|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On July 02 2013 22:50 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 22:38 Felnarion wrote:On July 02 2013 22:15 Klondikebar wrote:On July 02 2013 19:56 tomatriedes wrote:On July 02 2013 16:22 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 16:18 Kaitlin wrote:On July 02 2013 16:04 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 14:49 Ghostcom wrote:
I would just like to point out that contrary to popular belief, police officers are no better than the average population at detecting lies - which is 50%. You really might as well just throw a coin.
I would really like someone to, within the parameters of the Zimmerman story, come up with a reasonable explanation for why Martin forced a confrontation, because as far as I can tell the only way that happens is if Martin acts irrational to the extreme - but I might simply have missed the explanation? Quoting myself as no one has answered. Did I miss the explanation or is everyone else at a loss for Martins motive as well? I thought I had already thrown out there that Martin was likely pissed because another "cracker" had treated him as suspicious simply because he was black and Martin when he thought Zimmerman was vulnerable thought he was going to get his revenge. Teach him a lesson. Hard to believe ? I simply missed it - and I would label it in the category of believable but not convincing. Is this "merely" your suggestion (not that it doesn't count of course), or have the defence hinted at this? I find your inability to believe that a teenager doesn't need a good reason to get into a fight with someone very strange. Perhaps you lived a very sheltered life? So many times growing up I saw fights happen for literally no reason other than teenagers trying to be tough. I was at a party once in high school. Talking and laughing with some friends- some sober gate crashers turn up and one of them comes up to me and says 'what did you say about my brother?' I replied 'I don't know your brother'. Next thing the guy was swinging at me and I ended up with a black eye and friend got a chipped tooth. In our shock we never even tried to fight back. Another time a group of friends drinking in a park at night. One of our group was sitting on the ground a little apart from us. Suddenly a group of other teenagers that we hadn't interacted with in anyway ran up and started beating the shit out of him with bats and bottles. Kid was taken away in an ambulance unconscious and bleeding from head wounds. The only plausible explanation I can think of for why they attacked, apart from just that they were bullies and enjoyed inflicting pain and being 'tough', is the fact that in both cases (and several others I witnessed) the attackers were Maori/Polynesian and the victims were white. But yet the ultimate taboo is to ever suggest that a darker-skinned person might ever attack a lighter-skinned for racist reasons even though you're quite happy to attribute racist reasons to Zimmerman's actions. Apparently only white people are capable of racist violence, correct? Bullies don't attack people stronger than them. I find it hard to believe Martin was "bullying" Zimmerman. Anecdotal evidence is never very good. I find it interesting that you're sure Zimmerman is the stronger of the two. Last I checked guns beat bags of skittles. Unless tasting the rainbow grants powers of which I am not aware. Which is completely irrelevant. Original point was about bullies attacking people stronger than them. Martin had no idea Zimmerman was carrying a firearm.
The reality is, we have no idea who was the strongest. That can't be determined from weight.
|
On July 02 2013 22:50 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 22:38 Felnarion wrote:On July 02 2013 22:15 Klondikebar wrote:On July 02 2013 19:56 tomatriedes wrote:On July 02 2013 16:22 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 16:18 Kaitlin wrote:On July 02 2013 16:04 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 14:49 Ghostcom wrote:
I would just like to point out that contrary to popular belief, police officers are no better than the average population at detecting lies - which is 50%. You really might as well just throw a coin.
I would really like someone to, within the parameters of the Zimmerman story, come up with a reasonable explanation for why Martin forced a confrontation, because as far as I can tell the only way that happens is if Martin acts irrational to the extreme - but I might simply have missed the explanation? Quoting myself as no one has answered. Did I miss the explanation or is everyone else at a loss for Martins motive as well? I thought I had already thrown out there that Martin was likely pissed because another "cracker" had treated him as suspicious simply because he was black and Martin when he thought Zimmerman was vulnerable thought he was going to get his revenge. Teach him a lesson. Hard to believe ? I simply missed it - and I would label it in the category of believable but not convincing. Is this "merely" your suggestion (not that it doesn't count of course), or have the defence hinted at this? I find your inability to believe that a teenager doesn't need a good reason to get into a fight with someone very strange. Perhaps you lived a very sheltered life? So many times growing up I saw fights happen for literally no reason other than teenagers trying to be tough. I was at a party once in high school. Talking and laughing with some friends- some sober gate crashers turn up and one of them comes up to me and says 'what did you say about my brother?' I replied 'I don't know your brother'. Next thing the guy was swinging at me and I ended up with a black eye and friend got a chipped tooth. In our shock we never even tried to fight back. Another time a group of friends drinking in a park at night. One of our group was sitting on the ground a little apart from us. Suddenly a group of other teenagers that we hadn't interacted with in anyway ran up and started beating the shit out of him with bats and bottles. Kid was taken away in an ambulance unconscious and bleeding from head wounds. The only plausible explanation I can think of for why they attacked, apart from just that they were bullies and enjoyed inflicting pain and being 'tough', is the fact that in both cases (and several others I witnessed) the attackers were Maori/Polynesian and the victims were white. But yet the ultimate taboo is to ever suggest that a darker-skinned person might ever attack a lighter-skinned for racist reasons even though you're quite happy to attribute racist reasons to Zimmerman's actions. Apparently only white people are capable of racist violence, correct? Bullies don't attack people stronger than them. I find it hard to believe Martin was "bullying" Zimmerman. Anecdotal evidence is never very good. I find it interesting that you're sure Zimmerman is the stronger of the two. Last I checked guns beat bags of skittles. Unless tasting the rainbow grants powers of which I am not aware.
I'm curious if it makes you feel clever to change the target of the discussion for the sole purpose of inserting a clever quip and feeling somehow superior while everyone else looks on at the guy who can't even keep a coherent thought through two posts.
|
On July 02 2013 14:35 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 13:40 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:36 AndAgain wrote:On July 02 2013 13:07 Djzapz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:05 DeepElemBlues wrote:On July 02 2013 07:38 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:27 Infernal_dream wrote:On July 02 2013 07:25 Defacer wrote:On July 02 2013 07:15 SilverLeagueElite wrote:
Tragic for the Martins but I'm kinda starting to feel bad for Zimmerman. He has a history of being sympathetic towards blacks but is having his life ruined because of perceived racism on his part. I don't feel bad for Zimmerman at all. He at least is getting his day in court, and is being tried by a court of law and his peers for his indiscretions Martin was sentenced to death by Zimmerman. It's like people are forgetting that he did technically kill a 17 year old who's only plans that night were to visit his dad. It might have been in self-defence but still. Worst. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. I wouldn't say worst ever. Maybe if he immediately shot him or something. But not for shooting him when he was in a fight. There's people at my work actually convinced that GZ slammed his own head into the ground to cause the cuts. My building has a Neighborhood Watch, and we have managed to kill 0 relatives of the people that live here. *pats himself on the back* Is there something other than race (besides being pissed off that the racial victimology and outrage angle you've been jumping on mercilessly has been shot below the waterline) that causes you and Magpie to be snarky mean girls towards Zimmerman? The idea that he profiled and stalked Martin intending to harm or restrain him is totally without credibility after today. The police testifying have basically all said that they, men who are trained and experienced in being cynical and cutting through bullshit, said they believe Zimmerman's story. Zimmerman said he only left his car to get a street name to give to the police and that he was going back to his car when Martin jumped him unprovoked and starting beating on him. I'll say it, George Zimmerman: Best. Neighborhood. Watch. Ever. If more George Zimmermans were around punk kids of any race would be less likely to think pounding the crap out of a stranger is the solution to being pissed off at that stranger. Looks like you've got it all figured out man. If more George Zimmermans were around and killed punk kids, we'd have less punk kids because they'd be getting killed. It's actually pretty smart. I like that your idea of a good solution is to kill the people. Got problem? Punk kids bothering you? Just fucking kill them. Let me get this straight: are you saying that it's never justified to kill in self defense, or are you saying Zimmerman wasn't acting in self defense? The former is clearly a ridiculous position and the latter seems to be contradicted by the evidence that has been presented. I'm not saying it's never justified to kill in self defense but I have to say that I'm quite disgusted by the fact that someone should get praise for it. As for what Zimmerman was doing, I wasn't there and I'm not enough of a dumbass to pretend that I have the truth based on "evidence" cleverly brought forward by people who's jobs revolve around deceit (lawyers). My point is, best case scenario: this is a case of self defense, so why say "Best Neighborhood Watch Ever"? Look at the outcome. I've seen better. And look at the events. To my knowledge at least, Zimmerman disobeyed the cops at some point did he not? Either way, kid's dead - it's a shit neighborhood watch, even if it wasn't his fault. Hell, best case scenario, a dude who's job has to do with security had to resort to a firearm to deal with a 17 year old 150 pounds kid. Had that been me, I'd have thought maybe I was outside of my area of expertise. Maybe I should work in an office where I won't have to use lethal force at the slightest inconvenience. I'll say this - had it been me, I may have done the same thing as the "best case scenario". I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong. I could have sucked at my job and then managed to pull off a lethal self-defense. But how in hell would it make it the best neighborhood watch ever? How would that reduce the number of annoying punk kids? Not properly, I can say that. assuming qualified advocates as we have here, the advocacy system is the best system for getting the truth. the fact that you think the judicial system is a deceitful system makes you look like an idiot.
The fact that you put so much faith into it makes you look gullible. It's not uncommon for the judicial system to be wrong. That said, I was talking about lawyers, who are known to bend the truth in a lot of cases. Also, saying that I look an idiot for being skeptical is just annoying. Come on man.
Outside of the well-known people, I don't remember many names on this forum, but "dAPhREAk", you have a real tendency to dismiss people's posts and calling them names. I'm pretty sure it wasn't your first time saying "Doing X makes you look like an idiot" and such childish remarks.
|
On July 02 2013 23:16 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 22:50 Klondikebar wrote:On July 02 2013 22:38 Felnarion wrote:On July 02 2013 22:15 Klondikebar wrote:On July 02 2013 19:56 tomatriedes wrote:On July 02 2013 16:22 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 16:18 Kaitlin wrote:On July 02 2013 16:04 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 14:49 Ghostcom wrote:
I would just like to point out that contrary to popular belief, police officers are no better than the average population at detecting lies - which is 50%. You really might as well just throw a coin.
I would really like someone to, within the parameters of the Zimmerman story, come up with a reasonable explanation for why Martin forced a confrontation, because as far as I can tell the only way that happens is if Martin acts irrational to the extreme - but I might simply have missed the explanation? Quoting myself as no one has answered. Did I miss the explanation or is everyone else at a loss for Martins motive as well? I thought I had already thrown out there that Martin was likely pissed because another "cracker" had treated him as suspicious simply because he was black and Martin when he thought Zimmerman was vulnerable thought he was going to get his revenge. Teach him a lesson. Hard to believe ? I simply missed it - and I would label it in the category of believable but not convincing. Is this "merely" your suggestion (not that it doesn't count of course), or have the defence hinted at this? I find your inability to believe that a teenager doesn't need a good reason to get into a fight with someone very strange. Perhaps you lived a very sheltered life? So many times growing up I saw fights happen for literally no reason other than teenagers trying to be tough. I was at a party once in high school. Talking and laughing with some friends- some sober gate crashers turn up and one of them comes up to me and says 'what did you say about my brother?' I replied 'I don't know your brother'. Next thing the guy was swinging at me and I ended up with a black eye and friend got a chipped tooth. In our shock we never even tried to fight back. Another time a group of friends drinking in a park at night. One of our group was sitting on the ground a little apart from us. Suddenly a group of other teenagers that we hadn't interacted with in anyway ran up and started beating the shit out of him with bats and bottles. Kid was taken away in an ambulance unconscious and bleeding from head wounds. The only plausible explanation I can think of for why they attacked, apart from just that they were bullies and enjoyed inflicting pain and being 'tough', is the fact that in both cases (and several others I witnessed) the attackers were Maori/Polynesian and the victims were white. But yet the ultimate taboo is to ever suggest that a darker-skinned person might ever attack a lighter-skinned for racist reasons even though you're quite happy to attribute racist reasons to Zimmerman's actions. Apparently only white people are capable of racist violence, correct? Bullies don't attack people stronger than them. I find it hard to believe Martin was "bullying" Zimmerman. Anecdotal evidence is never very good. I find it interesting that you're sure Zimmerman is the stronger of the two. Last I checked guns beat bags of skittles. Unless tasting the rainbow grants powers of which I am not aware. I'm curious if it makes you feel clever to change the target of the discussion for the sole purpose of inserting a clever quip and feeling somehow superior while everyone else looks on at the guy who can't even keep a coherent thought through two posts.
Pretty sad...
|
On July 02 2013 23:14 GorbadTheGreat wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 22:50 Klondikebar wrote:On July 02 2013 22:38 Felnarion wrote:On July 02 2013 22:15 Klondikebar wrote:On July 02 2013 19:56 tomatriedes wrote:On July 02 2013 16:22 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 16:18 Kaitlin wrote:On July 02 2013 16:04 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 14:49 Ghostcom wrote:
I would just like to point out that contrary to popular belief, police officers are no better than the average population at detecting lies - which is 50%. You really might as well just throw a coin.
I would really like someone to, within the parameters of the Zimmerman story, come up with a reasonable explanation for why Martin forced a confrontation, because as far as I can tell the only way that happens is if Martin acts irrational to the extreme - but I might simply have missed the explanation? Quoting myself as no one has answered. Did I miss the explanation or is everyone else at a loss for Martins motive as well? I thought I had already thrown out there that Martin was likely pissed because another "cracker" had treated him as suspicious simply because he was black and Martin when he thought Zimmerman was vulnerable thought he was going to get his revenge. Teach him a lesson. Hard to believe ? I simply missed it - and I would label it in the category of believable but not convincing. Is this "merely" your suggestion (not that it doesn't count of course), or have the defence hinted at this? I find your inability to believe that a teenager doesn't need a good reason to get into a fight with someone very strange. Perhaps you lived a very sheltered life? So many times growing up I saw fights happen for literally no reason other than teenagers trying to be tough. I was at a party once in high school. Talking and laughing with some friends- some sober gate crashers turn up and one of them comes up to me and says 'what did you say about my brother?' I replied 'I don't know your brother'. Next thing the guy was swinging at me and I ended up with a black eye and friend got a chipped tooth. In our shock we never even tried to fight back. Another time a group of friends drinking in a park at night. One of our group was sitting on the ground a little apart from us. Suddenly a group of other teenagers that we hadn't interacted with in anyway ran up and started beating the shit out of him with bats and bottles. Kid was taken away in an ambulance unconscious and bleeding from head wounds. The only plausible explanation I can think of for why they attacked, apart from just that they were bullies and enjoyed inflicting pain and being 'tough', is the fact that in both cases (and several others I witnessed) the attackers were Maori/Polynesian and the victims were white. But yet the ultimate taboo is to ever suggest that a darker-skinned person might ever attack a lighter-skinned for racist reasons even though you're quite happy to attribute racist reasons to Zimmerman's actions. Apparently only white people are capable of racist violence, correct? Bullies don't attack people stronger than them. I find it hard to believe Martin was "bullying" Zimmerman. Anecdotal evidence is never very good. I find it interesting that you're sure Zimmerman is the stronger of the two. Last I checked guns beat bags of skittles. Unless tasting the rainbow grants powers of which I am not aware. Which is completely irrelevant. Original point was about bullies attacking people stronger than them. Martin had no idea Zimmerman was carrying a firearm. The reality is, we have no idea who was the strongest. That can't be determined from weight.
But if you're giving someone the up-down you're gonna use weight as a metric for strength. Look, you can say teenagers are stupid and violent all you want but absolutely nothing about the circumstances of Martin's behavior indicate he was looking for a fight. I'm being sarcrastic because all you've done is say "lolteenagers!"
|
Wow... Case is over, the investigator pretty much said he did nothing illegal or wrong by following him, and pretty much said the 911 operator told him to keep an eye on him. I don't see how this case is still going. I don't know much about how the justice system works, but can't the defense just ask the judge to stop the trial because of lack of evidence.
|
On July 02 2013 23:23 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 23:14 GorbadTheGreat wrote:On July 02 2013 22:50 Klondikebar wrote:On July 02 2013 22:38 Felnarion wrote:On July 02 2013 22:15 Klondikebar wrote:On July 02 2013 19:56 tomatriedes wrote:On July 02 2013 16:22 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 16:18 Kaitlin wrote:On July 02 2013 16:04 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 14:49 Ghostcom wrote:
I would just like to point out that contrary to popular belief, police officers are no better than the average population at detecting lies - which is 50%. You really might as well just throw a coin.
I would really like someone to, within the parameters of the Zimmerman story, come up with a reasonable explanation for why Martin forced a confrontation, because as far as I can tell the only way that happens is if Martin acts irrational to the extreme - but I might simply have missed the explanation? Quoting myself as no one has answered. Did I miss the explanation or is everyone else at a loss for Martins motive as well? I thought I had already thrown out there that Martin was likely pissed because another "cracker" had treated him as suspicious simply because he was black and Martin when he thought Zimmerman was vulnerable thought he was going to get his revenge. Teach him a lesson. Hard to believe ? I simply missed it - and I would label it in the category of believable but not convincing. Is this "merely" your suggestion (not that it doesn't count of course), or have the defence hinted at this? I find your inability to believe that a teenager doesn't need a good reason to get into a fight with someone very strange. Perhaps you lived a very sheltered life? So many times growing up I saw fights happen for literally no reason other than teenagers trying to be tough. I was at a party once in high school. Talking and laughing with some friends- some sober gate crashers turn up and one of them comes up to me and says 'what did you say about my brother?' I replied 'I don't know your brother'. Next thing the guy was swinging at me and I ended up with a black eye and friend got a chipped tooth. In our shock we never even tried to fight back. Another time a group of friends drinking in a park at night. One of our group was sitting on the ground a little apart from us. Suddenly a group of other teenagers that we hadn't interacted with in anyway ran up and started beating the shit out of him with bats and bottles. Kid was taken away in an ambulance unconscious and bleeding from head wounds. The only plausible explanation I can think of for why they attacked, apart from just that they were bullies and enjoyed inflicting pain and being 'tough', is the fact that in both cases (and several others I witnessed) the attackers were Maori/Polynesian and the victims were white. But yet the ultimate taboo is to ever suggest that a darker-skinned person might ever attack a lighter-skinned for racist reasons even though you're quite happy to attribute racist reasons to Zimmerman's actions. Apparently only white people are capable of racist violence, correct? Bullies don't attack people stronger than them. I find it hard to believe Martin was "bullying" Zimmerman. Anecdotal evidence is never very good. I find it interesting that you're sure Zimmerman is the stronger of the two. Last I checked guns beat bags of skittles. Unless tasting the rainbow grants powers of which I am not aware. Which is completely irrelevant. Original point was about bullies attacking people stronger than them. Martin had no idea Zimmerman was carrying a firearm. The reality is, we have no idea who was the strongest. That can't be determined from weight. But if you're giving someone the up-down you're gonna use weight as a metric for strength. Look, you can say teenagers are stupid and violent all you want but absolutely nothing about the circumstances of Martin's behavior indicate he was looking for a fight. I'm being sarcrastic because all you've done is say "lolteenagers!"
And now you're back to size, what happens to guns and skittles?!
Yeah, he's gonna look at size. He's also gonna look at an older guy who is a little overweight. Martin was definitely in better shape than Zimmerman, it's not a stretch that he assumed Zimmerman would be easy, especially if he got the jump on him.
|
Studies and focus groups have repeatedly revealed that the public perception of "lawyer" is "liar." There's nothing fair about this perception, but it is what it is thanks to decades of negative portrayal in both the press and popular culture. Of course, all of this magically forgotten whenever an individual finds himself in the position of needing a lawyer to solve a problem (often a serious one).
|
On July 02 2013 23:26 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 23:23 Klondikebar wrote:On July 02 2013 23:14 GorbadTheGreat wrote:On July 02 2013 22:50 Klondikebar wrote:On July 02 2013 22:38 Felnarion wrote:On July 02 2013 22:15 Klondikebar wrote:On July 02 2013 19:56 tomatriedes wrote:On July 02 2013 16:22 Ghostcom wrote:On July 02 2013 16:18 Kaitlin wrote:On July 02 2013 16:04 Ghostcom wrote:
[quote]
Quoting myself as no one has answered. Did I miss the explanation or is everyone else at a loss for Martins motive as well? I thought I had already thrown out there that Martin was likely pissed because another "cracker" had treated him as suspicious simply because he was black and Martin when he thought Zimmerman was vulnerable thought he was going to get his revenge. Teach him a lesson. Hard to believe ? I simply missed it - and I would label it in the category of believable but not convincing. Is this "merely" your suggestion (not that it doesn't count of course), or have the defence hinted at this? I find your inability to believe that a teenager doesn't need a good reason to get into a fight with someone very strange. Perhaps you lived a very sheltered life? So many times growing up I saw fights happen for literally no reason other than teenagers trying to be tough. I was at a party once in high school. Talking and laughing with some friends- some sober gate crashers turn up and one of them comes up to me and says 'what did you say about my brother?' I replied 'I don't know your brother'. Next thing the guy was swinging at me and I ended up with a black eye and friend got a chipped tooth. In our shock we never even tried to fight back. Another time a group of friends drinking in a park at night. One of our group was sitting on the ground a little apart from us. Suddenly a group of other teenagers that we hadn't interacted with in anyway ran up and started beating the shit out of him with bats and bottles. Kid was taken away in an ambulance unconscious and bleeding from head wounds. The only plausible explanation I can think of for why they attacked, apart from just that they were bullies and enjoyed inflicting pain and being 'tough', is the fact that in both cases (and several others I witnessed) the attackers were Maori/Polynesian and the victims were white. But yet the ultimate taboo is to ever suggest that a darker-skinned person might ever attack a lighter-skinned for racist reasons even though you're quite happy to attribute racist reasons to Zimmerman's actions. Apparently only white people are capable of racist violence, correct? Bullies don't attack people stronger than them. I find it hard to believe Martin was "bullying" Zimmerman. Anecdotal evidence is never very good. I find it interesting that you're sure Zimmerman is the stronger of the two. Last I checked guns beat bags of skittles. Unless tasting the rainbow grants powers of which I am not aware. Which is completely irrelevant. Original point was about bullies attacking people stronger than them. Martin had no idea Zimmerman was carrying a firearm. The reality is, we have no idea who was the strongest. That can't be determined from weight. But if you're giving someone the up-down you're gonna use weight as a metric for strength. Look, you can say teenagers are stupid and violent all you want but absolutely nothing about the circumstances of Martin's behavior indicate he was looking for a fight. I'm being sarcrastic because all you've done is say "lolteenagers!" And now you're back to size, what happens to guns and skittles?! Yeah, he's gonna look at size. He's also gonna look at an older guy who is a little overweight. Martin was definitely in better shape than Zimmerman, it's not a stretch that he assumed Zimmerman would be easy, especially if he got the jump on him.
Because I often look to beat someone up when I make skittles runs. Again, there's just no reason to assume or even conjecture that Martin was looking for a fight. "Just cause he's a teenager and teenagers are stupid!" is a horrible reason.
|
On July 02 2013 23:27 xDaunt wrote:
Studies and focus groups have repeatedly revealed that the public perception of "lawyer" is "liar." There's nothing fair about this perception, but it is what it is thanks to decades of negative portrayal in both the press and popular culture. Of course, all of this magically forgotten whenever an individual finds himself in the position of needing a lawyer to solve a problem (often a serious one).
Lawyers are not liars, I think they're just fine in life, but their job is to make their client look good which sometimes takes a bit of manipulation of the facts, manipulation of the jury, etc. The client is taught how to talk and which type of language to use to look better. Also there's the whole thing where they look for loopholes in laws to do all kinds of stuff, for instance to find tax shelters and such.
Calling them liars outright is a bitch of a stretch but in many cases, it takes a fair bit of BS.
That said, my main concern is that I don't believe that the right conclusion is always found. I'm not saying I don't believe it in this case, but there are grounds to be skeptical, at least on some of the details. And I was called an idiot, essentially for admitting that I don't know with absolute certainty what happened.
Edit: People are talking about "hatred" for lawyers and I don't have the slightest bit of hate for them.
|
On July 02 2013 23:27 xDaunt wrote:
Studies and focus groups have repeatedly revealed that the public perception of "lawyer" is "liar." There's nothing fair about this perception, but it is what it is thanks to decades of negative portrayal in both the press and popular culture. Of course, all of this magically forgotten whenever an individual finds himself in the position of needing a lawyer to solve a problem (often a serious one).
Nothing fair about that perception...? I don't know..I mean, it's definitely a very common thing to repeatedly ask a question in differing ways to get a specific word choice you want a witness to say. And that's just one example, there are many. Is there too much distrust of lawyers, probably. But it isn't entirely unwarranted. Their job is at least partially to get into and out of situations on technicalities and half-truths.
|
On July 02 2013 23:27 xDaunt wrote:
Studies and focus groups have repeatedly revealed that the public perception of "lawyer" is "liar." There's nothing fair about this perception, but it is what it is thanks to decades of negative portrayal in both the press and popular culture. Of course, all of this magically forgotten whenever an individual finds himself in the position of needing a lawyer to solve a problem (often a serious one).
Everyone hates attorneys until they get into legal trouble. Then they call attorneys weekly to ask how they are going to solve those legal problems. Once the problem is solved, they are indifferent toward the attorneys. They return to hating attorneys once the invoice arrives.
It is the great circle of legal practice, repeated over and over throughout the ages.
|
On July 02 2013 23:27 xDaunt wrote:
Studies and focus groups have repeatedly revealed that the public perception of "lawyer" is "liar." There's nothing fair about this perception, but it is what it is thanks to decades of negative portrayal in both the press and popular culture. Of course, all of this magically forgotten whenever an individual finds himself in the position of needing a lawyer to solve a problem (often a serious one).
It's pretty easy to understand though. Not every lawyer tries to only get a fair trial, but there are lawyers who actually try to prevent their (inherently guilty) clients from their righteous judgement.
Of course i call a lawyer if shit happens (in fact, i did only a couple of month back, to get out of something which i was clearly guilty of). I would not call them liars though. But "twisters". Alot of them. Not all, mind you, but alot.
Also, i might've misunderstood you, so i apologize if i did.
|
On July 02 2013 14:49 Ghostcom wrote:
I would just like to point out that contrary to popular belief, police officers are no better than the average population at detecting lies - which is 50%. You really might as well just throw a coin.
I would really like someone to, within the parameters of the Zimmerman story, come up with a reasonable explanation for why Martin forced a confrontation, because as far as I can tell the only way that happens is if Martin acts irrational to the extreme - but I might simply have missed the explanation?
There's a difference between detecting a lie and getting to the truth. They may not have an advantage in the first but I find it very hard to believe they aren't better in the lather, if based on nothing else than their training in interrogation techniques.
|
On July 02 2013 23:34 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 14:49 Ghostcom wrote:
I would just like to point out that contrary to popular belief, police officers are no better than the average population at detecting lies - which is 50%. You really might as well just throw a coin.
I would really like someone to, within the parameters of the Zimmerman story, come up with a reasonable explanation for why Martin forced a confrontation, because as far as I can tell the only way that happens is if Martin acts irrational to the extreme - but I might simply have missed the explanation? There's a difference between detecting a lie and getting to the truth. They may not have an advantage in the first but I find it very hard to believe they aren't better in the lather, if based on nothing else than their training in interrogation techniques.
In America our interrogation techniques suck. Interrogating witnesses is such a long and emotionally draining process that innocent people "confess" to the crime about 45% of the time. And when interrogators lie about how much evidence they have that false confession rate rockets to like 95%. When you're in a closed environment for double digit hours with no food or sleep and the only social interaction you have is people telling you you're guilty, your grip on reality starts to erode.
http://web.williams.edu/Psychology/Faculty/Kassin/files/kassin_fong_1999.pdf
|
On July 02 2013 23:33 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 23:27 xDaunt wrote:
Studies and focus groups have repeatedly revealed that the public perception of "lawyer" is "liar." There's nothing fair about this perception, but it is what it is thanks to decades of negative portrayal in both the press and popular culture. Of course, all of this magically forgotten whenever an individual finds himself in the position of needing a lawyer to solve a problem (often a serious one). It's pretty easy to understand though. Not every lawyer tries to only get a fair trial, but there are lawyers who actually try to prevent their (inherently guilty) clients from their righteous judgement. Of course i call a lawyer if shit happens (in fact, i did only a couple of month back, to get out of something which i was clearly guilty of). I would not call them liars though. But "twisters". Alot of them. Not all, mind you, but alot. Also, i might've misunderstood you, so i apologize if i did.
Blaming an attorney from defending a guilty party is horrible and totally self serving, in my opinion. The tradition started with John Adams defending the soldiers at the Boston Massacre, in which he won the case. It is based on the idea that no matter how guilty a person may appear, they deserve to have someone defend them against the government and the rule of the mob. Being a public defender or criminal defense attorney is a principled practice and should not be sullied by the few “criminal attorneys” out there.
|
With the Rodney King riots there was at least something to be legitimately outraged about, not that the riots were justified of course.
However if there is unrest here you can put a ton of the blame on the media for creating a fake story about a vicious racist white man stalking and killing an innocent black teen and getting away with it.
That's the story they pushed for weeks and that's what stuck in a lot of people's minds, facts of the case be damned.
|
On July 02 2013 23:32 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 23:27 xDaunt wrote:
Studies and focus groups have repeatedly revealed that the public perception of "lawyer" is "liar." There's nothing fair about this perception, but it is what it is thanks to decades of negative portrayal in both the press and popular culture. Of course, all of this magically forgotten whenever an individual finds himself in the position of needing a lawyer to solve a problem (often a serious one). Nothing fair about that perception...? I don't know..I mean, it's definitely a very common thing to repeatedly ask a question in differing ways to get a specific word choice you want a witness to say. And that's just one example, there are many. Is there too much distrust of lawyers, probably. But it isn't entirely unwarranted. Their job is at least partially to get into and out of situations on technicalities and half-truths.
My point is that the perception is far less warranted than people think. There isn't as much grey area between "advocacy" and "misrepresentation" as most would believe. In fact, the most compelling advocates are the ones that are the ones stay closest to the truth. Jurors and judges have finely tuned bullshit detectors. If a lawyer tries to float something by them that is not true, the judge and especially jurors will punish the lawyer and his client for it. Perhaps more importantly, a lawyer does his client a great disservice when he is not honest with his client about the merits of a given argument, position, or case. Sure, my clients don't like it when I tell them that they're going to get killed at trial, but if I don't tell them as such, then I'd be exposing them to far greater harm than that to which they'd be exposed by merely trying to reach a settlement before trial.
|
On July 02 2013 23:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 23:32 Felnarion wrote:On July 02 2013 23:27 xDaunt wrote:
Studies and focus groups have repeatedly revealed that the public perception of "lawyer" is "liar." There's nothing fair about this perception, but it is what it is thanks to decades of negative portrayal in both the press and popular culture. Of course, all of this magically forgotten whenever an individual finds himself in the position of needing a lawyer to solve a problem (often a serious one). Nothing fair about that perception...? I don't know..I mean, it's definitely a very common thing to repeatedly ask a question in differing ways to get a specific word choice you want a witness to say. And that's just one example, there are many. Is there too much distrust of lawyers, probably. But it isn't entirely unwarranted. Their job is at least partially to get into and out of situations on technicalities and half-truths. My point is that the perception is far less warranted than people think. There isn't as much grey area between "advocacy" and "misrepresentation" as most would believe. In fact, the most compelling advocates are the ones that are the ones stay closest to the truth. Jurors and judges have finely tuned bullshit detectors. If a lawyer tries to float something by them that is not true, the judge and especially jurors will punish the lawyer and his client for it. Perhaps more importantly, a lawyer does his client a great disservice when he is not honest with his client about the merits of a given argument, position, or case. Sure, my clients don't like it when I tell them that they're going to get killed at trial, but if I don't tell them as such, then I'd be exposing them to far greater harm than that to which they'd be exposed by merely trying to reach a settlement before trial.
The overall point is that there are many cases where the truth is not found. Presumably sometimes it is never found, and sometimes someone gets released months of years after the case because someone made an oopsie. Daphreak was notably talking about how great the judicial system is, and I agree that it's pretty awesome, but let's not pretend that it's perfect.
|
On July 02 2013 23:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 23:33 m4inbrain wrote:On July 02 2013 23:27 xDaunt wrote:
Studies and focus groups have repeatedly revealed that the public perception of "lawyer" is "liar." There's nothing fair about this perception, but it is what it is thanks to decades of negative portrayal in both the press and popular culture. Of course, all of this magically forgotten whenever an individual finds himself in the position of needing a lawyer to solve a problem (often a serious one). It's pretty easy to understand though. Not every lawyer tries to only get a fair trial, but there are lawyers who actually try to prevent their (inherently guilty) clients from their righteous judgement. Of course i call a lawyer if shit happens (in fact, i did only a couple of month back, to get out of something which i was clearly guilty of). I would not call them liars though. But "twisters". Alot of them. Not all, mind you, but alot. Also, i might've misunderstood you, so i apologize if i did. Blaming an attorney from defending a guilty party is horrible and totally self serving, in my opinion. The tradition started with John Adams defending the soldiers at the Boston Massacre, in which he won the case. It is based on the idea that no matter how guilty a person may appear, they deserve to have someone defend them against the government and the rule of the mob. Being a public defender or criminal defense attorney is a principled practice and should not be sullied by the few “criminal attorneys” out there.
I disagree. I didn't say that defending is wrong. I said trying to get "his record cleared" is. If a lawyer wants to try to get a criminal the appropriate amount of jailtime and not what the mob/government wants him to get (simplified), best. I'm all for it. But that's not what happens, don't be all surprised, you're basically bullshitting now. You know that the smallest amount of lawyers are actually trying to serve the laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
