VOR Posted June 22, 2008 Author Share Posted June 22, 2008 First of all, i have never attacked the victim and secondly no one is making excuses, they are setting out different scenarios that could have happened, and it seems you are unwilling to accept them Exactly, even though law enforcement officials are willing to accept the "he probably didn't know he hit her" defense. And I "attacked" the victim for fabricating the "the car slowed down, stopped, and then sped way" version, not to mention exaggerating the extent of her injuries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 22, 2008 Share Posted June 22, 2008 Exactly, even though law enforcement officials are willing to accept the "he probably didn't know he hit her" defense. And I "attacked" the victim for fabricating the "the car slowed down, stopped, and then sped way" version, not to mention exaggerating the extent of her injuries. She didn't fabricate anything, you're just setting up another straw man to tear down. Her is some required reading on eyewtinesses and different recollections for you- Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. In the initial part of the experiment, subjects also viewed a slide showing a car accident. Some subjects were later asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "hit" each other, others were asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "smashed" into each other. Those subjects questioned using the word "smashed" were more likely to report having seen broken glass in the original slide. The introduction of false cues altered participants’ memories. http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One...amp;tversky.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkAF43 Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 She didn't fabricate anything, you're just setting up another straw man to tear down. Her is some required reading on eyewtinesses and different recollections for you- Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. In the initial part of the experiment, subjects also viewed a slide showing a car accident. Some subjects were later asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "hit" each other, others were asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "smashed" into each other. Those subjects questioned using the word "smashed" were more likely to report having seen broken glass in the original slide. The introduction of false cues altered participants’ memories. http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue%20One...amp;tversky.htm Ok great article, but going off of what you highlighted, don't you think the view of the victim is altered? Especially if they had been drinking as well? I would think the perspective of the people involved would be altered just as much as a 3rd party witness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Ok great article, but going off of what you highlighted, don't you think the view of the victim is altered? Especially if they had been drinking as well? I would think the perspective of the people involved would be altered just as much as a 3rd party witness The point is that just because her version of the events don't match up with another eyewitnesses doesn't mean she's lying or deserves to be trashed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkAF43 Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 The point is that just because her version of the events don't match up with another eyewitnesses doesn't mean she's lying or deserves to be trashed. you still didn't answer my question...... do you not believe her perception of what happened that night has been altered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 you still didn't answer my question...... do you not believe her perception of what happened that night has been altered? It seems like your point of contention is whether or not he stopped, and if he didn't stop it somehow exonerates him. Whether he stopped or not is irrelevant - he was driving, he hit her, and he didn't stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkAF43 Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 It seems like your point of contention is whether or not he stopped, and if he didn't stop it somehow exonerates him. Whether he stopped or not is irrelevant - he was driving, he hit her, and he didn't stop. No, my question to you is quite simple, don't read more into it. Do you think that the perception of the victim is not altered as well as the the witnesses who saw it happen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 No, my question to you is quite simple, don't read more into it. Do you think that the perception of the victim is not altered as well as the the witnesses who saw it happen? I think that you could have 20 people standing at the corner of Chippewa and Delaware and get 20 different stories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted June 23, 2008 Author Share Posted June 23, 2008 Well it seems that there has been a plea deal reached, to charge Lynch with just a violation, not a misdemeanor. Check out the "Lynch's Punishmentl" thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkAF43 Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 I think that you could have 20 people standing at the corner of Chippewa and Delaware and get 20 different stories. why do you keep avoiding the question about the perception of the victim involved? I know the side you take regarding the witnesses but why won't you answer about the victim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 why do you keep avoiding the question about the perception of the victim involved? I know the side you take regarding the witnesses but why won't you answer about the victim? I thought I did, could you please clarify your question? Unless you're implying she was so drunk she imagined being hit by a car? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkAF43 Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 I thought I did, could you please clarify your question? Unless you're implying she was so drunk she imagined being hit by a car? you must be kidding........ do you? Elegantelliotoffen, think that the perception of the victim involved is changed as well, just like with a witness to the same accident? Edit: can't really clarify it anymore than that, stop reading into it so much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 AAAAAAAAAAARRRRGGGGGGHHHHHh!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 you must be kidding........ do you? Elegantelliotoffen, think that the perception of the victim involved is changed as well, just like with a witness to the same accident? Edit: can't really clarify it anymore than that, stop reading into it so much You're wasting your time...you'll never get a straight answer... Besides, of course the credibility of the victim's perception should be challenged. In theory, if she was hit by a car, she would be rolling around on the pavement in some sort of distress and trying to figure out what happened. Not to mention the fact that according to some Marshawn sped up, blasted her head on, and yelled out "Beast Mode, Baby!" as he sped off while cackling maniacally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 you must be kidding........ do you? Elegantelliotoffen, think that the perception of the victim involved is changed as well, just like with a witness to the same accident? Edit: can't really clarify it anymore than that, stop reading into it so much Changed by what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 You're wasting your time...you'll never get a straight answer... Besides, of course the credibility of the victim's perception should be challenged. In theory, if she was hit by a car, she would be rolling around on the pavement in some sort of distress and trying to figure out what happened. Not to mention the fact that according to some Marshawn sped up, blasted her head on, and yelled out "Beast Mode, Baby!" as he sped off while cackling maniacally. But the credibility of Lynch driving home from Chippewa at 3:30am sober shouldn't be challenged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bmwolf21 Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 But the credibility of Lynch driving home from Chippewa at 3:30am sober shouldn't be challenged? Find where I said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 Find where I said that. Not you specifically. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted June 23, 2008 Author Share Posted June 23, 2008 But the credibility of Lynch driving home from Chippewa at 3:30am sober shouldn't be challenged? With ZERO evidence to the contrary, sure it should be challenged. Sorry but "everyone is drunk at that place at that time" and "obviously since he didn't answer his doorbell, he was drunk" don't carry much weight. And Lynch has no known history of problems with alcohol, unless you consider him bringing his own to bars "a problem." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 23, 2008 Share Posted June 23, 2008 With ZERO evidence to the contrary, sure it should be challenged. Sorry but "everyone is drunk at that place at that time" and "obviously since he didn't answer his doorbell, he was drunk" don't carry much weight. And Lynch has no known history of problems with alcohol, unless you consider him bringing his own to bars "a problem." That sure sounds like an alcohol problem to me. Like it or not but the guy is only 22 and has been involved with law enforcement for most of it. He's only been here for a year and needed to have a sit down with Hamburg Police! I suppose that Hamburg Police were the problem right? The guy has been a magnet for controversy! Maybe he should be hanging out with Lee and McGee instead of Hardy and Johnson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts