Martin/Zimmerman

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby WTN10 » Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:26 am

Sometimes companies settle to help people out. Saw a case settled one time where there was 0% liability on the part of the company, but the guy in charge said taking care of them was the "right thing to do."
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14095
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia


Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Apr 10, 2013 10:14 am

WTN10 wrote:Sometimes companies settle to help people out. Saw a case settled one time where there was 0% liability on the part of the company, but the guy in charge said taking care of them was the "right thing to do."

If he is "taking care of them" with other people's money, that is wrong! It's always easy to take care of people with OPM. I'd give all of yours away in a heartbeat to help my neighbor :wink:

I also believe this can be a failure of their legal responsibility to manage the company in the interest of the shareholders, partners, or whatever the legal arrangement is. They can't just give OPM away because they would like to help. That's where I'd like to see some lawsuits because I think there is too much of this going on and it crosses the line from good PR (or whatever debatable business interest) to misuse of company assets for personal objectives.

However, if it is their money, they can give it to whomever, however they want. I believe this would work as a loophole around having to pay gift taxes or other taxes.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16293
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby WTN10 » Wed Apr 10, 2013 10:36 am

It's the company's money, and doing something to further the company's public image is perfectly acceptable.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14095
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Apr 10, 2013 11:07 am

WTN10 wrote:It's the company's money, and doing something to further the company's public image is perfectly acceptable.

Which I said and agree. However, I think a lot of this stuff crosses the line from what is perfectly acceptable public image, which is very important, to simply making that person running the company feel good about himself with no way to support the argument for being a net benefit to the company. There is clearly a line there somewhere between legitimate and personal. Obviously, the guy running the company gets the benefit of the doubt. Right now I think too many of them have effectively a blank check and are abusing it.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16293
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed Apr 10, 2013 11:58 am

WTN10 wrote: Your signature 100% forsakes the play on words that I made, probably due to the fact that you didn't recognize it yourself.

If that's the case I'll remove it. My mistake.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10865
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:03 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:A settlement in this case constitutes, in most people's minds, an admission of guilt.

SpinnerMan wrote: Because most people are stupid.


SpinnerMan wrote: If it was closer to one or the other, I'm sure it would strongly impact our opinion.


:huh:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10865
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Apr 10, 2013 2:06 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:A settlement in this case constitutes, in most people's minds, an admission of guilt.

SpinnerMan wrote: Because most people are stupid.


SpinnerMan wrote: If it was closer to one or the other, I'm sure it would strongly impact our opinion.


:huh:

Seriously, you didn't get the two different topics being discussed. I guess that confirms my first statement you quoted :biggrin:

Statement 1 - assuming a settlement is an admission of guilt means that you are a simplistic idiot, which is a more accurate description.

Statement 2 - if the Homeowner's association's insurance company reached a settlement with the MMA wannabe's mother for $10, you would have one opinion of the insurance company's decision and if they reached a settlement for $10M that opinion would be very different. Do you know what the settlement was? I have no clue and have only seen what seems to be baseless speculation. Probably a lot more than $10 and a lot less than $10M, but who knows? A simplistic idiot would probably assume that they do and base their opinion on the number in their empty little skull. No matter what the settlement would never constitute and admission of liability (guilt is a question for the criminal court and their plea agreement is an admission of guilt unless it is no contest plea or whatever the term is which I don't feel like looking it up).
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16293
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu Apr 11, 2013 8:35 am

Glimmerjim wrote: A settlement in this case constitutes, in most people's minds, an admission of guilt.

SpinnerMan wrote: Because most people are stupid.


SpinnerMan wrote: If it was closer to one or the other, I'm sure it would strongly impact our opinion.


Glimmerjim wrote: :huh:

SpinnerMan wrote: Seriously, you didn't get the two different topics being discussed. I guess that confirms my first statement you quoted :biggrin:

I completely see the difference in the topics, Spinner. The problem is you fail to see the similarities.

SpinnerMan wrote: Statement 1 - assuming a settlement is an admission of guilt means that you are a simplistic idiot, which is a more accurate description.

You, therefore, formed no opinions whatsoever on the sexual abuse of minors by Michael Jackson based upon his settlements? If you are indeed the Vulcan of our membership, you are one of a very small minority. Which is exactly what my point was, that the vast majority of people feel, in most cases, that settlements are admissions of guilt. If this is due to being what you consider "simplistic idiots" so what? It still accurately reflects an opinion of the majority of his peers, and will therefore affect the outcome. My entire point.
SpinnerMan wrote: Statement 2 - if the Homeowner's association's insurance company reached a settlement with the MMA wannabe's mother for $10, you would have one opinion of the insurance company's decision and if they reached a settlement for $10M that opinion would be very different. Do you know what the settlement was? I have no clue and have only seen what seems to be baseless speculation. Probably a lot more than $10 and a lot less than $10M, but who knows? A simplistic idiot would probably assume that they do and base their opinion on the number in their empty little skull.


I really am unsure of the basis of your repeated opinion that most people are simplistic idiots, Spinner. You, with your statement regarding the "MMA wannabe", have clearly indicated that you have an opinion on what transpired in this case, yet it is based on speculation, with no more knowledge of the facts of this case, and resultant guilt or innocence, than anyone outside of the few involved parties. But then again, "A simplistic idiot would probably assume that they do and base their opinion on the (guilt/innocence) in their empty little skull.
SpinnerMan wrote: No matter what the settlement would never constitute and admission of liability (guilt is a question for the criminal court and their plea agreement is an admission of guilt unless it is no contest plea or whatever the term is which I don't feel like looking it up).

:huh: again. Plea agreements are in no measure an "admission of guilt." They are exactly the same as financial settlements, an attempt to minimize the potential damage if the risk/reward of contesting the allegations is too risky. "assuming a (plea agreement) is an admission of guilt means that you are a simplistic idiot, which is a more accurate description."
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10865
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Apr 11, 2013 9:01 am

Glimmerjim wrote:You, therefore, formed no opinions whatsoever on the sexual abuse of minors by Michael Jackson based upon his settlements?
Of course not. I'm not a simplistic idiot.

There are other things that make me suspicious, but with that whackjob anything is possible.

Glimmerjim wrote:the vast majority of people feel, in most cases, that settlements are admissions of guilt.
No, I think a very large fraction and maybe even a majority just assume these things are financial shakedowns and tell us nothing about the underlying accusation.

Glimmerjim wrote:Spinner. You, with your statement regarding the "MMA wannabe", have clearly indicated that you have an opinion on what transpired in this case, yet it is based on speculation, with no more knowledge of the facts of this case, and resultant guilt or innocence, than anyone outside of the few involved parties.
Are you kidding me? There is a massive amount of facts available. There were eye witnesses, 911 calls, maps of the property, police photos of a bloody and beaten Zimmerman.

Image Image

Clearly Martin put the beat down on Zimmerman. Zimmerman's 911 call lasted more than 4 minutes. Martin could have easily gone home in that time, but he did not. This all supports Zimmerman's account.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16293
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu Apr 11, 2013 9:26 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:You, therefore, formed no opinions whatsoever on the sexual abuse of minors by Michael Jackson based upon his settlements?
Of course not. I'm not a simplistic idiot.

There are other things that make me suspicious, but with that whackjob anything is possible.

Glimmerjim wrote:the vast majority of people feel, in most cases, that settlements are admissions of guilt.
No, I think a very large fraction and maybe even a majority just assume these things are financial shakedowns and tell us nothing about the underlying accusation.

Glimmerjim wrote:Spinner. You, with your statement regarding the "MMA wannabe", have clearly indicated that you have an opinion on what transpired in this case, yet it is based on speculation, with no more knowledge of the facts of this case, and resultant guilt or innocence, than anyone outside of the few involved parties.
Are you kidding me? There is a massive amount of facts available. There were eye witnesses, 911 calls, maps of the property, police photos of a bloody and beaten Zimmerman.
Image Image

Clearly Martin put the beat down on Zimmerman. Zimmerman's 911 call lasted more than 4 minutes. Martin could have easily gone home in that time, but he did not. This all supports Zimmerman's account.


You have an opinion, based on media reporting by individuals who are, in your estimation, part of the huge percentage of simplistic idiots in our midst. You are a victim of a black/white, yes/no, binary thought process that allows for no alternatives once you have formed an uninformed opinion due more to bias than logic. All I can say is that I'm glad you'll never be sitting on a jury judging the guilt or innocence of anyone close to me! These pictures indicate he got bloodied in the altercation, nothing more. Even who was crying for help has never been ascertained, or at least made public. But based upon what you have seen in the media, your opinion is so steadfast as to ask "Are you kidding me?" of anyone who suggests what transpired may not have been exactly as you see it? I guess you're right. We are overrun with simplistic idiots!
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10865
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Apr 11, 2013 9:52 am

Glimmerjim wrote:You have an opinion, based on media reporting by individuals who are, in your estimation, part of the huge percentage of simplistic idiots in our midst.
Not at all. The 911 call is not reporting. It is fact. The photos provided are not reporting, they are fact. Martin's home and distances are facts and not reporting.

All of these things are black and white facts.

The reporting on them was bogus. We were told so many things that were simply not true, but the facts are clear. Any explanation MUST not violate ANY fact or it is not true.

Glimmerjim wrote:All I can say is that I'm glad you'll never be sitting on a jury judging the guilt or innocence of anyone close to me!
I would be a great person to be on the jury. Who is the accused? George Zimmerman. Who gets the benefit of the doubt? George Zimmerman. Based on the facts that we know, there is no excuse to indict him and sure as hell not convict him. It's not even close.

And if there is no crime, how can there be a wrongful death IN THIS CASE. I get the different standards for civil courts, but the evidence strongly ways that Trayvon was the person that acted irresponsibly and was responsible for the fatal confrontation. He had over 4 minutes that we know of to avoid confrontation. Why did he not? :huh:

Glimmerjim wrote:But based upon what you have seen in the media, your opinion is so steadfast as to ask "Are you kidding me?" of anyone who suggests what transpired may not have been exactly as you see it?
Now it is. It was not when it first happened. You can go back and find the thread after it happened where I posited many possibilities based on what we knew at the time, but since then all the FACTS, not reporting, support self defense and no unreasonable behavior on the part of Zimmerman to instigate the confrontation if Martin was not seeking that violent confrontation. He thought he could put the beat down on Zimmerman and he would have, except for Zimmerman's ability to defend himself from a violent beatdown.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16293
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby boney fingers » Thu Apr 11, 2013 10:03 am

The facts in this case are not black and white, they are black and white-hispanic.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 860
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby High Sierras » Thu Apr 11, 2013 10:42 am

Glimmerjim wrote:You have an opinion, based on media reporting by individuals who are, in your estimation, part of the huge percentage of simplistic idiots in our midst. You are a victim of a black/white, yes/no, binary thought process that allows for no alternatives once you have formed an uninformed opinion due more to bias than logic. All I can say is that I'm glad you'll never be sitting on a jury judging the guilt or innocence of anyone close to me! These pictures indicate he got bloodied in the altercation, nothing more. Even who was crying for help has never been ascertained, or at least made public. But based upon what you have seen in the media, your opinion is so steadfast as to ask "Are you kidding me?" of anyone who suggests what transpired may not have been exactly as you see it? I guess you're right. We are overrun with simplistic idiots!


GJ,
Everyone has an opinion. Most of us form those opinions over years, based on what we have seen around us. Some folks are too busy trying to make enough to feed & clothe themselves after the government has helped themselves to their 'fair share' that they don't have the time to sit and reflect on what their opinions are, and yet other folks are too simple-minded to be bothered with thinking, sitting and reflecting -- those are the simplistic idiots Spinner is lamenting -- the ones who listen to the mainstream media and formulate their opinions based on what Dr. Oz, Jerry Springer, Ellen Degererate, Dr. Phil, or Oprah think.

As far as hoping Spinner never sits on a jury when someone near to you is on trial...are you serious? You would rather have an Oprah sycophant sitting in judgement? How's that working out for Zimmerman?


What the mainstream media pre-biased America with...
Image
Cute kid, huh.



and reality...
Image
Would you trust this gent taking your daughter camping for the weekend? With your car keys? With the combination to your gun safe?



Hope who ever you know that ends up on trial can afford to pay off Oprah and the rest. Otherwise, 12 Spinners won't be able to keep them out of the electric chair.

And just to poke at you a little...
Image
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu Apr 11, 2013 10:54 am

High Sierras wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:You have an opinion, based on media reporting by individuals who are, in your estimation, part of the huge percentage of simplistic idiots in our midst. You are a victim of a black/white, yes/no, binary thought process that allows for no alternatives once you have formed an uninformed opinion due more to bias than logic. All I can say is that I'm glad you'll never be sitting on a jury judging the guilt or innocence of anyone close to me! These pictures indicate he got bloodied in the altercation, nothing more. Even who was crying for help has never been ascertained, or at least made public. But based upon what you have seen in the media, your opinion is so steadfast as to ask "Are you kidding me?" of anyone who suggests what transpired may not have been exactly as you see it? I guess you're right. We are overrun with simplistic idiots!

GJ,
Everyone has an opinion. Most of us form those opinions over years, based on what we have seen around us. Some folks are too busy trying to make enough to feed & clothe themselves after the government has helped themselves to their 'fair share' that they don't have the time to sit and reflect on what their opinions are, and yet other folks are too simple-minded to be bothered with thinking, sitting and reflecting -- those are the simplistic idiots Spinner is lamenting -- the ones who listen to the mainstream media and formulate their opinions based on what Dr. Oz, Jerry Springer, Ellen Degererate, Dr. Phil, or Oprah think.

As far as hoping Spinner never sits on a jury when someone near to you is on trial...are you serious? You would rather have an Oprah sycophant sitting in judgement? How's that working out for Zimmerman?



That's well said and true regarding biases we all have, HS. My reluctance to have Spinner on a jury would simply be due to his convictions at this point in this case. Do you feel he could be fair and make judgments based solely on evidence presented in the courtroom with his preconceptions? Would you not feel this would be a tendency of his in any case having had public attention? He has decided his vote prior to setting foot in the courtroom. The trial would be a waste of his time.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10865
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:00 am

High Sierras wrote:the ones who listen to the mainstream media and formulate their opinions based on what Dr. Oz, Jerry Springer, Ellen Degererate, Dr. Phil, or Oprah think.
Does anyone see the Chicago connection? :huh: Springer - aired from Chicago, been to one of his shows and shook his hand afterwards. No good fights or anything. :sad: Oprah - a Chicago icon, my wife has been to her show. Dr. Phil, an Oprah spinoff. Where's slow been? :umm:

I just wouldn't want someone like Jim on my jury. The facts in this case are black and white with red all over their face and back of their head. You don't have to believe in the superior athletic abilities of a black man to think that he could have made it a few hundred yards to his home in under 4 minutes. He could have easily avoided the confrontation. He chose not to. That was precisely the argument people used to claim Zimmerman was guilty. And Trayvon broke no laws by not choosing to avoiding the confrontation or even approaching Zimmerman. It just provides Zimmerman with a whole pile of reasonable doubt and then when you add the bloody nose and the back of his head on top, seriously what other logical conclusion is there to draw?

BTW, if Zimmerman did not kill him. I don't believe you could convict Martin of assault either. That's a tougher call. You'd have to here his side and compare it with Zimmerman's, but there is may still be enough doubt that you wouldn't put him in jail for kicking George's ass. It's the difference between thinking him guilty versus the higher standard of proving it in a court of law when the accused gets the benefit of the doubt.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16293
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:19 am

SpinnerMan wrote: I just wouldn't want someone like Jim on my jury.



I hear ya. Someone that would go into the courtroom and do his best to try the case based upon the evidence presented rather than his preconceived opinions would be a regular travesty of justice!

SpinnerMan wrote: The facts in this case are black and white with red all over their face and back of their head. You don't have to believe in the superior athletic abilities of a black man to think that he could have made it a few hundred yards to his home in under 4 minutes.

Give me a minute please. My head is spinning with the Freudian implications blatantly evidenced.

SpinnerMan wrote: BTW, if Zimmerman did not kill him. I don't believe you could convict Martin of assault either. That's a tougher call. You'd have to here his side and compare it with Zimmerman's, but there is may still be enough doubt that you wouldn't put him in jail for kicking George's ass. It's the difference between thinking him guilty versus the higher standard of proving it in a court of law when the accused gets the benefit of the doubt.

So let me get this straight....if Martin had not been killed, and thus able to offer testimony, it would be a tougher call? So obviously, the presumed facts are not necessarily accurate. Yet you have found Martin guilty of provocation deserving of death while hearing not a word of the trial? :no:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10865
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Apr 11, 2013 11:36 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: I just wouldn't want someone like Jim on my jury.

I hear ya. Someone that would go into the courtroom and do his best to try the case based upon the evidence presented rather than his preconceived opinions would be a regular travesty of justice!
Nope, someone that is too emotional and therefore too easily swayed by appeals to emotion.

Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: The facts in this case are black and white with red all over their face and back of their head. You don't have to believe in the superior athletic abilities of a black man to think that he could have made it a few hundred yards to his home in under 4 minutes.

Give me a minute please. My head is spinning with the Freudian implications blatantly evidenced.
The only Freudian implications are what your read into athletic because we all know white men can't jump.

Glimmerjim wrote:So let me get this straight....if Martin had not been killed, and thus able to offer testimony, it would be a tougher call?
If Martin WERE ON TRIAL FOR ASSAULT, he would have to be proven guilty in a court of law. It would be a he said, he said case. Part of the facts would be his testimony as well as Zimmermans. It is possible that neither is guilty criminally. I know Zimmerman is not. I believe Martin is guilty of assault, but I do not know that to the point that he should be convicted.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16293
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu Apr 11, 2013 12:07 pm

SpinnerMan wrote: I just wouldn't want someone like Jim on my jury.

Glimmerjim wrote: I hear ya. Someone that would go into the courtroom and do his best to try the case based upon the evidence presented rather than his preconceived opinions would be a regular travesty of justice!

SpinnerMan wrote: Nope, someone that is too emotional and therefore too easily swayed by appeals to emotion.


:lol3: :lol3: :lol3: That's one way to bail! Your conclusions based upon insufficient evidence lead me to question your opinion that others form opinion based upon emotion while you base your's strictly on fact. But I agree with one point....no matter what was presented in the courtroom you would not allow your convictions to be swayed! :lol3: :lol3:
SpinnerMan wrote: The facts in this case are black and white with red all over their face and back of their head. You don't have to believe in the superior athletic abilities of a black man to think that he could have made it a few hundred yards to his home in under 4 minutes.

Glimmerjim wrote: Give me a minute please. My head is spinning with the Freudian implications blatantly evidenced.


SpinnerMan wrote: The only Freudian implications are what your read into athletic because we all know white men can't jump.

That's reasonably funny, Spinner. Apparently you possess parachutes of more than one color! :lol3:
Glimmerjim wrote: So let me get this straight....if Martin had not been killed, and thus able to offer testimony, it would be a tougher call?


SpinnerMan wrote: If Martin WERE ON TRIAL FOR ASSAULT, he would have to be proven guilty in a court of law. It would be a he said, he said case. Part of the facts would be his testimony as well as Zimmermans. It is possible that neither is guilty criminally. I know Zimmerman is not. I believe Martin is guilty of assault, but I do not know that to the point that he should be convicted.

I think you need shoring to support that hole you keep digging for yourself, Spinner. It's getting way over your head! :lol3:
"It is possible that neither is guilty criminally". Ah, but there's one little factor you are neglecting, Spinner. One is dead.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10865
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby High Sierras » Thu Apr 11, 2013 12:15 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:That's well said and true regarding biases we all have, HS. My reluctance to have Spinner on a jury would simply be due to his convictions at this point in this case. Do you feel he could be fair and make judgments based solely on evidence presented in the courtroom with his preconceptions? Would you not feel this would be a tendency of his in any case having had public attention? He has decided his vote prior to setting foot in the courtroom. The trial would be a waste of his time.

GJ,
Spinners convictions at this point in the case appear to be based on the facts he, you and I (as well as the public at large) have had access to -- Zimmerman's testimony, the evidence at the scene that the police have released to the media, and eyewitness accounts. Not all of it exonerates Zimmerman, not all of it convicts Martin. However, the bulk of what is coming to light now, after the MSM got their initial 'just an all around good kid stuck in the hood' image of Martin out, does seem to paint Martin as a stereotypical petty criminal.

I'd be inclined to give Spinner the benefit of the doubt as to whether he would listen to the facts presented at the trial and perhaps re-formulate his opinions based on whatever facts he learns in the jury that the public at large don't know. I'm not sure where you're getting the vibe that Spinner has an attitude that he's already made up his mind and won't change it in light of further information that comes out during the trial.
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby High Sierras » Thu Apr 11, 2013 12:31 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: I just wouldn't want someone like Jim on my jury.

Glimmerjim wrote: I hear ya. Someone that would go into the courtroom and do his best to try the case based upon the evidence presented rather than his preconceived opinions would be a regular travesty of justice!

SpinnerMan wrote: Nope, someone that is too emotional and therefore too easily swayed by appeals to emotion.

:lol3: :lol3: :lol3: That's one way to bail! Your conclusions based upon insufficient evidence lead me to question your opinion that others form opinion based upon emotion while you base your's strictly on fact. But I agree with one point....no matter what was presented in the courtroom you would not allow your convictions to be swayed! :lol3: :lol3:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Spinner also an engineer? I've been told (by a lawyer buddy of mine, no less) that if an engineer is pulled for jury duty, one sure fire way of getting excused is to make sure both lawyers know you're an engineer during jury selection. Apparently we're notorious among lawyers for not typically being swayed by appeals to emotion, and often demand sticking to the facts as presented. At least one of the lawyers won't have the facts on their side, they're the one who will want us excused.
Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: The facts in this case are black and white with red all over their face and back of their head. You don't have to believe in the superior athletic abilities of a black man to think that he could have made it a few hundred yards to his home in under 4 minutes.

Glimmerjim wrote: Give me a minute please. My head is spinning with the Freudian implications blatantly evidenced.


SpinnerMan wrote: The only Freudian implications are what your read into athletic because we all know white men can't jump.

That's reasonably funny, Spinner. Apparently you possess parachutes of more than one color! :lol3:
Glimmerjim wrote: So let me get this straight....if Martin had not been killed, and thus able to offer testimony, it would be a tougher call?

SpinnerMan wrote: If Martin WERE ON TRIAL FOR ASSAULT, he would have to be proven guilty in a court of law. It would be a he said, he said case. Part of the facts would be his testimony as well as Zimmermans. It is possible that neither is guilty criminally. I know Zimmerman is not. I believe Martin is guilty of assault, but I do not know that to the point that he should be convicted.

I think you need shoring to support that hole you keep digging for yourself, Spinner. It's getting way over your head! :lol3:
"It is possible that neither is guilty criminally". Ah, but there's one little factor you are neglecting, Spinner. One is dead.

GJ, Folks die everyday - and you know I'm not talking about in old folks homes or hospitals. Not every death results in a criminal investigation, not every death results in a guilty verdict. Just because Martin is now deceased does not mean a crime was committed to get him there. You're assuming his death was wrongful, Spinner is assumming his death was justifiable.
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby WTN10 » Thu Apr 11, 2013 12:34 pm

High Sierras wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: I just wouldn't want someone like Jim on my jury.

Glimmerjim wrote: I hear ya. Someone that would go into the courtroom and do his best to try the case based upon the evidence presented rather than his preconceived opinions would be a regular travesty of justice!

SpinnerMan wrote: Nope, someone that is too emotional and therefore too easily swayed by appeals to emotion.

:lol3: :lol3: :lol3: That's one way to bail! Your conclusions based upon insufficient evidence lead me to question your opinion that others form opinion based upon emotion while you base your's strictly on fact. But I agree with one point....no matter what was presented in the courtroom you would not allow your convictions to be swayed! :lol3: :lol3:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Spinner also an engineer? I've been told (by a lawyer buddy of mine, no less) that if an engineer is pulled for jury duty, one sure fire way of getting excused is to make sure both lawyers know you're an engineer during jury selection. Apparently we're notorious among lawyers for not typically being swayed by appeals to emotion, and often demand sticking to the facts as presented. At least one of the lawyers won't have the facts on their side, they're the one who will want us excused.
Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: The facts in this case are black and white with red all over their face and back of their head. You don't have to believe in the superior athletic abilities of a black man to think that he could have made it a few hundred yards to his home in under 4 minutes.

Glimmerjim wrote: Give me a minute please. My head is spinning with the Freudian implications blatantly evidenced.


SpinnerMan wrote: The only Freudian implications are what your read into athletic because we all know white men can't jump.

That's reasonably funny, Spinner. Apparently you possess parachutes of more than one color! :lol3:
Glimmerjim wrote: So let me get this straight....if Martin had not been killed, and thus able to offer testimony, it would be a tougher call?

SpinnerMan wrote: If Martin WERE ON TRIAL FOR ASSAULT, he would have to be proven guilty in a court of law. It would be a he said, he said case. Part of the facts would be his testimony as well as Zimmermans. It is possible that neither is guilty criminally. I know Zimmerman is not. I believe Martin is guilty of assault, but I do not know that to the point that he should be convicted.

I think you need shoring to support that hole you keep digging for yourself, Spinner. It's getting way over your head! :lol3:
"It is possible that neither is guilty criminally". Ah, but there's one little factor you are neglecting, Spinner. One is dead.

GJ, Folks die everyday - and you know I'm not talking about in old folks homes or hospitals. Not every death results in a criminal investigation, not every death results in a guilty verdict. Just because Martin is now deceased does not mean a crime was committed to get him there. You're assuming his death was wrongful, Spinner is assumming his death was justifiable.


I would boot you for being an engineer, but not because you think objectively. This is not a knock, but just an observation: engineers do not think creatively or abstractly. The engineers I've interacted with have a great deal of difficulty interacting with abstract theories and creatively thinking about opposing viewpoints or positions. They are often dogmatic and concrete, unable to change despite the possibility that their position isn't as firm as they think it to be.

I cannot tell you how many times we've explained the theory of our case to one of our engineers and he still doesn't understand it. If it can't be measured, quantified, and run through a simulation, you might as well be speaking Chinese to him. So frustrating.
2014 Season Totals:
Mallards: 243
Redheads: 114
Woodducks: 119
Grebes: 36
Blue Geese: 134
Snow Geese: 178
Hawks: 4
User avatar
WTN10
hunter
 
Posts: 14095
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2010 1:02 pm
Location: Western Tunisia

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu Apr 11, 2013 12:41 pm

High Sierras wrote: You're assuming his death was wrongful, Spinner is assumming his death was justifiable.

I disagree with your assessment of my assumptions, HS. I do not assume his death was wrongful. This issue has been around in several threads from soon after the incident, and I don't believe you will ever find me saying that his death was unequivocably wrongful. I have tried to argue that the assumptions made about his guilt/innocence are rash, and tried to play Devil's Advocate in some examples. I can also see how it could be assumed those are my assumptions, due to the fact that the vast majority here believe in his unquestioned innocence, and I have presented alternative opinions.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10865
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby High Sierras » Thu Apr 11, 2013 12:57 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
High Sierras wrote: You're assuming his death was wrongful, Spinner is assumming his death was justifiable.

I disagree with your assessment of my assumptions, HS. I do not assume his death was wrongful. This issue has been around in several threads from soon after the incident, and I don't believe you will ever find me saying that his death was unequivocably wrongful. I have tried to argue that the assumptions made about his guilt/innocence are rash, and tried to play Devil's Advocate in some examples. I can also see how it could be assumed those are my assumptions, due to the fact that the vast majority here believe in his unquestioned innocence, and I have presented alternative opinions.
You could be right about my presumtions. I took your comment that:
Glimmerjim wrote:I think you need shoring to support that hole you keep digging for yourself, Spinner. It's getting way over your head! "It is possible that neither is guilty criminally". Ah, but there's one little factor you are neglecting, Spinner. One is dead.
to mean you thought that someone was "guilty criminally", and since only one of them was left alive, the living was guilty. My point was that just because Martin is now deceased does not automatically mean Zimmerman is guilty of anything.
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby Glimmerjim » Thu Apr 11, 2013 1:03 pm

High Sierras wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
High Sierras wrote: You're assuming his death was wrongful, Spinner is assumming his death was justifiable.

I disagree with your assessment of my assumptions, HS. I do not assume his death was wrongful. This issue has been around in several threads from soon after the incident, and I don't believe you will ever find me saying that his death was unequivocably wrongful. I have tried to argue that the assumptions made about his guilt/innocence are rash, and tried to play Devil's Advocate in some examples. I can also see how it could be assumed those are my assumptions, due to the fact that the vast majority here believe in his unquestioned innocence, and I have presented alternative opinions.
You could be right about my presumtions. I took your comment that:
Glimmerjim wrote:I think you need shoring to support that hole you keep digging for yourself, Spinner. It's getting way over your head! "It is possible that neither is guilty criminally". Ah, but there's one little factor you are neglecting, Spinner. One is dead.
to mean you thought that someone was "guilty criminally", and since only one of them was left alive, the living was guilty. My point was that just because Martin is now deceased does not automatically mean Zimmerman is guilty of anything.

I agree completely, HS. That is yet to be determined. My statement was more a reference to Spinner's about how things might be different if we had both testimonies. And I realize he is referring to guilt/innocence in an Assault case. It has just been a common position of his to discount the lack of opposing first-hand testimony. There are conflicting reports by witnesses, and conflicting interpretations of both parties actions. Yet only one party will be able to personally present his case to the jury.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10865
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Martin/Zimmerman

Postby SpinnerMan » Thu Apr 11, 2013 1:04 pm

WTN10 wrote:I would boot you for being an engineer, but not because you think objectively. This is not a knock, but just an observation: engineers do not think creatively or abstractly. The engineers I've interacted with have a great deal of difficulty interacting with abstract theories and creatively thinking about opposing viewpoints or positions. They are often dogmatic and concrete, unable to change despite the possibility that their position isn't as firm as they think it to be.
We are an odd lot. I would never dispute that. And I would suspect, me in particular, no lawyer would want me because of my unusual background and education. I know I wouldn't want most people I work with on a jury. I wouldn't describe it that way at all because I know what I am thinking, but I see why you would say what you say.

We change each others minds all the time. We don't change our minds, but our minds can be changed.

WTN10 wrote:I cannot tell you how many times we've explained the theory of our case to one of our engineers and he still doesn't understand it. If it can't be measured, quantified, and run through a simulation, you might as well be speaking Chinese to him. So frustrating.
You are speaking a different language. We often speak a different language. There is no question about that. It goes both ways. The easiest thing and you just get a blank stare.

My coworker and I were at a restaurant with my wife and we had a disagreement. We went back and forth a couple times. He was right. I was wrong. And we moved on to the next conversation. My wife asked something that made it clear that she had absolutely no clue that we had already resolved our differences and moved on to the next thing. I really thought we were speaking clear understandable English, but in hindsight we were speaking engineering.

Same coworker and I went to see the Social Network with my wife. My wife afterwards said "I think I understand you too better now." :oops:

We use to give this learning styles/visualizat quiz to our freshmen engineers or some test like that. It was amazing how similar we all were. The world was uniformly distributed on how they scored on this test and while something like 80% of the freshmen engineers were in one of the 8, if I remember correctly, groups. And this was freshmen before 4 years of spending most of your time with other engineers.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16293
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests