Zimmerman Trial

Chamber of Debate Challenges
41

As I’ve said before, I think the primary reason people are getting so upset about Zimmerman following him is not because it’s in principle as evil as they want to make it sound, but because it just happened to result, this particular time, in the tragic death of someone. It’s a case of hindsight bias. If it wasn’t a case of hindsight bias, then you’d see people suggesting you get a prison term, Pavlov, for having followed someone against police orders.

So in universe 1, our universe, Zimmerman follows, Trayvon dies, and it’s so unbelievably obvious to everyone that Zimmerman shouldn’t have followed and he’s super evil for doing it and it’s super stupid.

In universe 2, the universe where, for some reason, Trayvon just kept walking instead of waiting for Zimmerman, here’s what happens instead: Zimmerman follows, Trayvon doesn’t die, Zimmerman comes on ILP and offhandedly tells us this story of this time where he was following some suspicious guy against police orders but the ‘asshole got away’, and we judge the exact same action as not-all-that-unreasonable, not because it was any more reasonable than the action that he did in universe 1 (because it was the same action) – but just because it happened to have a different result in universe 2.

I find this a fundamental error of reasoning. To judge the actions of Zimmerman in universe 1 as worse than the actions of Zimmerman in universe 2, where it’s clear that they were the same decision, made based on the same information available to Zimmerman. It’s my contention that 2 choices which are identical or nearly identical, and which are based on the same or similar information, should be judged exactly the same way, regardless of if one of those actions ended up having a different result than the other one. Because you don’t make a choice in the context of the result, you make a choice in the context of everything that happened before the choice.

If Zimmerman in universe 2 shouldn’t go to prison, neither should Zimmerman in universe 1.

42

Hey Pav, I missed the description of Trayvon’s behaviour that would equate him with a suspected drunk driver… ?

43

It may almost seem to be absurd to speak logically about anything outside of science and math, but why it is I don’t know, I’m guessing it’s because Will to Power must always take precedent of anything else.

As a nihilist I don’t really think there’s logic to anything. During my time at ILP, you may recall, I’ve been trying to show that. But, I never win those arguments; I talk about the ambiguity of simple arithmetic and get nowhere.

But, in this thread I’m not arguing nihilism I’m taking the stance that logic does exist, or at least the most clear of logic.

My arguing simple arithmetic was meant to be seen as an extreme argument showing how nothing we believe can’t be argued against, but I digressed from that and now only advocate nihilism based on the less clear, more ambiguous beliefs such as morality.

Ok, so I assumed I should get something in exchange for that concession to basic logic, that is that non-nihilistic philosophers would no longer decide to abandon logic when it no longer suits them.

Flannel, thanks for being consistent with the logic you use no matter whether the subject matter be about math with no direct relation to actual events, about conclusions made in the hard sciences that have a generally uncontroversial implication about actual events, or about very specific, controversial and publicized events such as the Zimmerman Trial.

44

I missed the description suggesting that equivocation.

45

Well, When Pav called in regarding a suspected drunk driver, I’d assume (if asked) he’d describe erratic driving, etc. … the dispatcher’s subsequent instruction not to follow would be for reasons of Pav’s safety. Did Zimmerman have a description of Trayvon’s behaviour that would be equivalent, such that the dispatcher’s instruction not to follow would be equivqlent, or would it be reasonable to suppose that the instruction was given because there was no evidence of illegal behaviour? I.e. stand down, soldier!

46

Flannel are you saying that because something could have happened differently, that it doesn’t matter than it happened the way it actually did?

47

Here, I’ll simplify it for you, take out all possible emotional elements that may be clouding what I’m saying for you:

Guy A has a 12 sided dice. He’s told that if he rolls a 1-11, he will win $100, but if he rolls a 12, he will lose $100. He takes the bet. He rolls a 9 and wins $100.
Guy B has a 12 sided dice. He’s told that if he rolls a 1-11, he will win $100, but if he rolls a 12, he will lose $100. He takes the bet. He rolls a 12 and loses $100.

If you’re the kind of person who doesn’t understand how to avoid hindsight bias, you’re the kind of person who would think that Guy A made a rational decision, fully justified, and Guy B made an irrational and totally stupid decision.

If you understand hindsight bias and make an effort to avoid it. you’ll realize Guy A and Guy B made the same decision and, regardless of the results, they were equally rational.

Universe A Zimmerman made the same choice as Universe B Zimmerman, the decision to follow someone, regardless of the results. If you found yourself in Universe B, for some reason forced to judge how bad Zimmerman’s decision was, you would judge that decision, at worst, as ‘slightly foolish’. But because you’re in Universe A, where something bad happened afterward, you look at the same exact decision and judge it differently.

Guy A and Guy B made the same decision, and regardless of the results, the decision was equally rational.
Zimmerman A and Zimmerman B made the same decision, and regardless of the results, it was equally rational. If the worst you can say for Zimmerman B is that he made a slightly foolish decision, then you should say the same for the exact same decision that Zimmerman A made. If you’d send Zimmerman A to prison for life, you should say the same for B.

48

See I would think that it would be foolish in either world. I don’t think getting out of your car, looking for a confrontation, finding one, and then killing your victim when he starts to overtake you is justifiable no matter what world you’re in. I would consider it foolish because there is no good outcome in a world where the kid is innocent. You’ve either violated an innocent person’s rights, or you’ve gotten yourself into a dangerous situation. I’m not sure those categories are mutually exclusive.

49

Right, but you don’t think it’s equally foolish in both worlds, is the problem. You think it’s slightly foolish in universe B, not worth a prison sentence, and you think it’s worth a considerable prison sentence in universe A.

50

I’m saying that Zimmerman’s actions resulted in the death of an innocent 17 year old kid. I think that he should be in prison.

If he had only harassed the kid, then I think he should have to pay a fine and apologize and do some community service.

But since here, in this world he killed him, I think he should be in jail…at the very least to prevent him from killing someone else.

51

Pav and Stuart, i think you would need testimony from the 911 dispatcher about why, if for any particular reason, she said what she did. My assumption is that when you call 911 you take them in earnest when they suggest to you what you should or shouldn’t do. Perhaps the only reason she phrased the statement the way she did is because she is not in a position of authority, can’t tell Zimmerman what to do, and knows it. Or maybe the only reason she said it is she sensed Zimmerman might have been a bit on edge or paranoid and even a bit dangerous himself (As an aside: perhaps Martin sensed the same thing and ran and then later attacked because of it - we’ll never know). i don’t know, someone would need to ask her, but to me “we don’t need you to do that” means the same thing as “don’t do that”, at least coming from a 911 dispatcher. It’s perhaps a bit more polite than giving a direct command, which apparently they aren’t authorized to do anyway, but i suspect politeness is really the sum of the difference. All that said, i would also caution against overanalyzing the semantics of what the 911 dispatcher said, as she may not really have been all that aware of them herself. The point for me is rather the contrast between what Zimmerman was told and what he did. He was told that he was not needed, yet he persisted in his pursuit. The second he did that, it becomes clear to me that he was looking to catch the kid and . . . well, who knows what. After all, he was armed, convinced (based on appearance) that Martin was an “asshole”, and taking it upon himself to chase him down. That says to me that he is a dangerous man.

52

I agree with this. I have a feeling if I had been on the jury, I would have acquitted him. I don’t know the details, just going on the broad strokes I have Heard. This is nto because I Think he is innocent, but because it seems like we simply don’t know what happened between the two men. However he was reckless and reckless with a gun. I Think he should lose his gun rights. Not much solace to the Martin family, but it seems a minimum reaction. Whatever we Think of the right to bear arms, we don’t want people deciding to act like police while armed, out on the streets - iow we are not talking about someone defending himself against an intruder in his home or a mugger. He sought out someone who he suspected of being up to no good and somehow confronted him. I don’t want armed amateurs doing that. Not that I am thrilled with the way professionals are doing this these Days. If Zimmerman had been a policeman, for example, the fact that someone got shot to Death should be seen, in that instance, as an extreme failure on the part of the policeman. An inability to handle such situations to such a degree that someone died. Here we have an untrained lone wolf amateur and he should not be allowed to be in that position again.

53

Latest on public outrage; Steve Wonder declared, he is canceling his Florida concert because of the Florida law which gives absolute right not to retreat in an altercation. Holder gave go ahead to review the "stand your ground rule.

54

I’m glad he is canceling that concert, but would it be too much to ask that someone cancel a concert based on an unfair law that isn’t already so widely in the news?

UPF, The non-emergency dispatcher was a witness during the trial, I didn’t watch his whole testimony and I don’t recall if he said anything that would help explain this issue, I would be happy if someone would look up the transcript and make an argument based on it.

55

Moreno, I agree in that he should no longer be able to carry a gun in public, but can you think of a situation when it would ever be anything but reckless for anyone to carry a gun in public?

56

The clues start to trickle in:

thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … mokes.html

slate.com/articles/news_and_ … artin.html

57

In the slate article the juror is criticized for referring to Martin using the word ‘colored’. Yes, that does sound very stupid, almost as stupid as an entire organization devoted to the cause of one classification of people and relentless political correctness in that regard having the word ‘colored’ in their name.

How can I criticize an organization if I can’t even say their name without being politically incorrect?

And then the writer of the article talks about Mark Twain. I assume Mark Twain was ahead of his time, but still is the irony of quoting a guy who used the ‘N’ word over two hundred times in his famous novel lost on him?

Anyway, that’s that writer’s credibility down the drain, do I even want to read the other article you provided?

Also, Smears may take exception to this; the writer referred to the juror as a contrarian!

58

I’d take away his right completely, not just in public. IOW I don’t think he should be trusted to have a gun, period. Then to the general issue…the whole gun thing is a mess. I get along with people who are against the NRA on most things, but I tend to think it is good Americans have guns, given their own government. The focus on the right to carry in public…ah, I don’t even want to get into it.

59

You guys need to watch this video. It sums up a lot of facts. I’ll say right now, go ahead ignore the drug stuff that gets brought up since I know people will cry “bias” and irrelevant information. Still it’s clear this case is not as open and shut as a lot of people want to think. There was a neighborhood witness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman pounding him into the sidewalk. And Martin’s friend who had been talking to Martin on the phone has written a statement that suggests Martin actually confronted Zimmerman who had been watching/following Martin. You can look up video of these witnesses and their testimony.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DL2xdwEKfEA[/youtube]

60

So Martin confronted someone who was following him. Personally I would probably just try to move away from such a person, but following someone, especially since this likely became quite clear that was what he was doing, is threatening. If Z gets to judge someone by their clothes, M gets to judge someone by what they are doing. And the fact that some witness saw M winning, at some point in the fight, means very little. He may have been the better fighter. I think people should be able to even get into a fight, with someone who is following them, and that this not be punished by death. If he pulled a knife, well, that\s a different can of beans.

As said, I think it is very hard to prove it was murder or even manslaughter, but what Z did that night was wrong, whatever the interaction between the two people. He should have stayed away and he should not have a gun.