He really had no choice, police/DA issued an arrest warrant. Turning himself in can only work for him during the trial, though likely it won't matter at all.
He's at a police station jail or at county lockup, the anal-rape won't happen until he's found guilty and gets sent to a Federal-pound-you-in-the-ass prison.
Honestly I just feel sorry for him; I know I shouldn't but being so young and stupid.
What was his motive... why would anyone do that? It makes so sense?
Was it for glory? Did he feel that in catching this guy he would be a hero?
Whatever it was..he's in jail and he has all the time in the world to think about it.
For me, this case is seeming more and more like knee-jerking...manufactured knee-jerking:
That's just despicable journalism. I would expect something like that from Fox, but not NBC. Who watches NBC? (lol)
Spoiler:
By the way, that video comes from pjtv.com. I do not know if that video was stolen and uploaded to youtube. If it was, it may get taken down, soon. If so, here is a link to the video at the source:http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=174&load=6825
I used youtube because it can be much more easily embedded with the youtube tags. I am telling you this because I do not like people stealing shit without permission.
Originally posted by Robtard
Do you think people who've heard 2+ months of misinformation (both ways) will magically just forget about it should they be chosen to serve on the jury?
magically forget? no. unless you feel that the ability to process new information and use deductive reasoning is a form of wizardry.
Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure where you got my "blind sweeping cynicism and hopelessness" from, I'm mostly not bothered or interested by/in this case. Game of Thrones is on and Zimmerman's not cute like Casey Anthony.
i never implied that the events in florida were wrecking your day to day life. only that you exhibited a blind sweeping cynicism and hopelessness about the case. maybe i should have said that instead.
Originally posted by rudester
can't believe he turned himself in... now its dont drop the soap in jail
no, thats not how it works. the sexy fun stuff doesnt begin unless he's found guilty and thrown in prison with the general population.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He did have a choice. Obey or resist arrest.
that would only add a charge of resisting arrest. possibly more prison time. then again whats a few more months matter when tagged onto a possible 2nd degree murder sentence. though imo turning himself in was the first smart thing he's done. fleeing the law doesnt bode well for one's claim of innocence.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
He didn't actually do anything illegal though.
my god you had better contact the florida local authorities and share your evidence with them. ffs a man's life hangs in the balance.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
magically forget? no. unless you feel that the ability to process new information and use deductive reasoning is a form of wizardry.
Pretty much.
They've been bombarded with distorted messages about the case for a long time. Now people who professionally make juries change their minds about things are going to have a talk with them while reexposing them to the most emotionally impactful elements of the case.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
magically forget? no. unless you feel that the ability to process new information and use deductive reasoning is a form of wizardry.
you place far too much faith in human reasoning
for instance, when the brain is confronted with information it doesn't agree with, conflict resolution areas become active and the information is dismissed without ever activating higher reasoning areas. When you experience something you agree with, your brain reacts similar to a drug addict getting a fix.
Originally posted by focus4chumps
magically forget? no. unless you feel that the ability to process new information and use deductive reasoning is a form of wizardry.i never implied that the events in florida were wrecking your day to day life. only that you exhibited a blind sweeping cynicism and hopelessness about the case. maybe i should have said that instead.
That's how it's supposed to work in a trial, unfortunately that's not how everyone's thinking works. You have more faith in people than me, I guess. Kudos?
I disagree with your assessment of what I'm exhibiting.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
^ Not to mention deductive reasoning is incredibly rare in practical situations.Sherlock Holmes for instance never to my knowledge used deductive reasoning, it was always inductive or abductive. It's the same with real life police and detectives.
not only is it rare, its like, biologically, very difficult. The ability to entertain things that may conflict with what you already believe works against systems that have evolved specifically to prevent this (I had a clinical course that suggested that it is, in fact, tied into our fight or flight mechanisms).
It might be possible if you could find racially neutral people who have little prior exposure to the event, or even realistically, people who haven't followed the media storm may not be as invested in their ideas about the incident, allowing them to entertain things they don't agree with and not experience severe cognitive dissonance. However, even preconceptions about how these things normally work or on race relations in general will entirely colour the way people see this.
Obviously this isn't strictly related, but I like the story and it sort of proves my point. There have been studies done on therapists and the assumptions they make based on their own preconceptions about patients, in general. Basically, a number of private investigators, who had no history of childhood abuse, went to see therapists. The vast majority of them, after a single session, were convinced the PI was suffering from lingering issues related to childhood abuse. Like, one would assume a therapist is an educated person who should know specifically about these types of biases, yet they are unable to overcome their own beliefs to make objective decisions. To expect a juror, selected at random from a population that is essentially ignorant about human cognitive processes, to be able to put aside all the biases they have, of which they could be entirely unaware, in a case that hits incredibly sensitive and divisive topics (race, 2nd amendment, self-defense) is lunacy.
I'll even say it, my own bias is that Zimmerman is guilty. Obviously I don't have all the facts, but what I have seen suggests that too me. That being said, it does bother me that there is almost no chance of him having a fair trial. EDIT: by guilty I mean "he has done something I believe is worthy of jail time", not that I think it necessarily violated any of the insane gun laws in the southern US.
Actually, in Canada, when it is a major offense, defendants have the ability to be tried by judge alone or by jury... Does something like that exist in America/Florida? because if so, a trial by judge might give him a "fairer" trial, though, if he thinks he can get a sympathetic jury, that might be an easier win...
Originally posted by Omega Vision
^ Not to mention deductive reasoning is incredibly rare in practical situations.Sherlock Holmes for instance never to my knowledge used deductive reasoning, it was always inductive or abductive. It's the same with real life police and detectives.
I've rarely met two people who agree on the difference between inductive or deductive.
Actually just look at the two examples that wikipedia provides to highlight the level of confusion.
Deduction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning
All X are Y
Z is X
Z isY
Induction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning
All X are Y
Z is X
Z is Y
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I've rarely met two people who agree on the difference between inductive or deductive.
try:
http://matt.colorado.edu/teaching/highcog/fall8/r1.pdf
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Actually just look at the two examples that wikipedia provides to highlight the level of confusion.Deduction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoningAll X are Y
Z is X
Z isYInduction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoningAll X are Y
Z is X
Z is Y
the problem is, that example is both inductively and deductively true. If it is 100% true that all X are Y and Z is X, induction and deduction will lead you to conclude that Z is Y.
If you have something like:
- All cars speed up when they hit a wall
- Car X hit a wall
- therefore car X speeds up
deductive reasoning would lead you to suggest this is true, as the final outcome is consistent with the parameters given in the statements. However, inductively, our prior experience with moving objects would suggest this is false. Using induction, we would conclude these are inconsistent statements.
The problem might be the use of X, Y and Z in the example. Induction requires something to be induced about, and will vary from individual to individual based on their prior knowledge. If the only prior knowledge someone has about a set of statements are contained within the parameters of those statements themselves, there is nothing to reason about through induction that is not also identical to reasoning through deduction.
Potentially, you could say the inductive example is non-consistent, because from experience, Xs, Ys and Zs are not the same thing (they are different letters with different phonemes and grammatical rules), however, that is a bit pedantic, as I know they are supposed to be abstract variables.