Trayvon Martin Case

And so I maintain when you find a case where an armed assailant walked free after pursuing and killing an unarmed teen, let me know.

You seem to pick and choose your facts. At the time of the attack/killing Zimmerman was by his truck and not pursuing Trayvon as the dispatcher had asked.

You seem to pick and choose your facts. At the time of the attack/killing Zimmerman was by his truck and not pursuing Trayvon as the dispatcher had asked.i

Bullshit, I'm not picking and choosing a damn thing. Zimmerman was following Martin his in SUV, de-boarded, and the dispatcher told him to get his dumb ass back in the vehicle. He said, okay. That's what happened.

Had Zimmerman stayed in his SUV from the jump, this thread wouldn't even exist.

@ fd - The girlfriend's testimony make's it very clear that Zimmerman was following Martin. Her phone records will show the time of the conversation.

As for RR's -- despite the fact that none have existed to date, fundamental to his argument is the belief that an "unbiased programmer" can exist who will create a system to govern humanity better then the we poor, backward and deeply flawed luddites could ever hope to do. In accepting this as a truism, RR demonstrates faith in a being whose existence he cannot prove and in whom he will entrust the judgment of life and death over humans.

A man of such deep and unprovable faith cannot be convinced of the fallacy of said faith.

and the dispatcher told him to get his dumb ass back in the vehicle. He said, okay. That's what happened.

He did? You must have read some transcripts I'm not aware of.


911 calls paint picture of chaos after Florida teen is shot – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/20/911-calls-paint-picture-of-chaos-after-florida-teen-is-shot/)





Had Zimmerman stayed in his SUV from the jump, this thread wouldn't even exist.


Had Martin not walked through a neighborhood that wasn't his own, this thread wouldn't even exist.

Had previous burglaries have not had happened in the neighborhood causing people to be on guard like Zimmerman, this thread wouldn't even exist.


We can play that game all day long on. At the end of the day, Zimmerman was within his right to follow a suspicious person in trying to protect his neighborhood. This doesn't mean he instigated anything, it simply means he's doing what anybody else probably would have after a few burglaries in the neighborhood. Does this give him a right to harass or shoot a person? Not at all. Does this mean Zimmerman DID harass Martin? Not all all. Does this mean that Zimmerman killed Martin in cold blood? Not at all. At the end of the day, we don't know what happened based on the evidence, but we can collaborate some of Zimmerman's story with it though.

@ fd - The girlfriend's testimony make's it very clear that Zimmerman was following Martin. Her phone records will show the time of the conversation.

As for RR's -- despite the fact that none have existed to date, fundamental to his argument is the belief that an "unbiased programmer" can exist who will create a system to govern humanity better then the we poor, backward and deeply flawed luddites could ever hope to do. In accepting this as a truism, RR demonstrates faith in a being whose existence he cannot prove and in whom he will entrust the judgment of life and death over humans.

A man of such deep and unprovable faith cannot be convinced of the fallacy of said faith.
It's SCIENCE!!!

It's SCIENCE!!!

That is so f***'ing beyond excellent, I am almost speechless with laughter.

I will be laughing at that all day and into tomorrow "Kowalski"!!

Let me say this again, because I don't think you were able to grasp the concept.

I didn't agree with you, it's hardly the same as 'not getting it'.

The programmer's only source of data to use for such a program would be prior trial outcomes, convictions or what not.

Oh, boy......

Realistically, where else do you think he or she is going to get the data? A programmer is not trained to be a judge, he or she is trained to be a computer programmer; therefore, it does not matter the bias of the programmer. Law is not simply "If variable Outcomes = Array[1], then Boolean variable = True, otherwise false." Simply saying, person A shot and killed person B, therefore person A is guilty. It would be much more complicated than that, and I am afraid that you're on the borderline of thinking in fantasy world rather than realistic logic.

This would be funny if you were intentionally trying to amuse me. You're serious.....holy crap. Do you know what a qubit is?

A computer only does what the programmer and or end user tells it to do. This is fact. A computer cannot think for itself. It must follow a list of commands. Please think in terms of real life, not Star Trek.

So why are you suggesting the computer would think for itself? Hold tight, it's almost here.

Programmers get paid to program, not to become legal judges.

That makes no sense, we wouldn't be asking them to.

No. Over time, the program would continue to use the same criteria that the programmer hard coded into the system. The computer does not suddenly decide that it no longer needs criteria previously built in its arrays and decides it's going to break out on its own.

It would if it were programmed to.

Either the programmer or someone else, would have to decide that the data should be replaced by outcomes saved into new databases, which would still need the use of a human response determining what is accurate data and what is not.

How about a judicial committee?

A computer cannot determine it, it can only determine data based on the commands it was told to perform. Nothing more and nothing less.

Therefore a computer could determine 'it'.

As for RR's -- despite the fact that none have existed to date, fundamental to his argument is the belief that an "unbiased programmer" can exist who will create a system to govern humanity better then the we poor, backward and deeply flawed luddites could ever hope to do.

Why would we use one programmer? The system would be inherently flawed. We would use a consortium that had no larger picture of the end product that would enable them to game the system. Your argument is invalid.
In accepting this as a truism, RR demonstrates faith in a being whose existence he cannot prove and in whom he will entrust the judgment of life and death over humans.

I do not accept that as a truism, it's just your weak attempt to frame an argument I'm not making in order to weaken my argument.

A man of such deep and unprovable faith cannot be convinced of the fallacy of said faith.

Oh, like religious types? Ok, gotcha!

Fascinating discussion...I'm also interested in knowing what kind of algorithm/logic this Perfect Judge computer will use? Who writes the logic? Are we going to outsource the work?

...tell me more.

Why would we use one programmer? The system would be inherently flawed. We would use a consortium that had no larger picture of the end product that would enable them to game the system. Your argument is invalid.

Your faith in the ability of a group of flawed human programmers to overcome the flaws of a single programmer is reassuring - especially since it is a provable theory supported by extrinsic historical evidence.

All hail the imperfect beings' perfect creation.