|
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 15 2013 05:15 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:DemigodcelpH
Traits of psychopathy (and the lessor anti-social disorder) are actually relatively common in the general population, and someone who made 46 prior calls to the Standford police and actively ignored direct police orders to stay in his vehicle and stop following the citizen (this was before any confrontation happened) is definitely more on the calculating side. 1. He did not actively ignore police orders as they were not orders and were not issued by a police officer no matter how many times you say so 2. Zimmerman was a member of his neighborhood's watch organization, it boggles the mind to think that calling the people dozens of times in your capacity as a neighborhood watch member is an indication of "calculation" or of psychopathy or any lesser anti-social disorder 3. It again boggles the mind to say that following someone you believe is committing a crime qualifies as 'calculation' to physically harm him, and also in no way shows a mind directed towards criminal calculation 1. He ignored what he was told whether it was legally identified as an official order or not. 2. 46 times is obsessive even for a volunteer, and the transcripts wreak of agenda. 3. Following someone while carrying a gun, ignoring the dispatcher, and then killing him suggests that it wasn't happenstance. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:There was no officer on the phone telling Zimmerman anything. A dispatcher was giving him instructions. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:Your contentions of non-substantiation, making up statistics, and downplaying details is the classic psychological defense of projection. You are projecting your own behavior on to others. Getting angry and making personal attacks may make you feel better short term, but behaving this way will only make your denial phase last longer. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:You have absolutely no evidence or reasoning that 46 calls to police is "definitely normal" or screams "vigilante obsession" and obviously you are simply making shit up as to what constitutes "abnormal," "vigilante obsession," or "conservative viewpoint."
Also it wasn't 46 calls, it was more. The prosecution only said 46 because those were the calls were Zimmerman said the suspicious person was black. This is highly abnormal for a single man who wanted to be a cop but failed and suggests some kind of lingering obsession. I seriously hope you're not trying to argue this point. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:How about you
1. Stop making shit up
2. Stop telling the 10% of the story that favors your opinion
3. Stop falsely characterizing the events of that night when everyone and their mother except the deliberately ignorant knows the details because they actually followed the trial
4. Stop indiscriminately throwing ridiculous labels out just because they a) denigrate Zimmerman and b) sound authoritative. They aren't 1. Nothing has been made up. 2. Specific points have specific relevant information. 3. False accusation. 4. Baseless. Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:You and Leporello are excellent examples of why the law, and not feelings, does and should be the standard we judge those accused of a crime by. Your feelings have led you to say total nonsense over and over again, and a man's life should not be at stake because of ignorant feelings causing people to want him to be punished. I find this highly ironic considering your post is one giant concentration of incoherent emotions.
1. So what? First you said it was an officer and an order, now it doesn't matter that it wasn't either, you're still right. That seems... obstinate at best.
2. You have no evidence or reasoning backing this up, it is simply an unsupported assertion
3. Another unsupported assertion
"We don't need you to do that" is not an instruction.
A simple observation that you are projecting your own behavior, as clearly shown by your posts, onto others. Denial has nothing to do with it, we aren't in a 12-step group right now.
This is highly abnormal for a single man who wanted to be a cop but failed and suggests some kind of lingering obsession. I seriously hope you're not trying to argue this point.
Again we see the character assassination and unsupported assertions followed by an unsupported implied declaration of authority. This is faux argument at its best. There is nothing you have posted via evidence or reason to show that Zimmerman had a "lingering obsession." Also, I have no regard for what you "seriously hope" I will try to argue or not argue. You are not dealing in facts, you are dealing in presenting your personal opinion as unalloyed fact.
1. Nothing has been made up.
2. Specific points have specific relevant information.
3. False accusation.
4. Baseless.
1-4: all false.
I find this highly ironic considering your post is one giant concentration of incoherent emotions.
Considering your record for being absolutely wrong in literally everything you have said, I don't think so.
Your Obama-hate obsession doesn't sound too healthy. Whether you like it or not the comment was both eloquently said and beautiful in the sense of directing people the right way while portraying good leadership virtues.
I disagree. Also, again, your track record of 100% wrongness leads me to not be concerned that you think I have an "Obama-hate obsession." Accusing people of mental illness seems to be your go-to attack, it's very sad.
|
On July 15 2013 05:13 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 04:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/14/statement-president has there been any comment on the civil rights request yet?
None that I am aware of, but I assume they are going to shoot those down. That shit is best resolved in a civil matter, not by the White House.
|
All of this angst is the result of the news media twisting facts and sensationalizing stories. This country would be much better off if NBC and Fox weren't so extremely biased.
|
On July 15 2013 05:15 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:There was no officer on the phone telling Zimmerman anything. A dispatcher was giving him instructions.
Unless I have been drastically misinformed, dispatchers are very rarely if ever actual police officers, including this case.
|
On July 15 2013 05:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 15 2013 04:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/14/statement-president has there been any comment on the civil rights request yet? None that I am aware of, but I assume they are going to shoot those down. That shit is best resolved in a civil matter, not by the White House.
There's that FL statute that might protect him from civil matters. Is this civil rights violation a criminal charge?
|
On July 15 2013 05:37 Robotix wrote:
All of this angst is the result of the news media twisting facts and sensationalizing stories. This country would be much better off if NBC and Fox weren't so extremely biased.
you forgot like every other network that misreported this case.
|
On July 15 2013 05:41 FatChicksUnited wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:37 Plansix wrote:On July 15 2013 05:13 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 15 2013 04:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The death of Trayvon Martin was a tragedy. Not just for his family, or for any one community, but for America. I know this case has elicited strong passions. And in the wake of the verdict, I know those passions may be running even higher. But we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken. I now ask every American to respect the call for calm reflection from two parents who lost their young son. And as we do, we should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to widen the circle of compassion and understanding in our own communities. We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis. We should ask ourselves, as individuals and as a society, how we can prevent future tragedies like this. As citizens, that’s a job for all of us. That’s the way to honor Trayvon Martin. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/07/14/statement-president has there been any comment on the civil rights request yet? None that I am aware of, but I assume they are going to shoot those down. That shit is best resolved in a civil matter, not by the White House. There's that FL statute that might protect him from civil matters. Is this civil rights violation a criminal charge?
yes, under federal law. but the FBI already investigated and refused to find a racial angle. for them to backtrack now and charge a crime would be fucking insane.
|
On July 15 2013 05:37 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:15 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 05:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:There was no officer on the phone telling Zimmerman anything. A dispatcher was giving him instructions. Unless I have been drastically misinformed, dispatchers are very rarely if ever actual police officers, including this case.
The dispatcher was also not giving Zimmerman instructions, but that kind of distortion is par for the course for the lynch Zimmerman crowd.
|
Frankly I'm impressed with Deb's posting today. I don't think he's said "agitprop" yet, and for that he deserves a A for the day 
On a side note, I could not be more thankful for not having Twitter on this day.
|
On July 15 2013 05:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:15 DemigodcelpH wrote:On July 15 2013 05:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:DemigodcelpH
Traits of psychopathy (and the lessor anti-social disorder) are actually relatively common in the general population, and someone who made 46 prior calls to the Standford police and actively ignored direct police orders to stay in his vehicle and stop following the citizen (this was before any confrontation happened) is definitely more on the calculating side. 1. He did not actively ignore police orders as they were not orders and were not issued by a police officer no matter how many times you say so 2. Zimmerman was a member of his neighborhood's watch organization, it boggles the mind to think that calling the people dozens of times in your capacity as a neighborhood watch member is an indication of "calculation" or of psychopathy or any lesser anti-social disorder 3. It again boggles the mind to say that following someone you believe is committing a crime qualifies as 'calculation' to physically harm him, and also in no way shows a mind directed towards criminal calculation 1. He ignored what he was told whether it was legally identified as an official order or not. 2. 46 times is obsessive even for a volunteer, and the transcripts wreak of agenda. 3. Following someone while carrying a gun, ignoring the dispatcher, and then killing him suggests that it wasn't happenstance. On July 15 2013 05:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:There was no officer on the phone telling Zimmerman anything. A dispatcher was giving him instructions. On July 15 2013 05:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:Your contentions of non-substantiation, making up statistics, and downplaying details is the classic psychological defense of projection. You are projecting your own behavior on to others. Getting angry and making personal attacks may make you feel better short term, but behaving this way will only make your denial phase last longer. On July 15 2013 05:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:You have absolutely no evidence or reasoning that 46 calls to police is "definitely normal" or screams "vigilante obsession" and obviously you are simply making shit up as to what constitutes "abnormal," "vigilante obsession," or "conservative viewpoint."
Also it wasn't 46 calls, it was more. The prosecution only said 46 because those were the calls were Zimmerman said the suspicious person was black. This is highly abnormal for a single man who wanted to be a cop but failed and suggests some kind of lingering obsession. I seriously hope you're not trying to argue this point. On July 15 2013 05:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:How about you
1. Stop making shit up
2. Stop telling the 10% of the story that favors your opinion
3. Stop falsely characterizing the events of that night when everyone and their mother except the deliberately ignorant knows the details because they actually followed the trial
4. Stop indiscriminately throwing ridiculous labels out just because they a) denigrate Zimmerman and b) sound authoritative. They aren't 1. Nothing has been made up. 2. Specific points have specific relevant information. 3. False accusation. 4. Baseless. On July 15 2013 05:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:You and Leporello are excellent examples of why the law, and not feelings, does and should be the standard we judge those accused of a crime by. Your feelings have led you to say total nonsense over and over again, and a man's life should not be at stake because of ignorant feelings causing people to want him to be punished. I find this highly ironic considering your post is one giant concentration of incoherent emotions. 1. So what? First you said it was an officer and an order, now it doesn't matter that it wasn't either, you're still right. That seems... obstinate at best. 2. You have no evidence or reasoning backing this up, it is simply an unsupported assertion 3. Another unsupported assertion
1. Hinging on a technicality around interchangeable terms in colloquial language does not hide that you're not only wrong, but have nothing to go off of. Everyone knows that dispatchers do not hold the same position as cops.
2. Statements with supporting evidence aren't unsupported.
3. No.
On July 15 2013 05:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:"We don't need you to do that" is not an instruction.
Yes it is. This is logically supported by the fact that Zimmerman was following the instructions of the dispatcher prior to that statement, and that the dispatcher actively asked if Zimmerman was doing a dangerous activity directly prior, received confirmation on said dangerous activity, and then immediately issued his statement to Zimmerman — in this situation it's abundantly clear that, while worded politely, the dispatcher was not looking to debate the issue.
On July 15 2013 05:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:Again we see the character assassination and unsupported assertions followed by an unsupported implied declaration of authority. This is faux argument at its best. There is nothing you have posted via evidence or reason to show that Zimmerman had a "lingering obsession." Also, I have no regard for what you "seriously hope" I will try to argue or not argue. You are not dealing in facts, you are dealing in presenting your personal opinion as unalloyed fact.
Your ignoring evidence, even circumstantial, doesn't mean that my assertions are unsupported as everything can be cited. Know that such an elementary "get out of jail free" tactic isn't going to work for you.
On July 15 2013 05:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:1-4: all false.
No.
On July 15 2013 05:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:Considering your record for being absolutely wrong in literally everything you have said, I don't think so.
The fabled "I am really mad right now but I can't prove anything" go-to response.
On July 15 2013 05:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:I disagree.
Irrelevant.
On July 15 2013 05:24 DeepElemBlues wrote:Also, again, your track record of 100% wrongness leads me to not be concerned that you think I have an "Obama-hate obsession."
Feel free to provide supporting evidence when you cool down, but until then this is fluff.
|
On July 15 2013 05:43 farvacola wrote:Frankly I'm impressed with Deb's posting today. I don't think he's said "agitprop" yet, and for that he deserves a A for the day On a side note, I could not be more thankful for not having Twitter on this day.
You apologist for agitprop.
1. Hinging on a technicality around interchangeable terms in colloquial language does not hide that you're not only wrong, but have nothing to go off of.
2. Statements with supporting evidence aren't unsupported.
3. No.
"Instructions" and "orders are not synonyms in colloquial language.
Your statements have been totally unsupported.
Yes.
Yes it is. This is logically supported by the fact that Zimmerman was following the instructions of the dispatcher prior to that statement, and that the dispatcher actively asked if Zimmerman was doing a dangerous activity directly prior, received confirmation on said dangerous activity, and then immediately issued his statement to Zimmerman — in this situation it's abundantly clear that, while worded politely, the dispatcher was not looking to debate the issue.
You have clearly not read the transcript of the phone call with dispatch, instructions were not given. Information was asked for, and "we do not need you to do that" is not an instruction. The dispatcher himself testified that it was not an order or instruction.
Whether or not the dispatcher was looking to debate is irrelevant, and no it is not abundantly clear, and no tacking on adjectives does not lend a weak argument strength.
Your ignoring evidence, even circumstantial, doesn't mean that my assertions are unsupported as everything has can be cited. Know that such an elementary "get out of jail free" tactic isn't going to work for you.
What evidence have I ignored... actual evidence, not your opinion...
I'm not sure where I indicated that I plan to kill someone and use any kind of "get out of jail free" tactic, seems like you're just trying to provoke me into anger...
The fabled "I am really mad right now but I can't prove anything" go-to response.
No, it was the fabled "you haven't said anything right and multiple people have said so, so I will point that out when you make more personal attacks against Zimmerman or me."
Irrelevant.
I can hardly see how my disagreement with your characterization of my person is "irrelevant," it would seem to me that the two undoubtedly relevant opinions would be yours and mine.
The fabled "I am really mad right now but I can't prove anything" go-to response returns. Feel free to provide supporting evidence.
I don't need to provide evidence that an insult of me isn't true, it's an insult on an internet forum.
Feel free to provide supporting evidence when you cool down, but until then this is fluff.
Rejecting a personal insult is not fluff and does not require "supporting evidence." You're not making an argument, you're calling names and throwing out character assassinations like "obsessed" "abnormal" and "denial" while also making taunts like "just know that this won't work for you if you try it" in regards to a self-defense legal argument.
|
|
|
|
|
On July 15 2013 05:57 Shady Sands wrote:
Taste the acquittal.
Tastes good, real good.
|
I would not trust a report from the Washington Times to be unbiased or without motive. The DOJ works on some level with all groups that concern themselves with civil rights issues, but it does not mean they are supporting them in every action and support every meeting.
There are some serious mental leaps in the article. It says that one member urged the DOJ to look into the racial issues that may be involved in the case at the request of the civil rights watch group, which was reasonable at the. However, then the article claims that the DOJ supported all other actions by the civil rights watch group, but provides no evidence to support that claim. Their claims show that the DOJ spent less that $3000 to provide "technical assistance", which could be anything in the world, including totally reasonable things like security.
People be wary of this kind of reporting. If the article in question only cites one source, is about a page long and has little reporting done by the writer themselves, it is more interested in page views than accuracy. If we learned anything from this thread, we should take all these reports with a grain of salt.
|
When was the last time that the Obama administration actually got in trouble and had its feet held to the fire by the press? Basically never.
|
On July 15 2013 06:01 Plansix wrote:I would not trust a report from the Washington Times to be unbiased or without motive. The DOJ works on some level with all groups that concern themselves with civil rights issues, but it does not mean they are supporting them in every action and support every meeting. There are some serious mental leaps in the article. It says that one member urged the DOJ to look into the racial issues that may be involved in the case at the request of the civil rights watch group, which was reasonable at the. However, then the article claims that the DOJ supported all other actions by the civil rights watch group, but provides no evidence to support that claim. People be wary of this kind of reporting. If the article in question only cites one source, is about a page long and has little reporting done by the writer themselves, it is more interested in page views than accuracy. If we learned anything from this thread, we should take all these reports with a grain of salt.
The article is accurate, they have the DoJ documents, obtained through an FAOI request.. The source is not a single source but rather multiple sources (multiple documents) and also not just The Washington Times or Judicial Watch but also the Orlando Sentinel and other newspapers:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/documents-obtained-by-judicial-watch-detail-role-of-justice-department-in-organizing-trayvon-martin-protests/
|
On July 15 2013 05:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:"Instructions" and "orders are not synonyms in colloquial language.
I never referred to those as synonyms; this lack of understanding directly supports your lack of effective argument.
On July 15 2013 05:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:Your statements have been totally unsupported.
Everything has been supported. On the contrary, your statements have been totally unsupported.
On July 15 2013 05:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:You have clearly not read the transcript of the phone call with dispatch, instructions were not given.
By complying with requests for information Zimmerman was following the dispatcher's instructions.
On July 15 2013 05:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:The dispatcher himself testified that it was not an order or instruction.
Order officially admissible in court =! an order in casual speech.
On July 15 2013 05:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:no tacking on adjectives does not lend a weak argument strength.
Then why are you tacking on adjectives?
On July 15 2013 05:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:No, it was the fabled "you haven't said anything right and multiple people have said so, so I will point that out when you make more personal attacks against Zimmerman or me."
You've managed to combine a reasoning fallacy and a baseless claim into one generalization.
On July 15 2013 05:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:Rejecting a personal insult is not fluff and does not require "supporting evidence." You're not making an argument, you're calling names and throwing out character assassinations like "obsessed" "abnormal" and "denial" while also making taunts like "just know that this won't work for you if you try it" in regards to a self-defense legal argument.
You're equating "rejecting a personal insult" with you blindly saying that the opposition has a "100% track record of being wrong about errrthing ever" (you've gone back to this splendid argument twice for lack of a better argument) which is height of a child's reasoning ability.
In other words, yes, fluff.
|
On July 15 2013 06:08 DemigodcelpH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:44 DeepElemBlues wrote:"Instructions" and "orders are not synonyms in colloquial language. I never referred to those as synonyms; this lack of understanding directly supports your lack of effective argument.
You refereed to them as "interchangeable" which oddly enough is synonymous with synonyms.
|
On July 15 2013 05:41 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2013 05:37 Robotix wrote:
All of this angst is the result of the news media twisting facts and sensationalizing stories. This country would be much better off if NBC and Fox weren't so extremely biased. you forgot like every other network that misreported this case.
I was just naming the two worst general offenders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
