Why Do We Believe Lies Even After They Are Proven Wrong?
Why Do We Believe Lies Even After They Are Proven Wrong?
By Janice Wood
Why does some misinformation “stick” in the public consciousness?
Researchers at The University of Western Australia — who noted several instances of misinformation, such as childhood vaccines cause autism, global warming is a hoax, or President Barack Obama was not born in the United States — say that rejecting information requires more cognitive effort than simply accepting that the message is true.
The new study, led by psychologists Drs. Stephan Lewandowsky and Ullrich Ecker, highlights the cognitive factors that make certain pieces of misinformation “stick” and identifies several strategies for “setting the record straight.”
Misinformation is especially likely to stick when it conforms to our pre-existing political, religious, or social point of view, according to the researchers. Because of this, ideology and personal worldviews can be especially difficult obstacles to overcome.
The report notes that efforts to retract misinformation often backfire and actually lead to the strengthening of an erroneous belief.
“This persistence of misinformation has fairly alarming implications in a democracy because people may base decisions on information that, at some level, they know to be false,” Lewandowsky said.
“At an individual level, misinformation about health issues — for example, unwarranted fears regarding vaccinations or unwarranted trust in alternative medicine — can do a lot of damage. At a societal level, persistent misinformation about political issues can create considerable harm.
“And on a global scale, misinformation about climate change is currently delaying mitigative action.”
Though misinformation is difficult to correct, the study highlights several strategies that can help counteract the power of misinformation, including:
• Provide people with an alternative account to fill the gap left by the retraction of false information;
• Focus on the facts you want to highlight, rather than the myths;
• Make sure that the information you want people to take away is simple and brief;
• Consider your audience and the beliefs they are likely to hold; and
• Strengthen your message through repetition.
The report was published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest.
http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/09/23/why-do-we-believe-lies-even-after-they-are-proven-wrong/45002.html
Misinformation and Its Correction
Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing
- Stephan Lewandowsky 1 ,
- Ullrich K. H. Ecker 1 ,
- Colleen M. Seifert 2 ,
- Norbert Schwarz 2 and
- John Cook 1 , 3
+ Author Affiliations
- Stephan Lewandowsky, School of Psychology, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia E-mail: stephan.lewandowsky@uwa.edu.au
Abstract
The widespread prevalence and persistence of misinformation in contemporary societies, such as the false belief that there is a link between childhood vaccinations and autism, is a matter of public concern. For example, the myths surrounding vaccinations, which prompted some parents to withhold immunization from their children, have led to a marked increase in vaccine-preventable disease, as well as unnecessary public expenditure on research and public-information campaigns aimed at rectifying the situation.
We first examine the mechanisms by which such misinformation is disseminated in society, both inadvertently and purposely. Misinformation can originate from rumors but also from works of fiction, governments and politicians, and vested interests. Moreover, changes in the media landscape, including the arrival of the Internet, have fundamentally influenced the ways in which information is communicated and misinformation is spread.
We next move to misinformation at the level of the individual, and review the cognitive factors that often render misinformation resistant to correction. We consider how people assess the truth of statements and what makes people believe certain things but not others. We look at people’s memory for misinformation and answer the questions of why retractions of misinformation are so ineffective in memory updating and why efforts to retract misinformation can even backfire and, ironically, increase misbelief. Though ideology and personal worldviews can be major obstacles for debiasing, there nonetheless are a number of effective techniques for reducing the impact of misinformation, and we pay special attention to these factors that aid in debiasing.
We conclude by providing specific recommendations for the debunking of misinformation. These recommendations pertain to the ways in which corrections should be designed, structured, and applied in order to maximize their impact. Grounded in cognitive psychological theory, these recommendations may help practitioners—including journalists, health professionals, educators, and science communicators—design effective misinformation retractions, educational tools, and public-information campaigns.
http://psi.sagepub.com/content/13/3/106.abstract
Tags
Who is online
48 visitors
The new study, led by psychologists Drs. Stephan Lewandowsky and Ullrich Ecker, highlights the cognitive factors that make certain pieces of misinformation “stick” and identifies several strategies for “setting the record straight.”
Misinformation is especially likely to stick when it conforms to our pre-existing political, religious, or social point of view, according to the researchers. Because of this, ideology and personal worldviews can be especially difficult obstacles to overcome.
Researchers say that rejecting information requires more cognitive effort than simply accepting that the message is true.
So people are too lazy to ponder an alternative to the misinformation. Sad.
Yes - people don't consider the alternative and by not exposing themselves to other information outlets and perspectives also inhibits the ability to accept truth over misinformation. We tend to gravitate towards those who have similar opinions.
What I struggle with is not judging other's opinion. I hear what they say and if I know it to be false my mind is already shutting down. I’m not willing to hear them out or consider their point of view because I know it’s based on misinformation. Sometimes the information is so blatantly wrong but it still is accepted by the person that I think my head is going to explode. I’m fascinated and stumped at the same time.
The human brain is remarkable.
Isn't that called being intellectually lazy? Or are we all afraid to give up core beliefs, since it could rock our world,, so to speak?
I’m not willing to hear them out or consider their point of view because I know it’s based on misinformation.
I do this too. It takes a serious effort to consider differing points of view. We can be so sure that our information is factual and true and reject outright other views.
If you want proven facts it is usually a bad strategy to accept the word of psychologists . Psychology has an extremely bad record for proving things ...
Petey,
There are two distinct branches of psychology; clinical and neuro. Neuropsychology works on the physical aspects of how the brain works and why we do what we do. It is fairly new, and it does effectively prove behavior.
I think I can agree with what you said Perrie . I was referring to clinical psych ...
There are two distinct branches of psychology; clinical and neuro. Neuropsychology works on the physical aspects of how the brain works and why we do what we do.
And some Psychologists specialize in or have training in both. My Psychologist in LA had degrees in both.
Psychology has an extremely bad record for proving things ...
And -- as always -- our Petey has the data to back up his opinion...
Bob ,
Clearly you are interested in data . All you need do is reply in the affirmative here to get me to hunt up a link . Of course there is the real possibility that you won't do that . I'm not holding my breath ...
It happens to me too. At one time I had a hard time believing global warming was a farce. I really had to examine the lack of evidence with an open mind. It's not always easy to do.
Oh Dean!
I feel like this is my standard answer for you. hahahaha
Especially online , and maybe on television too, people go opinion shopping. They seek out an article or a tv program that they know is going to agree with them, and stick with it.
Right wing media, including Fox News, the New York Post, Breitbart, Hannity, Limbaugh, The Daily Caller, Laura Ingraham , Ann Coulter, etc. have made idiots out of a large part of our population. It is a serious problem as far as I am concerned. I have a brother and a sister -in-law that tell me they watch nothing but Fox News when they put news on TV. I don't have any doubt at all that they now believe a bunch of shit that simply isn't true.
Mighty intolerant of you, John. All of the leftist sources are impeccable of course?
You have to separate certain aspects of sources. Some people can make this separation when they judge sources, and some can't.
Generally, the most responsible blogs give links on their blog that back up the bloggers opinion. They can be links to quotes from newsmakers, graphs, studies, documents, or hard news "facts" from reputable sources.
Bloggers also give their slant on the story, usually. The reader has to take into account what in the bloggers article is fact based and what is opinion. Some readers are good at separating these things and some aren't.
There are people who will read something on Breitbart that is opinion and present it on a discussion forum as if it is fact.
People who have enough experience on these forums have no problem figuring this out.
Do you and your brother talk? I'm curious whether you talk about controversial issues and whether you can have a meaningful discussion since you're brothers and there should be some sort of trust between the two of you.
I don't talk to them much about politics. Rarely.
Oh....okay. I was just curious.
There isn't a lot to say to people who think the Obamas and Clintons belong in prison, is there ?
Congratulations on their perception and their support of the rule of law?
There’s a knock at the door (knock, knock, knock)
Doc: Come in.
Petey: Hey doc, how’s it hanging?
Doc: Fine Petey, why don’t you have a seat. So what’s going with you today Petey?
Petey: I’m struggling with facts doc.
Doc: Let’s see if we can get to the bottom of this. When did you realize you were having difficulties with facts?
Petey: About 7 years ago doc. Something just came over me; it was like a black cloud.
Doc: Hmmm…..I think I understand the problem Petey
Petey: Yea, doc. What do you think it is?
Doc: You have a case of FOXitis Petey.
Petey: WHAAAT! Can you fix it doc? Can you give me a prescription or something?
Doc: Sorry Petey, there’s nothing I can prescribe that will get rid of this. There’s only one cure.
Petey: What’s that doc?
Doc: Facts Petey……Just the facts
Petey: Ohhhh doc – you’re the funniest guy I know.
Doc: I’m a girl Petey and she shakes her head
Doc: You know what Petey, I'm going to prescribe you something after all ...........
This is a work of fiction and purely for your entertainment only.
PJ ,
Clearly that was a work of fiction . I would never say "How's it hangin' " to a female . I might say "How are they hangin' " if there was anything noticeable hangin' ... Is that the case with you ? {insert lecherous leer here } .
I don't think there's a good answer for that question so I'm going to let it go unanswered. lol
LMAO
Yes, Petey enjoyed my little skit. (well maybe enjoyed isn't exactly the word he used) hahahaha
He did tell me he prefers logical over skit but he is willing to accept my sense of humor if logic fails me. He was a good sport about it. :o)
Clearly that was a work of fiction .
What tipped you off Petey ? Was it this ?
This is a work of fiction and purely for your entertainment only.
Misinformation is especially likely to stick when it conforms to our pre-existing political, religious, or social point of view, according to the researchers. Because of this, ideology and personal worldviews can be especially difficult obstacles to overcome.
Dogma, zeal-without-knowledge, hatefulness, prejudice, bigotry … they've all been in business forever.
It's how many delude themselves into thinking the "insecure nature of Reality" can be avoided.
Beware the "DISMISSIVE ARGUMENT"!
I would devote myself to pointing out every time you use a dismissive argument but it would likely be a full time job ...
I would devote myself to pointing out every time you use a dismissive argument but it would likely be a full time job ...
The Pee Wee Herman Dismissive Argument …
You are a lot closer to Pee Wee than I am . Why do you lack self-esteem ?
You are a lot closer to Pee Wee than I am . Why do you lack self-esteem ?
Another attack-the-messenger reply.
Let me be specific, Petey.
You and several cohorts almost invariably post and/or defend VERBATIM EDITORIAL ARTICLES that pretend to be factual "reports"; they're not only NOT "REPORTS," they are either misrepresentations, mischaracterizations or outright lies.
I often rebut these VERBATIM seeds with copious, factual counter points … to which you never respond with anything but dismissive arguments, personal insults or questions that take the conversation somewhere other than where the seed puts or the rebuttal nails it for the crap it is.
Beyond this, you attack punctuation marks, reference bogus "histories" of the person you insult/attack, AND HERE'S THE KICKER … I always take the time to REBUT WITH SPECIFICS and do so attacking the misinformation in the seeded article … AND THEN YOU RAIL THAT I COPIED AND PASTED IT … YOU DEFEND A SEEDED, VERBATIM ARTICLE, NOT ONE WORD OF WHICH IS WRITTEN BY THE SEEDER AND BITCH THAT I COPY AND PASTE FACTS!
I sometimes think you think I don't like you … but that's not the case; I think you're a smart dude who gets frustrated when his political/ideological vulnerabilities are debunked … but instead of merely saying … "We disagree," "We're at an impasse," or just leaving it alone, you do the things mentioned above.
To me it's a matter of respect to disagree with real information rather than one-line pronouncements, platitudes, thumbs down with not a word as to the reason … it's how intellectual integrity is employed.
My job(s), my education, my background … these things you attack when you can't attack my rebuttals … bad form.
You got the Pee Wee Herman because you used the Pee Wee Herman defense regarding my comment about "dismissive arguments" which did no mention anyone in particular … paranoia on your part.
Let's have respectful disagreements.
The only thing I remember about PeeWee was a scene where he was riding a bicycle and crashed into a tree next to a bunch of kids, and he told them: "I meant to do that."
YOU DEFEND A SEEDED, VERBATIM ARTICLE, NOT ONE WORD OF WHICH IS WRITTEN BY THE SEEDER AND BITCH THAT I COPY AND PASTE FACTS!
I have no idea what you're referring to . BTW what you copy/paste is not "fact" unless there is verifiable evidence behind it . Just because you have a passionate belief that it is fact doesn't mean it actually is !!! I put in the exclamation marks to make you feel comfortable but I didn't mean them ...
Just because you have a passionate belief that it is fact doesn't mean it actually is !!! I put in the exclamation marks to make you feel comfortable but I didn't mean them ...
Tell it to the guy that posts those American Thinker pieces … verbatim.
And whaddya' know? You railed about punctuation marks … as usual …
As accused.
Night Petey.
Tell it to the guy that posts those American Thinker pieces … verbatim.
You tell him . It is off topic here . That guy did not post this piece ...
And as to the exclamation marks , YES !!! . Get used to it . I need to make up for the past when I simply ignored your inflammatory punctuation ...
I need to make up for the past when I simply ignored your inflammatory punctuation ...
Inflammatory punctuation!
Can anyone believe this?*
____________________________________________________________
*Thumbdowners excluded of course.
I have some mean mf'n question marks too!
I'm ready for your m'fin question marks !!! Like you I have learned to not answer inconvenient question marks . Where did I learn that ? From you and other leftist commenters ...
I'm ready for your m'fin question marks !!! Like you I have learned to not answer inconvenient question marks . Where did I learn that ? From you and other leftist commenters ...
Variation on a theme … the dismissive, broad-brush, demagogue argument.
And now, really, good night, Petey … the last words are yours.
The article's title includes "Even After They Are Proven Wrong"... but the article does not in fact treat this aspect.
Obviously, there is a "denialist" reflex. I think it may begin on a specific subject, but we see here on NT that "denialism" becomes generalized. Reality is an option for many people nowadays. If I don't like the consequences of AGW, I simply deny that it exists. If I don't want to recognize Mr Obama's actual, factual record as President, I simply cherry-pick whatever details fit my narrative. Whatever is unpleasant to me does not exist.
The denialist mentality is of course nourished by professional misinformation specialists, who earn their living by feeding denialist soup to the hungry mob, creating an unbreakable feedback loop.
I don't know how it will all end... but not well...
I don't think the author knows what "proven" means.
I only seeded the abstract of the research and not the whole research findings so that may be why the question isn't fully answered. Is that your meaning?
I don't agree at all but I'm old. When I was teaching the importance of teaching something correctly was extremely important we knew it as the law of primacy. If you teach something wrong its very hard to correct. The first way you hear something explained is how you will remember it. If I tell you I have an Idea for a new concept then the real owner of the idea releases it I will end up forever the owner of the idea in the largest majority of peoples minds.
Another way of saying a similar thing is that first learned is best remembered. You may very well later forget the second way you learned something and revert to the memory of the first. Very important when teaching technical details.
Republicans are masters of releasing something perhaps a few days or even months earlier even though its not their thought at all. If you teach or tell them the untruth first it becomes fact in the back of our mind. If your predisposed to the right answer or fact before either is released you may be more likely to be able to correctly accept the truth or fact.
People believe the damn-est things and I can't understand it. My step-son is one of those people that believe the contrails left by airplanes flying at high altitudes actually contain chemicals that the government is using to pacify the people into accepting anything and stopping them from any ideas of revolt. And he's not alone! There are lots of conspiracy types who believe in what they call "Chemtrails". Where do they come up with this shit?
Fox news uses this concept to their benefit often. Like when they show an incorrect picture of people in the million man march even though you know its wrong because your in the picture and tell the truth and some one else shows the correct picture. The majority of Fox viewers will believe the incorrect picture no matter how hard you try to correct the situation. Its nasty its taking advantage of the way humans minds work.
Also if you did something really wrong you blame the other person or party of doing it first. No facts or backup is needed. Then when the fact comes out you remember the other party was blamed for doing it first when there never was any proof. People accept it as business as usual. Another FOX ploy used frequently. The faster you get the truth out in the first place the better chance you have of correcting peoples thoughts. Some like a few on here will never get it straight. Another use for the law of Primacy.
Is that worse than what the liberal media does ? Remember the witch hunt published on the front pages against George Zimmerman ...
Who is George Zimmerman?
Oh, yeah... I remember now... The guy who started the series of "White guys getting away with murdering Black guys". Yeah, Petey... you're right. That story doesn't deserve to be on front pages. The vics are only Black guys, after all. Who cares if they are murdered?
The guy who started the series of "White guys getting away with murdering Black guys".
Your memory is faulty . Zimmerman was acquitted of any form of murder by a jury of his peers . He was beaten up prior to defending himself . Self defense is justified according to the law , but if you feel the desire to be beaten up by black men that is an easy ball to start rolling . Enjoy !
Zimmerman was acquitted...
Yes. That's what I said. He got away with murder. Everybody knows it. Including you.
You're just being a jerk, thinking to push some buttons. Good luck with that! There have been so many others that Good Ol' George feels almost like a long-lost buddy...
He got away with murder. Everybody knows it. Including you.
No . Stop putting words in my mouth . Try reading my entire comment instead of using your liberal filter . Don't you believe that self defense is part of the law ? If not , why not ? Are you a masochist ?
Petey,
Zimmerman would likely have been convicted had the judge properly instructed the jury regarding the Stand Your Ground Law.
Judge Nelson did not instruct the jury that an aggressor cannot claim self-defense and that a person who aggressively follows another person is an aggressor. That was the heart of the prosecution case.
Go here to see the instructions.
Mac!
Will you never learn?
There you go again, arguing from facts! When will you understand that facts are irrelevant? Martin was Black, which is the same as "thug", and thugs deserve to be self-defensed (that means "shot down").
Don't bother that impeccable chain of logic with irrelevant details.
Will you never learn?
There you go again, arguing from facts!
My bad, Bob.
You'd think after all these years of being retired, I would have forgotten my training and learned to argue from a position of personal preference.
Sorry.
Zimmerman would likely have been convicted had the judge properly instructed the jury regarding the Stand Your Ground Law.
Since G Z did not rely on the stand-your-ground defense it is irrelevant that the judge did not discuss that issue .
Since G Z did not rely on the stand-your-ground defense it is irrelevant that the judge did not discuss that issue .
No, it's not irrelevant …
Zimmerman, 29, has pleaded not guilty, claiming he shot Martin, 17, in self defense as the two struggled on the ground for Zimmerman's gun. Martin was killed in February 2012 in Sanford, Fla., where Zimmerman was a neighborhood watch captain.
Since Zimmerman did not use SYG as a defense, the judge should have reminded the jury to that effect and instructed its members with regard to an aggressor not being entitled to acquittal by virtue of "self-defense".
FLORIDA SELF DEFENSE STATUTE
776.041 Use or threatened use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102; s. 7, ch. 2014-195.
The audio tapes prove Zimmerman was the aggressor …
I'm not going to go round-and-round with this, Petey.
Was that supposed to be proof ? It sounds unconvincing as proof . Maybe even support for the defense .
I can't edit my comments after the fact the way you can , therefore I won't reply to your additions .
I can't edit my comments after the fact
Sure you can.
Hover the cursor over the upper right corner of your post. An "edit" button will appear.
Bob ,
Try editing your older comments , not the most recent ones ...
Yes, the possibility goes away after a half-hour or something like that. Do you mean that Mac has special rights, to ba able to edit Comments at any time?
Hey Petey Coober how many instances are there where Zimmerman has pulled a gun on other people girl friends included and allowed to go on his merry way. If he were Black he would be dead.
Petey were you ever in the service of our country in any form or fashion? The fact you act and talk like a white supremacist leads me to expect you are insecure or at least a follower of a pied piper making your choices for you. You seem bright but act otherwise.
Petey were you ever in the service of our country in any form or fashion?
Yes .
The fact you act and talk like a white supremacist
The fact you said that makes me think you have mental problems .
Are you a masochist ?
Ah... Petey...
You're precious. Comic relief, every day!
Since you laugh at the idea of the concept of self defense I can safely conclude you are indeed a masochist but only receptive to being beaten by black men ... I wonder what that says about you ? [No laughter]
Please, Petey!
Stop!!
My sides are hurting...
Your sides [& head] would have hurt a lot more if Trayvon Martin Had beaten you up !!! Fortunately that danger no longer exists ... {insert relief emoticon here }
if Trayvon Martin Had beaten you up !!!
Ah... but I don't have to worry about that, do I, Petey... because Trayvon is dead. George Zimmerman murdered him.
Make up your mind Bob . If Trayvon actually beat him up then it was a self defense case , not murder .
If Trayvon actually beat him up then it was a self defense case , not murder .
Not according to Florida Law; Zimmerman was told by 911 not to pursue … which he did nevertheless.
Florida law precludes an aggressor from using "self defense" as a plea for innocence.
776.041 Use or threatened use of force by aggressor. — The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
Zimmerman: Hey, we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy-- it's Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good , or he's on drugs or something . It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: Okay, and this guy is he White, Black, or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks Black.
Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?
Zimmerman: Yeah. A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie , and either jeans or sweatpants and white tennis shoes. He's [unintelligible] he was just staring...
Dispatcher: Okay, he's just walking around the area...
Zimmerman: ...looking at all the houses.
Dispatcher: Okay.
Zimmerman: Now he's just staring at me.
Dispatcher: Okay--you said it's 1111 Retreat View? Or 111?
Zimmerman: That's the clubhouse...
Dispatcher: That's the clubhouse, do you know what the-- he's near the clubhouse right now?
Zimmerman: Yeah, now he's coming towards me.
Dispatcher: Okay.
Zimmerman: He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male.
Dispatcher: How old would you say he looks?
Zimmerman: He's got button on his shirt, late teens.
Dispatcher: Late teens, ok.
Zimmerman: Something's wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is.
Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything, okay?
Zimmerman: How long until you get an officer over here?
Dispatcher: Yeah, we've got someone on the way, just let me know if this guy does anything else.
Zimmerman: Okay. These assholes they always get away. When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in, and make a left. Actually, you would go past the clubhouse.
Dispatcher: So, it's on the left-hand side from the clubhouse?
Zimmerman: No, you go in, straight through the entrance, and then you make a left-- you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. Shit, he's running.
Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance... fucking punks.
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Okay.
Dispatcher: Alright, sir, what is your name?
Zimmerman: George. He ran.
Dispatcher: All right, George. What's your last name?
Zimmerman: Zimmerman.
Dispatcher: And George what's the phone number you're calling from?
Zimmerman: [redacted]
Dispatcher: All right, George. We do have them on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: All right, where you going to meet with them at?
Zimmerman: If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse. And uh, straight past the clubhouse, and make a left. And then they go past the mailboxes, that's my truck... [unintelligible]
Dispatcher: What address are you parked in front of?
Zimmerman: I don't know. It's a cut through, so I don't know the address.
Dispatcher: Okay, do you live in the area?
Zimmerman: Yeah, I... [unintelligible]
Dispatcher: What's your apartment number?
Zimmerman: It's a home. It's 1950-- Oh, crap. I don't want to give it all out , I don't know where this kid is.
Dispatcher: Okay, do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes then?
Zimmerman: Yeah, that's fine.
Dispatcher: All right, George. I'll let them know to meet you around there okay?
Zimmerman: Actually could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?
Dispatcher: Okay, yeah, that's no problem.
Zimmerman: Should I give you my number or you got it?
Dispatcher: Yeah, I got it. [redacted]?
Zimmerman: Yeah, you got it.
Dispatcher: Okay, no problem, I'll let them know to call you when you're in the area.
Zimmerman: Thanks.
Dispatcher: You're welcome.
Did anyone bother to read that entire legal thesis ? If so feel free to expand on its pros and cons ...
Did anyone bother to read that entire legal thesis ? If so feel free to expand on its pros and cons ...
Do you mean "thesis," or "transcript of the trial"?
There are many theses …
… but a thesis is …
"a statement or theory that is put forward as a premise to be maintained or proved" … that as opposed to a transcript … such as …
Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman Case Court Documents – State v. Zimmerman (2012-CF-001083-A):
All Court Documents To Date Via Eighteenth Judicial Circuit (Updated 7/2013)
The following is a list of all court documents released by the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in the matter of State v. Zimmerman (2012-CF-001083-A). Included are motions filed by the State (prosecution), motions filed by the defense, written rulings by the Judge, and other communications… More>>>
Defendant’s 3rd Supplemental Discovery (5/23/2013)
The following documents are the defendant’s 3rd Supplemental Discovery in Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case. These records were released by the defense on 5/23/2013. Oncluded are texts, photos and video from Trayvon Martin’s cell phone. Note that the documents within this release are not necessarily admissible in court… More>>>
Discovery Documents Part 2 – 284 pages (7/12/2012)
On 7/12/2012, the Florida State Attorney’s Office/Special Prosecutor Angela Corey release the second batch of discovery documents to the media. Included are Florida State Attorney’s Office reports, witness reports, FBI reports, Florida Department of Law Enforcement Reports, and more… More>>>
Order Granting George Zimmerman Second Bond (7/5/2012)
Judge Kenneth Lester reinstated the bond of George Zimmerman on 7/5/2012, after having previously revoked it in connection with Zimmerman and his wife misleading the court about the money they had available in their account at the time of the original bond hearing on 4/20/2012. Review Judge Lester’s order setting bond below… More>>>
Order on The State’s Motion for Protective Order and the Media Intervener’s Motions to Intervene (6/13/2012)
Judge Kenneth Lester issued an order granting, in part, a motion filed by several media companies which sought the release of case evidence previously withheld from the public… More>>>
Capias To Charge Shellie Zimmerman With Perjury (6/12/2012)
A Capias was issued for Shellie Zimmerman on 6/12/2012. She was arrested and released the same day for perjury in connection with lies she told about the money she and her husband, George Zimmerman, had available to them at the time of his bond hearing on April 20th… More>>>
Motion To Revoke George Zimmerman’s Bond (6/1/2012)
The State Prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin / George Zimmerman case filed a motion to revoke the bond of George Zimmerman for lying to the court about having a second passport, and also for lying about having access to funds that could be put toward his bond. Zimmerman and his wife were recorded having coded conversations… More>>>
Discovery Documents Part 1 – 183 pages (5/15/2012)
On 5/15/2012, the Florida State Attorney’s Office/Special Prosecutor Angela Corey release the first batch of discovery documents to the media. Included are the original police reports, autopsy report, written witness statements, crime scene information and more… More>>>
Do you mean "thesis," or "transcript of the trial"?
You're still asking me questions ? Even after ignoring mine . Have fun talking to yourself ...
You're still asking me questions ? Even after ignoring mine . Have fun talking to yourself ...
Forgive me for trying to answer your question.
WTF was I thinking?
You don't answer question except when it suits you . Comment removed for CoC violation [ph][punctuation to make you happy ]
Petey Zimmerman stalked him for blocks from behind houses if it were a black man stalking you, you would shit little brown pellets. Zimmerman will kill somebody else he is in deep financial trouble. Hey Petey send Zimmerman some money show him you approve so he can keep up the work you believe in. Hey Maybe Zimmerman can run for President. Zimmerman would be for carpet bombing just like you Petey.
Petey...if it were a black man stalking you, you would shit little brown pellets.
Word.
Maybe Zimmerman can run for President.
I wrote an article about that . Would you like a link ?!
Zimmerman would be for carpet bombing just like you Petey.
Carpet bombing has never been my thing . Sorry to disappoint ...
One more thing Petey. Travon Martin was dark skinned just like Jesus. How does that mix in your bag of marbles.
There was no evidence that the story unfolded the way Zimmerman said it did, just that he was losing the fight and shot Martin.
No proof of who threw the first punch, or what was said between them.
Zimmerman stalked Martin, in plain sight, for at least 10 minutes through a dark and rainy night. He's lucky he didn't meet a far harsher fate.
Tough guy Zimmerman was getting his ass whipped by a 17th year old, so he shot him.
Coward is the word for Zimmerman.
Tough guy Zimmerman was getting his ass whipped by a 17th year old
A 17 y/o trained martial arts expert who could have easily beaten you up , tough guy ...
LMAO, sure petey.
I'm glad you agree !
However, a jury found him innocent.
However, a jury found him innocent.
Because, as I explained in great detail twice now, the judge neglected to instruct the jury, that under Florida law, a defendant cannot use "self defense" as a defense when the defendant is THE AGGRESSOR.
I not only provided the law and the judge's failure -- I also provided the transcript of Zimmerman's 911 call during which …
1) Zimmerman was told not to pursue Trayvon Martin, and
2) Zimmerman himself told the 911 operator (it's on the audio recording) that Martin was "running away."
Sometimes guilty parties are declared "not guilty" by juries.
That's not the always the same as a defendant actually being "not guilty."
You are correct in citing the finding of the jury … although the EVIDENCE and THE LAW show Zimmerman to be guilty.
when the defendant is THE AGGRESSOR.
I'll remember that the next time I see someone being beaten up . I just tell him/her he shouldn't have been the AGGRESSOR .
when the defendant is THE AGGRESSOR.
I'll remember that the next time I see someone being beaten up . I just tell him/her he shouldn't have been the AGGRESSOR .
The law essentially says (colloquially speaking) "if someone goes out of his way to provoke an incident that, absent his aggressiveness in doing so, the incident would otherwise not have taken place."
Consequently, the aggressor cannot claim "self-defense" since he put himself in the very situation that necessitated he defend himself.
Stated another way … if you are the cause of a bad situation, you cannot blame the effect on someone else.
However, a jury found him innocent.
The jury was mis-instructed and felt that it was told by the judge that the only legal verdict was guilty. The choice of not guilty was not presented to them.
OMG Bruce - Did you create these images yourself or did you find them somewhere?
Nah, can't take credit for it. I've had it saved for some time. I usually pop it out whenever a big discussion about the poor little black boy gets going. Mainly because I know it pisses off John and Randy.
Why you little instigator. hahaha
Don't believe everything Bruce says (or anyone else for that matter).
Mainly because I know it pisses off John and Randy.
lol