HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old May 20, 2012, 02:11 PM
Registered User
Milwaukee, WI
Joined Sep 2006
267 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
It isn't false because of an opinion I hold, it is false because it isn't a logical conclusion to reach.
It is absolutely logical to conclude that Z started the confrontation. You desire to put too much weight on the fact that Treyvon had the upper hand when the witness saw them. That does not tell us who started it. You also do not put enough weight on the actions of the individuals leading up to the contact. That is not logical.

His words on the 911 call and his decision to pursue T point to him being the aggressor. Treyvon's running and the gf's testimony point to Treyvon not being the aggressor. There is nothing illogical about that.
Sherlock is offline Find More Posts by Sherlock
Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2012, 02:11 PM
Trons and Fumes
wrightme's Avatar
Fallon, NV
Joined Mar 2007
5,024 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock View Post
Oh, so you did know about it then. Why did you act like you had not read that? More games, what do you know
Simple. You claimed that flaws in reasoning were discussed. There wasn't a flaw, there was an erroneous conclusion from rcp.
The only 'flaw in reasoning' was rcp's flaw.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock
Your opinion about our critiques of Dershowitz is noted. Legal opinions abound on the matter. His is hardly conclusive.
His opinion is right on target with the statute. Under FL statute, an initial aggressor CAN still claim justifiable self-defense, which is the claim presented by Dershowitz.
wrightme is offline Find More Posts by wrightme
Last edited by wrightme; May 20, 2012 at 02:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2012, 02:15 PM
Trons and Fumes
wrightme's Avatar
Fallon, NV
Joined Mar 2007
5,024 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock View Post
It is absolutely logical to conclude that Z started the confrontation.
False. It is not 'absolutely logical to conclude that Z started the confrontation.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock
You desire to put too much weight on the fact that Treyvon had the upper hand when the witness saw them. That does not tell us who started it. You also do not put enough weight on the actions of the individuals leading up to the contact. That is not logical.
I do not feel that the fact that Trayvon was on top when witnesses saw them means that Trayvon started it. You are misrepresenting my position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock
His words on the 911 call and his decision to pursue T point to him being the aggressor. Treyvon's running and the gf's testimony point to Treyvon not being the aggressor. There is nothing illogical about that.
No, his words on the 911 call do not do such, and neither does his decision to follow T.

Trayvon's running (according to Z, remember?) and the gf's testimony do not point to Trayvon not being the aggressor. They hold no meaning for that bit. In YOUR opinion they do, but that is simply your opinion, and not logical at that.
The gf testimony does not confirm or deny anything about Trayvon's actions. Nor does it confirm or deny anything about Zimmerman'x actions.
wrightme is offline Find More Posts by wrightme
Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2012, 02:18 PM
Trons and Fumes
wrightme's Avatar
Fallon, NV
Joined Mar 2007
5,024 Posts
Specifically about the gf testimony, there really isn't a thing that corroborates any of it, except the running. There is nothing that refutes a claim that Trayvon turned around and confronted Zimmerman. It is simply not discussed. A lack of evidence doesn't become evidence of a lack. It simply doesn't confirm or corroborate a specific.
wrightme is offline Find More Posts by wrightme
Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2012, 02:22 PM
Registered User
Milwaukee, WI
Joined Sep 2006
267 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
According to Z, that is exactly what happened. You simply do not know whether T continued to run away or not. The GF allegedly said for him to run away, which does not mean he continued to do so.
Him running matches the GF's testimony and is supported by what Z said in the 911 call.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
False. You simply do not know that. You might hold that opinion, but it isnI't a true statement.
My opinion is not false. You think it is not more likely but that is your opinion. Generally when one says "more likely" they are speaking of things that involve multiple possibilities which cannot be spoken difinitively about. I think it is more likely, you do not. Does that sound like a statement of fact? I don't think so. Why do you waste so much time with this? I am sure you know the difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
If it is your opinion, then it isn't 'so.' It is simply an opinion.
And your belief that it is not more likely is just your opinion. Wow.
Sherlock is offline Find More Posts by Sherlock
Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2012, 02:26 PM
Registered User
Milwaukee, WI
Joined Sep 2006
267 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
Specifically about the gf testimony, there really isn't a thing that corroborates any of it, except the running. There is nothing that refutes a claim that Trayvon turned around and confronted Zimmerman. It is simply not discussed. A lack of evidence doesn't become evidence of a lack. It simply doesn't confirm or corroborate a specific.
No, the time line refutes it. The conversation ends when the confrontation starts and Treyvon was running away right before that. He also did not say he was going to confront the man to his girlfriend. None of that is consistent with Treyvon attacking M while he was walking back to his truck.
Sherlock is offline Find More Posts by Sherlock
Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2012, 02:29 PM
Trons and Fumes
wrightme's Avatar
Fallon, NV
Joined Mar 2007
5,024 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock View Post
Him running matches the GF's testimony and is supported by what Z said in the 911 call.
Correct. That is why I said it was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock
My opinion is not false. You think it is not more likely but that is your opinion. Generally when one says "more likely" they are speaking of things that involve multiple possibilities which cannot be spoken difinitively about. I think it is more likely, you do not. Does that sound like a statement of fact? I don't think so. Why do you waste so much time with this? I am sure you know the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock
And your belief that it is not more likely is just your opinion. Wow.
No, it isn't just my opinion, it is the preponderance. So far, all of the available evidence we have seen does corroborate Zimmerman's version of events. We have not seen enough to corroborate EACH ITEM of Zimmerman's version of events, but the preponderance does either confirm, or corroborate Zimmerman's version. It isn't logical to subsequently claim some other version of events is 'more likely' without specifics to present beyond the 'lack of evidence is evidence of a lack' that you are attempting to present.

Given that Zimmerman's version hasn't been refuted or called to question from evidence, it is more logical to conclude that Zimmerman's version IS the true version.
wrightme is offline Find More Posts by wrightme
Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2012, 02:32 PM
Trons and Fumes
wrightme's Avatar
Fallon, NV
Joined Mar 2007
5,024 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock View Post
No, the time line refutes it. The conversation ends when the confrontation starts and Treyvon was running away right before that. He also did not say he was going to confront the man to his girlfriend. None of that is consistent with Treyvon attacking M while he was walking back to his truck.
No, the timeline for that does not refute it. If you really feel that it does, find that timeline, and present it, parsed out according to the events. But, that might be quite difficult, since there isn't any audio of the call to accurately create an event timeline from. There is only the testimony of the girlfriend, which has nothing except a call log with an elapsed time for corroboration. It will be quite difficult to correlate call times to the degree necessary for you to support your claim.
wrightme is offline Find More Posts by wrightme
Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2012, 02:37 PM
Registered User
Milwaukee, WI
Joined Sep 2006
267 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
False. It is not 'absolutely logical to conclude that Z started the confrontation.'
That is your opinion. Your opinion does not render things false.
Given Z's actions it is absolutely logical to conclude that he may have started the confrontation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
I do not feel that the fact that Trayvon was on top when witnesses saw them means that Trayvon started it. You are misrepresenting my position.
Really? So what leads you to believe that a person who was doing nothing wrong, who was trying to get away from an unknown suspicious follower, started the confrontation with that suspicious follower?


Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
No, his words on the 911 call do not do such, and neither does his decision to follow T.
Your opinion has already been noted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
Trayvon's running (according to Z, remember?) and the gf's testimony do not point to Trayvon not being the aggressor. They hold no meaning for that bit. In YOUR opinion they do, but that is simply your opinion, and not logical at that.
They absolutely do support that possibility. It is absolutely logical to believe that the one not doing anything wrong and the one who was trying to get away may not have been the aggressor. It is illogical for you to deny that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
The gf testimony does not confirm or deny anything about Trayvon's actions. Nor does it confirm or deny anything about Zimmerman'x actions.
Confirm or deny are your words, not mine. Once again you are changing words to attempt to make a point. What a surprise.

The gf's testimony casts doubt on Zimmerman's.
Sherlock is offline Find More Posts by Sherlock
Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2012, 02:53 PM
Trons and Fumes
wrightme's Avatar
Fallon, NV
Joined Mar 2007
5,024 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock View Post
That is your opinion. Your opinion does not render things false.
Given Z's actions it is absolutely logical to conclude that he may have started the confrontation.
It isn't my opinion that renders it false, it is logic that renders it false.
He may have started it, or Trayvon may have started it. There really isn't any specific leading up to the encounter that goes beyond 'Zimmerman may have started it, or Martin may have started it.'


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock
Really? So what leads you to believe that a person who was doing nothing wrong, who was trying to get away from an unknown suspicious follower, started the confrontation with that suspicious follower?
First, Zimmerman's testimony which hasn't been refuted.
Second, the fact that Zimmerman's injuries are most likely the result of an attack by Martin.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock
The gf's testimony casts doubt on Zimmerman's.
Then present the bits of her testimony that you feel DO cast doubt on Zimmerman's.
wrightme is offline Find More Posts by wrightme
Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2012, 02:54 PM
Registered User
Milwaukee, WI
Joined Sep 2006
267 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
No, it isn't just my opinion, it is the preponderance. So far, all of the available evidence we have seen does corroborate Zimmerman's version of events. We have not seen enough to corroborate EACH ITEM of Zimmerman's version of events, but the preponderance does either confirm, or corroborate Zimmerman's version. It isn't logical to subsequently claim some other version of events is 'more likely' without specifics to present beyond the 'lack of evidence is evidence of a lack' that you are attempting to present.

Given that Zimmerman's version hasn't been refuted or called to question from evidence, it is more logical to conclude that Zimmerman's version IS the true version.
False. We do not know who started the confrontation. It could have been either one. One does not have to come up with some "other version of events" in order to say that Zimmerman might have started it. The events can be the same right up until the confrontation. In fact most pretty much agree on what happened right up until the confrontation. Nothing there eliminates the logical possibility that Z started it. There might not be any physical evidence of Zimmerman starting it. There does not even need to be. This is not a "lack of evidence is evidence of lack" argument as you claim. Zimmerman starting it is one of two logical possibilities given what we know right up until the confrontation.

The evidence that we do have certainly points to Z being aggressive and T trying to get away and it is absolutely logical to think that T might not have started it.
Sherlock is offline Find More Posts by Sherlock
Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2012, 03:00 PM
Registered User
Milwaukee, WI
Joined Sep 2006
267 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
It isn't my opinion that renders it false, it is logic that renders it false.
Your opinion on what is logical or not does not render anything false either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
He may have started it, or Trayvon may have started it. There really isn't any specific leading up to the encounter that goes beyond 'Zimmerman may have started it, or Martin may have started it.'
Yes there is. Zimmermans words on the 911 call and his decision to follow against the advice of the dispatchor. Martin was doing nothing wrong and tried to get away.


Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
First, Zimmerman's testimony which hasn't been refuted.
The story of a man who shot someone who is no longer around to give his side. OK.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
Second, the fact that Zimmerman's injuries are most likely the result of an attack by Martin.
Z's injuries do not indicate who initiated the attack.
Sherlock is offline Find More Posts by Sherlock
Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2012, 03:02 PM
Registered User
Milwaukee, WI
Joined Sep 2006
267 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
Then present the bits of her testimony that you feel DO cast doubt on Zimmerman's.
Already been done.
Sherlock is offline Find More Posts by Sherlock
Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2012, 03:02 PM
Trons and Fumes
wrightme's Avatar
Fallon, NV
Joined Mar 2007
5,024 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock View Post
False. We do not know who started the confrontation. It could have been either one.
You missed it. I didn't say we do know who started the confrontation. I presented my reasoning for my conclusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock
One does not have to come up with some "other version of events" in order to say that Zimmerman might have started it.
Huh? If you say that zimmerman might have started it, that IS some 'other version of events.'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock
The events can be the same right up until the confrontation. In fact most pretty much agree on what happened right up until the confrontation.
Of course, I haven't said or implied differently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock
Nothing there eliminates the logical possibility that Z started it. There might not be any physical evidence of Zimmerman starting it. There does not even need to be.
Without physical evidence of Zimmerman starting it, the only logical conclusion is that he didn't start it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock
This is not a "lack of evidence is evidence of lack" argument as you claim. Zimmerman starting it is one of two logical possibilities given what we know right up until the confrontation.
Yes, it was a 'lack of evidence is evidence of a lack.' You presented a case where the lack of Trayvon telling his gf that he was turning around refuted that part of Zimmerman's tale; which IS 'lack of evidence is evidence of a lack.'
Maybe you forgot?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock View Post
No, the time line refutes it. The conversation ends when the confrontation starts and Treyvon was running away right before that. He also did not say he was going to confront the man to his girlfriend. None of that is consistent with Treyvon attacking M while he was walking back to his truck.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock
The evidence that we do have certainly points to Z being aggressive and T trying to get away and it is absolutely logical to think that T might not have started it.
No, there is nothing in the evidence pointing to Z being aggressive.
wrightme is offline Find More Posts by wrightme
Reply With Quote
Old May 20, 2012, 03:03 PM
Trons and Fumes
wrightme's Avatar
Fallon, NV
Joined Mar 2007
5,024 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherlock View Post
Already been done.
Then link them or cite them. So far, you have simply attempted to declare it to be so, and used a 'lack of evidence is evidence of a lack' to attempt to pass it off.


How about that call timeline now?
wrightme is offline Find More Posts by wrightme
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion Back in the 30's...(1930's) Up&Away Sailplane Talk 15 Mar 25, 2012 08:04 PM
Discussion Guess who's back, back again ! RC_Marine Electric Heli Talk 3 Feb 01, 2012 09:44 PM
Sold *LPU* She's Back!! DWFoamies 48" JUKA F/S (Atlanta S) poiyt Aircraft - Electric - Airplanes (FS/W) 7 Dec 30, 2011 01:28 PM
Sold F/s or trade os 61 sxheli engine and zimmerman pipe LEONARD ANDERS Aircraft - Fuel - Helis (FS/W) 0 Dec 12, 2009 02:00 PM