U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-04-2015, 03:01 PM
 
118 posts, read 60,577 times
Reputation: 90

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
You can't have it both ways. i.e. opinion /= fact.

Legal guilt is the only thing that is relevant. Opinions of guilt beyond that, even that you call factual guilt, is in the eyes of the beholder and irrelevant.
No, actually legal guilt isn't the only thing that's relevant. Not in this case nor in any case. Factual guilt and whether the verdict matches factual guilt is extremely important. We, as a society, have a vested interest in making sure:

1) only guilty people are convicted, and
2) only innocent people are exonerated.

If a jury brings back a guilty verdict on an innocent defendant, everybody agrees that's a problem and wrong. But few realize just how common it is for juries to falsely acquit a guilty defendant. That's called a Type II error, and it happens in roughly 1 in every 4-7 trials.

Our system is set up to prefer Type II errors over Type I errors if an error is going to be made, but the goal is for NO error to be made, for the legal verdict to correctly match the factual reality. When there's an error in either direction, it has implications for society. In the case of a Type II error, it puts a guilty party back out into free society without having paid the consequences of his/her criminal action. That not only makes that offender more likely to re-offend, but it also puts innocents near that offender at risk of being victimized.

 
Old 03-04-2015, 03:18 PM
 
Location: The State Of California
9,131 posts, read 11,669,486 times
Reputation: 3418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Data Venia View Post
No, actually legal guilt isn't the only thing that's relevant. Not in this case nor in any case. Factual guilt and whether the verdict matches factual guilt is extremely important. We, as a society, have a vested interest in making sure:

1) only guilty people are convicted, and
2) only innocent people are exonerated.

If a jury brings back a guilty verdict on an innocent defendant, everybody agrees that's a problem and wrong. But few realize just how common it is for juries to falsely acquit a guilty defendant. That's called a Type II error, and it happens in roughly 1 in every 4-7 trials.

Our system is set up to prefer Type II errors over Type I errors if an error is going to be made, but the goal is for NO error to be made, for the legal verdict to correctly match the factual reality. When there's an error in either direction, it has implications for society. In the case of a Type II error, it puts a guilty party back out into free society without having paid the consequences of his/her criminal action. That not only makes that offender more likely to re-offend, but it also puts innocents near that offender at risk of being victimized.

I'm going to REP You and give you some thumbs UP!!!!!
 
Old 03-04-2015, 04:52 PM
 
118 posts, read 60,577 times
Reputation: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by budlight View Post
Don't underestimate your opponent in certain situations. Apparently this happened in this case and there is no reversing what happened. We can bicker all day about Z losing a fight or not being in shape. At the end of the day it doesn't matter. Trayvon underestimated his opponent and lost. Sad all around.
This, of course, assumes Trayvon Martin willingly chose to pick a fight with Zimmerman and didn't have this altercation forced upon him against his will. None of us knows for sure that's the case. That's Zimmerman's version of events.
 
Old 03-04-2015, 05:05 PM
 
38,116 posts, read 15,305,729 times
Reputation: 16822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Data Venia View Post
No, actually legal guilt isn't the only thing that's relevant. Not in this case nor in any case. Factual guilt and whether the verdict matches factual guilt is extremely important. We, as a society, have a vested interest in making sure:

1) only guilty people are convicted, and
2) only innocent people are exonerated.
  • Jury of Zimmerman's peers decided he wasn't guilty of murder.
  • The Obama Adminstration/DOJ decided he wasn't guilty of any hate crime.
Therefore
  • Society's vested interest has been served
  • Case closed
The only thing left are those who decided that Zimmerman was 100% guilty simply due to the color of his skin. They think a kangaroo court is the way to go. i.e. He's guilty, then drag up some facts to support it and ignore anything else. This is what you are calling factual guilt. This does not serve society's interest.
 
Old 03-04-2015, 05:14 PM
 
Location: The State Of California
9,131 posts, read 11,669,486 times
Reputation: 3418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Data Venia View Post
No, actually legal guilt isn't the only thing that's relevant. Not in this case nor in any case. Factual guilt and whether the verdict matches factual guilt is extremely important. We, as a society, have a vested interest in making sure:

1) only guilty people are convicted, and
2) only innocent people are exonerated
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
  • Jury of Zimmerman's peers decided he wasn't guilty of murder.
  • The Obama Adminstration/DOJ decided he wasn't guilty of any hate crime.
Therefore
  • Society's vested interest has been served
  • Case closed
The only thing left are those who decided that Zimmerman was 100% guilty simply due to the color of his skin. They think a kangaroo court is the way to go. i.e. He's guilty, then drag up some facts to support it and ignore anything else. This is what you are calling factual guilt. This does not serve society's interest.

It happens all the time with us African American just take a look at the OJ Simpson Trial The gLOVE
didn't fit Yet They Had Him 100% Guilty , until the USA legal system saved him....
 
Old 03-04-2015, 05:20 PM
 
38,116 posts, read 15,305,729 times
Reputation: 16822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howest2008 View Post
It happens all the time with us African American just take a look at the OJ Simpson Trial The gLOVE didn't fit Yet They Had Him 100% Guilty , until the USA legal system saved him....
Not that it matters to anything I said, but exactly "who" had him 100% guilty.

(I've said previously that I supported OJ's acquittal)
 
Old 03-04-2015, 06:13 PM
 
118 posts, read 60,577 times
Reputation: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
  • Jury of Zimmerman's peers decided he wasn't guilty of murder.
  • The Obama Adminstration/DOJ decided he wasn't guilty of any hate crime.
Therefore
  • Society's vested interest has been served
  • Case closed
The only thing left are those who decided that Zimmerman was 100% guilty simply due to the color of his skin. They think a kangaroo court is the way to go. i.e. He's guilty, then drag up some facts to support it and ignore anything else. This is what you are calling factual guilt. This does not serve society's interest.

You're missing the point, Waldo. Society's interests are only served if the verdict accurately reflects the factual reality. It often doesn't, and IMO, in this case, it probably does not. It's not a difficult concept.

In fact, factual guilt and verdict can be at odds even when the verdict reached is legally the correct one to render, for instance when there's some problem reaching burden of proof. Failure to have enough evidence to convict a guilty doesn't mean the defendant was factually innocent, but it does mean that a jury must bring a not guilty verdict. So, if you can't appreciate why factual guilt is just as important as legal guilt, you really should sit down and think it through.

My reasons for believing Zimmerman is guilty do not involve the skin color of either the defendant or his victim, and in point of fact I've never mentioned either person's skin color in any of my posting here.

Not sure what you were babbling about in your last paragraph, but it bears little resemblance to any argument I've made or most of the arguments I've read here that others have made, so no, (whatever it is) is not what I'm "calling" factual guilt.
 
Old 03-04-2015, 06:15 PM
 
118 posts, read 60,577 times
Reputation: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
Not that it matters to anything I said, but exactly "who" had him 100% guilty.

(I've said previously that I supported OJ's acquittal)

BBM. Why do I not find that the least bit surprising?
 
Old 03-04-2015, 06:47 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque area
244 posts, read 181,561 times
Reputation: 1083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Data Venia View Post
This, of course, assumes Trayvon Martin willingly chose to pick a fight with Zimmerman and didn't have this altercation forced upon him against his will. None of us knows for sure that's the case. That's Zimmerman's version of events.
Indeed. Never mind the other poster's...interesting...use of the word "opponent" to describe a 17-year old yapping away on the phone while returning from a store run.

Data, as you already know, we do have a witness describing Travon's last known words: "Why are you following me?" and "get off me!" Unsurprisingly, I suppose, the killer's supporters prefer to obsess over phrases like "creepy-ass cracker" while ignoring the testimony that points directly to Zimmerman as the aggressor. It's a shame victims can't choose their witnesses. I am quite confident that those very supporters and the jury itself would not so easily dismiss Rachel's testimony had she been a pretty white girl from the right side of the tracks with all the advantages that conveys. And had Trayvon been white, he'd have never been followed at all.
 
Old 03-04-2015, 09:56 PM
 
5,221 posts, read 2,378,942 times
Reputation: 5111
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
"funny how Latino's knew that ZimmerBoy was guilty"

HowestBoy, you're really going off the rails.
What gave it away? The inability to form a cogent sentence or the drivel that was actually written down?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top