A great deal has been written about the shooting of Trayvon Martin, and very little of it involves much in the way of science. But there are exceptions such as the July 14, 2012 post written by JRStrata which he called "Zimmerman's Gilded Lies Sealed His Fate."
Strata describes himself as a critical thinker with more than three decades of experience in science/engineering. He presents himself as a neutral observer who did not immediately judge Zimmerman as being guilty--but reasoned that if Zimmerman's story was not the truth it would unravel--and according to Strata it did.
So far, so good. It is reasonable to take a very dim view of any attempt at deception by a person in Zimmerman's position. If we make an analogy with the so-called sport of boxing, Zimmerman's critics have scored some points--but it is not the knockout that Strata seems to think it is, His title makes it seem like the verdict is already in, and Zimmerman's gilded lies were the basis upon which he was found guilty.
According to Strata in the next to last paragraph of his post, "The details of Zimmerman's account are just not possible. Therefore he made them up, sprinkled here and there with a touch of reality (like it was dark out)." Here we see Strata using unfair rhetoric of a type that should never appear in scientific discourse, but which will often be seen in arguments relating to evolution. By specifically mentioning just one true part of Zimmerman's account (it was dark out), Strata is strongly suggesting that nothing in Zimmerman's account is true except for very general background information--but he doesn't actually state this point explicitly. That allows Strata to convince his readers that the only truth in Zimmerman's account is very general background information, while retaining a basis for arguing that that is something he did not actually say.
The argument that Strata made in his post as a basis for claiming Zimmerman's account was fiction was an argument which utilized the idea that the gunshot was made from intermediate range. Unfortunately for Strata, the FBI declared that that was not true. Strata acknowledges this in his major update, saying his source had the information wrong. But the correct information had been out there since May. JustOneMinute had it right back on May 17. I am quite certain that Strata would have checked the information in his source if he had not like what it said--but as long as he liked what the source said he wasn't going to look a gift horse in the mouth. The widespread acceptance of the false idea that the shot was from intermediate range shows Strata was far from being alone in taking this view. That is why it is important on both law and in science for there to be adequate represntation for opposing views. People are just not that trustworthy in terms of giving equal treatment to the things they like and the things they don't. You could make a plausible argument that Strata made an honest mistake in this regard--but no such plausible argument can be made on bwehalf of the prosecution. They knowingly perpetuated what they knew to be a lie. If we demand truth from the defendant, how much more should we demand truth from the prosecution? Zimmerman had little knowledge of the law. He might have had a solid case for self defense had he simply told the entire truth, but he might not have known that was the case. By contrast, the prosecution knew very well what wa needed in a court of law--and any misrepresentation on their part has to be considered very strong evidence that they really did not have the strong case they claimed that they did.
At his point I would like to look at some of the comments Strata made after his post. The comments are arranged in groups from newest to oldest==but in each group the comments go from oldest to newest. In one of the earlier comments at 6:35 on July 14 Strata argued that there was no need to explain what happened, simply proving GZ's story to be IMPOSSIBLE was enough for a conviction. But I would respond by saying that could be true only if the prosecution wasn't also caught lying--and any lies by the prosecution should get the case thrown out for prosecutorial misconduct. Strata talks about rules of the game, but he ignores the rules which demand honesty on the part of the prosecution. A few minutes later at 6:52 Strata declare "...you have to assume DeeDeee's testimony is valid unless proven otherwise." This is nonsense. You don't have to assume something is valid unless proven otherwise--you only have to assume it is valid if there is proof that it is valid. This is a tactic that we must watch for in scientific debate. People may simply claim something is true and put the burden of proof on anyone who disagrees with them, when the real burden of proof should be on them. But because there was some expression of opposing views on the site--Strata was called onthis, with his nemesis Redteam noting that Deedee's testimony was nothing more than hearsay. That is why it is so important to insure that opposing views have a chance to be expressed.
The comments pretty much finished up expressing support for a viewpoint expressed in a Law Blog by Fredrick Leatherman in a July 15, 2012 post. The link should get you to a point where you can reach his site. In addition to the July 15 post "Was Trayvon Martin Attempting to get Away when Zimmerman killed Him" there are numerous other posts that refer to Zimmerman including a July 28 post "Zimmerman. Loughner, and Holmes: Are they Evil?" This last post has nothing to do with Zimmerman, except it gives Leatherman an opportunity to link the name of Zimmerman with two men involved in mass killings, as well as a chance to ask the question as to whether Zimmerman is evil. Clearly Leatherman was not someone who was making any realistic effort to be fair to Zimmerman. His ideas might still have some merit--but you won't be getting a balanced treatment of the subject from him. We understand that Zimmerman's lawyer will only be giving us one side of the story, but we need to be alert for people who are just as one sided in their viewpoint without the moral and legal justification for such a position that a defense attorney would have. This is something we also see when we look at evolution. There are people with a religiously based commitment to creationism because they believe in the literal truth off the Bible, but there are also people who oppose creationism with their own religiously or anti-religiously based opposition to religions that embrace literal truth of the Bible--whose view of literal acceptance of the Bible is just about as hostile as Leatherman's view of Zimmerman.
Leatherman quotes forensics as saying the holes in Martin's two sweatshirts lined up with each other, but the body wound was 3 1/2 inches lower and 2 1/2 inches closer to the midline. What could account for that? One possibility would be that Zimmerman was grabbing and pulling--or Zimmerman was grabbing and Martin was pulling in the other direction. Maybe Zimmerman was retaining a solid grasp on Martin which he had gained when they were in close quarters, but it is ridiculous to think he reached up with his left habd as Martin was attempting to get away, got such a good grasp that both sweatshirts were stretched to the same amount, and was able to control Martin with his left hand while shooting him with his right hand. And even if he could have done all this, why would he?
I believe that there wasn't a grab and a pull, but rather a poke and a push. Zimmerman was moving his gun hand with some speed when it got tangled in Matin's sweatshirts. There would be a rubber band like effect that would twist the barrel of the gun, possibly out of Zimmerman's control--while the unexpected twisting movement could easily set off the trigger mechanism of the gun. Even Zimmerman's much ridiculed claim that Martin said you got me could make sense if we assume Martin said this or at least started the mental processes needed to say this when he recognized the gun was beginning to be pointed directly at him. "You got me." could have been Martin's way of crying uncle--not "You shot me.", but "I give up, don't shoot me."I don't know what the legal ramifications of this would be--but this does seem to be a simpler and more plausible explanation of what happened.
In particular, if things happened the way I think, it would be understandable that Zimmerman's account would seem so flawed. Zimmerman himself did not understand what happened. It is important in law and in science that we not rush to judgement and that we allow opposing views to be expressed. I don't know if my explanation is the correct one--but I believe it is a possibility that should be considered, and it is a possibility that would not be considered by people who have been so quick too judge Zimmerman and would not want to see things in a way that would not make him look as bad as possible. In a similar way we find people who look at the history of science and religion with an eye towards making the church look as bad as possible. We are told that the church held back science. This view of science and religion has been generally accepted--but no one can explain why the greatest scientific advances in the world happened to occur in the only part of the world where the church had enough power to be able to hold back science. But more on that in later posts where I will be looking more specifically at science and religion.
No comments:
Post a Comment