Emotional Biases, The Truth and George Zimmerman

/in /by

In a case where people are strongly divided on their opinions on a person’s right to own a gun and defend themselves–getting to the truth is a lot harder.

Why?

Because of emotional bias.

When people have a strong belief in something, they will cling to it at all costs–and will even disregard the truth repeatedly.

Science has studied this and found that our emotions trump logic nearly every time.

It’s a human shortcoming people have unless they are (A) aware of it, (B) work hard to overcome it–which is not an easy process. It requires looking in the mirror and identifying your own shortcomings–which most people don’t do.

So when we see all these people testify that they believe they heard the person screaming and know who it is–I don’t put much weight on it.  Some of the testimony has been flat out ridiculous!  They are just convincing themselves of what they want to believe to support their emotional biases.

If you strongly believe in self-defense and gun ownership, you are likely siding with the defense. If you don’t, and feel strongly opposed, you will agree with the prosecution–regardless of the truth.

Those who are not strongly opinionated will have the best chance at seeing the truth by wading through the facts.

Are you biased?  Do you take that into consideration when searching for the truth?

Dan Abrams on George Zimmerman

/in /by

Dan Abrams gives an interesting analysis of the George Zimmerman case from a legal standpoint.

 It’s worth a read here.

He says, “To be clear, if we were talking about Florida’s controversial Stand Your Ground Law, who initiated the encounter would be crucial and the defendant would have the burden to prove that he should not be held legally responsible for the shooting…[however] Zimmerman waived a pre-trial Stand Your Ground hearing and went directly to trial (likely because his lawyers knew they would lose) and simply argued classic self-defense, which is different.”

Abrams believes it will be hard to get a conviction for second-degree murder or manslaughter when fighting self-defense because the burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove “he had the intent to kill and did so with “depraved mind, hatred, malice, evil intent or ill will.” 

Essentially, says Abrams, “If jurors believe Zimmerman followed Martin, maybe even racially profiled him and initiated the altercation, can Zimmerman still legally claim he needed to defend himself and walk free? Yes.

So essentially, the law allows for a person to be an idiot, stalk them, incite fear of danger, and then kill them legally for protecting themselves and scaring the perpetrator who incited it all.  Then since there are no good witnesses to the crime because it was dark, the perp can lie without worry and get away with it.

I find this very sad.

Thanks, PF, for the story link!

Question for you

/in /by

alphaville
Photo by IKO

If you were to watch 8 to 10 seconds of an event in the dark after coming outside from the indoors, would there be a beginning, middle and end (story) to what you could see? 

Could you see colors?  If so, could you distinguish between light and dark?

Rachel Jeantel’s Testimomy

/in /by

Many people have wondered what I thought of Rachel Jeantel’s testimony.  I watched the first 15 minutes of this video and did not see any indications of deception. I do, however, see a young woman who has great distrust and a lack of respect for authority.