small island, that island isn't going to develop into an independent modern society, there aren't enough people... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 10:52 AM on July 11, 2013
Here's another featurette I haven't seen linked here yet, on the neural link between the two pilots. posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 4:09 AM on July 9, 2013
So, is this the first action movie about drone pilots?
They're actually in the things, dude. No different the people driving a tank or flying a plane, of which I'm sure many films have been made. posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 4:12 AM on July 9, 2013
You’ve lost me, is this sarcasm or not? Because that movie sucked hard and the lack of internal consistency and logic was probably the main reason I hated it.
Okay, you're bringing this up to disprove the assertion that "no one complained". A fair point. - But most people liked that movie.
"If you hated Inception then you'll hate this" isn't a thing that will apply to most people.... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 6:38 PM on July 9, 2013
You do understand Inception isn't a real thing, right? You might want to review what I've actually been saying.
Maybe you could summarize your point? I did go back to read what you wrote and I can't really tell - you seem to be trying to draw a distinction between "suspension of disbelief" and "good storytelling" - but it's not really all that clear.
I’m not at all sure what you’re saying, but... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 7:44 PM on July 9, 2013
I read the prequel comic they put out. I guess I'll preface this as a spoiler alert for the comic, if you want to read it yourself - but other then that it's just backstory anyway. I think it covers some of the stuff that's also in the movie, like the first attack.
But what's funny is that there really isn't any reason - not no reason as they don't tell you but that there's actually no special reason at all -... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 8:53 AM on July 10, 2013
Or are they technically cyborgs?
The problem is the film makers themselves are calling them robots, although if you read the comic they actually address this point, that they're technically supposed to be called mechs.
The square-cube law. DUH.
Sure, obviously it would be more difficult, and not in a linear way,... [more] posted to MetaFilter by delmoiat 6:35 PM on July 10, 2013