Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[WildCat]

You do know, I hope, that whatever version of the tape you heard, typical news media get a clean copy directly from the 911 dispatch.

911 dispatch doesn't record in high quality uncompressed audio files. And even if they did, a recording captured by a telephone microphone from a distance through walls still wouldn't make the cut. And it didn't record a speaking voice, it recorded a scream.

Is voice recognition technology legitimate? Absolutely. But not under these circumstances. It's pure woo propagated by a company peddling a product.

 

[Dancing David]

From the article:

--"As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman," Owen says, stressing that he cannot confirm the voice as Trayvon's, because he didn't have a sample of the teen's voice to compare.--

That leaves the possibility of a bystander screaming for help. Maybe even screaming for someone to help Zimmerman.

We still do not know.

I would say that it is indicative but not as definitive as indicated.

His analysis does not mention how many samples he has taken of people yelling and screaming, so that will be debated.

 

[Dancing David]

Was gonna edit my post to add a p.s. But will say here, instead:

Sight unheard, I will lay money that the shooter will be able to produce a so-called expert willing to testify that the voice is the shooter's.

And realistically you would need to have samples of normal speaking voices and yelling and screaming voices to make a good model of what level of correlation there is between the two. Then there would be a way of saying is the variation in the sample was a rule out or normal.

 

[Dancing David]

Sweet googly moogly, the term "common sense" just slithered its way in to the thread

odd isn't it. Common sense is the bane of critical thinking.

 

[KatieG]

DAMN!! I thought there for a minute I found a woman, AND a redhead on the interwebs!! Sorry about that.

Cheers!

Hmmm, I wonder if I should admit to being both a woman and a redhead? Is that dangerous?

 

[Unabogie]

Funny how the CIA managed to ID those bin Laden tapes all those years. Total woo, I guess?

 

[mgidm86]

Funny how the CIA managed to ID those bin Laden tapes all those years. Total woo, I guess?

There are Bin Laden 911 recordings?

 

[totoro]

In all seriousness, aside from the legal niceties:

Zimmerman followed someone, while armed, after the cops told him not to.
Zimmerman killed the other person.

From an ethical point of view, all the ******** about whether he was aggressive, whether Martin fought him, etc, is just that, ********. He CHOSE to follow Martin, while armed, and he killed him. Martin did not choose to be followed, and was guilty of absolutely nothing before this maniac started this whole train of events. Somehow in all of this arguing, this basic point seems to have been lost.

Maybe he will get away with it. Maybe, in whatever alternate universe Florida inhabits, somehow he isn't culpable. That doesn't make what he did ok. It doesn't even make it not murder, under any sensible definition of murder (rather than the definition under a ridiculous stand your ground law).

Someone else died because he made poor choices. This is not at issue: he made really ****** choices, and Martin is dead. In most other states, there wouldn't be any question about him being arrested. He is ethically culpable, and I honestly hope his life is destroyed as was the life of the person he killed.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

But isn't that primarily because this case was brought to light?

yes

 

[TheGoldcountry]

In all seriousness, aside from the legal niceties:

Zimmerman followed someone, while armed, after the cops told him not to.
Zimmerman killed the other person.

From an ethical point of view, all the ******** about whether he was aggressive, whether Martin fought him, etc, is just that, ********. He CHOSE to follow Martin, while armed, and he killed him. Martin did not choose to be followed, and was guilty of absolutely nothing before this maniac started this whole train of events. Somehow in all of this arguing, this basic point seems to have been lost.

Maybe he will get away with it. Maybe, in whatever alternate universe Florida inhabits, somehow he isn't culpable. That doesn't make what he did ok. It doesn't even make it not murder, under any sensible definition of murder (rather than the definition under a ridiculous stand your ground law).

Someone else died because he made poor choices. This is not at issue: he made really ****** choices, and Martin is dead. In most other states, there wouldn't be any question about him being arrested. He is ethically culpable, and I honestly hope his life is destroyed as was the life of the person he killed.

qft- there was no reason Martin should have been confronted in the first place

 

[LTC8K6]

In all seriousness, aside from the legal niceties:

Zimmerman followed someone, while armed, after the cops told him not to.
Zimmerman killed the other person.

From an ethical point of view, all the ******** about whether he was aggressive, whether Martin fought him, etc, is just that, ********. He CHOSE to follow Martin, while armed, and he killed him. Martin did not choose to be followed, and was guilty of absolutely nothing before this maniac started this whole train of events. Somehow in all of this arguing, this basic point seems to have been lost.

Maybe he will get away with it. Maybe, in whatever alternate universe Florida inhabits, somehow he isn't culpable. That doesn't make what he did ok. It doesn't even make it not murder, under any sensible definition of murder (rather than the definition under a ridiculous stand your ground law).

Someone else died because he made poor choices. This is not at issue: he made really ****** choices, and Martin is dead. In most other states, there wouldn't be any question about him being arrested. He is ethically culpable, and I honestly hope his life is destroyed as was the life of the person he killed.

Just to be clear, the police did not tell Zimmerman not to follow Martin.

It doesn't change your argument, just a point of fact.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

The forensic's experts cited in the article were indicated to be independent - not working on behalf of the Martin family - so there's no reason to question their motives.

There is every reason to question their motives, in the same way that there is a reason to question the motives of psychics who insert themselves into media cases seeking attention. This case represents the perfect opportunity for voice identification experts who want attention.

I just popped into page 106 so I have not read it all yet, I found this thread by trying to search on scientific evidence to back up the accuracy of voice identification. Having worked with a lot of people in the audio field, I know that 90% of these so-called "engineers" are nothing but flim flam men who believe they have special hearing powers, don't understand the placebo effect, and believe Monster Cable (or similar) sounds better. Have 10 of them test the same thing and you'll get 10 different opinions.

 

[totoro]

Just to be clear, the police did not tell Zimmerman not to follow Martin.

It doesn't change your argument, just a point of fact.

I had been under the impression that rhe dispatcher had told him not to when he called in his suspicions. But you're right, it doesn't change my point at all. Zimmerman chose to so this. Honestly, the fact that anyone would try to claim that somehow what he did wasn't profoundly wrong really puzzles me.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

In all seriousness, aside from the legal niceties:

Zimmerman followed someone, while armed, after the cops told him not to.
Zimmerman killed the other person.

From an ethical point of view, all the ******** about whether he was aggressive, whether Martin fought him, etc, is just that, ********. He CHOSE to follow Martin, while armed, and he killed him. Martin did not choose to be followed, and was guilty of absolutely nothing before this maniac started this whole train of events. Somehow in all of this arguing, this basic point seems to have been lost.

Maybe he will get away with it. Maybe, in whatever alternate universe Florida inhabits, somehow he isn't culpable. That doesn't make what he did ok. It doesn't even make it not murder, under any sensible definition of murder (rather than the definition under a ridiculous stand your ground law).

Someone else died because he made poor choices. This is not at issue: he made really ****** choices, and Martin is dead. In most other states, there wouldn't be any question about him being arrested. He is ethically culpable, and I honestly hope his life is destroyed as was the life of the person he killed.

Your post is full of assumptions and you're framing the argument in a way that leads to one conclusion. I believe the more important question is:
1. Who is the first one that initiated violence.
2. Was the use of the gun justifiable?
There is also the strong possibility that:
A. This represented a horrible confluence of events. For example, Zimmerman follows Martin, Martin thinks he's the one being stalked and attacks.

People who argue your position keep getting hung up on the fact that the 911 operator told him he did not have to follow, as if that someone transfers all responsibility to what happened to Zimmerman but it does not.

My position is that we have to wait for all of the facts to come out and don't have nearly enough information to decide who if anyone is to blame.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I had been under the impression that rhe dispatcher had told him not to when he called in his suspicions. But you're right, it doesn't change my point at all. Zimmerman chose to so this. Honestly, the fact that anyone would try to claim that somehow what he did wasn't profoundly wrong really puzzles me.

It's the phenomenon of 20/20 hindsight. Had he caught a criminal he would now be being called a hero for doing the brave thing. But in this case it's now easy to say "well if he had not followed him he would not be dead". It's very fuzzy reasoning but it's very hard for people to remove what they know happened from the equation. I can very easily imagine a situation in which if I saw someone doing something and I thought they were about to break into a house I might follow them from behind to see what they were doing. It would not in any way indicate I was doing something wrong.

Also, imagine that you are part of a neighborhood watch and that there have been break-ins in your neighborhood. It might make it all the more reasonable that you would keep an eye on the person.

 

[RandFan]

Just to be clear, the police did not tell Zimmerman not to follow Martin.

It doesn't change your argument, just a point of fact.

I still do not understand this point. It seems... I don't know, trying too hard. He was told that the police didn't "need him to do that". He responded with "Okay". It sure seems that he understood the message and was willing to comply. That he chose to do something else seems to me to raise questions. Wasn't the dispatcher trying to convey to him the message not to follow Martin? Do you really think the dispatcher was simply engaging in CYA? "Do what you want but we don't need you to do it?" Honestly this point strikes me as particularly disingenuous.

Is it possible that the dispatcher meant "don't follow Martin"?
Is it possible that Zimmerman understood the dispatcher to mean "don't follow Martin"?

 

[LTC8K6]

If Zimmerman was told not to continue to follow Trayvon, can that be
considered in this investigation?
Yes it will; however, the telecommunications call taker asked Zimmerman “are you
following him”. Zimmerman replied, “yes”. The call taker stated “you don’t need to do
that”. The call taker’s suggestion is not a lawful order that Mr. Zimmerman would be
required to follow. Zimmerman’s statement was that he had lost sight of Trayvon and
was returning to his truck to meet the police officer when he says he was attacked by
Trayvon.

The call taker is not the police, nor were they speaking for the police.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf

Are we certain that Zimmerman didn't follow the suggestion?

 

[totoro]

Your post is full of assumptions and you're framing the argument in a way that leads to one conclusion. I believe the more important question is:
1. Who is the first one that initiated violence.
2. Was the use of the gun justifiable?
There is also the strong possibility that:
A. This represented a horrible confluence of events. For example, Zimmerman follows Martin, Martin thinks he's the one being stalked and attacks.

People who argue your position keep getting hung up on the fact that the 911 operator told him he did not have to follow, as if that someone transfers all responsibility to what happened to Zimmerman but it does not.

My position is that we have to wait for all of the facts to come out and don't have nearly enough information to decide who if anyone is to blame.

Actually, I disagree. I don't care who initiated the violence. I care about who was armed, amd who initiated the incident. Zimmerman clearly followed Martin. I also don't care if using the gun was "justifiable" because other than under rhe truly moronic stand your ground law in Florida it just wasn't.

To reiterate. Martin did not even know of the existence of Zimmerman, and clearly wasn't following Zimmerman around.

Yes there was an unfortunate confluence of events. All of it atarted by Zimmerman making ****** choices.

We probably disagree about the place of guns in society as well. I don't think there is any way it is ever a good thing to have crazed morons walking around the neighborhood looking to **** with people.

And let's not be disingenuous: Zimmerman was clearly out to **** with Martin.
.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 10. Do not attempt to bypass the autocensor.

 

[totoro]

Your post is full of assumptions and you're framing the argument in a way that leads to one conclusion. I believe the more important question is:
1. Who is the first one that initiated violence.
2. Was the use of the gun justifiable?
There is also the strong possibility that:
A. This represented a horrible confluence of events. For example, Zimmerman follows Martin, Martin thinks he's the one being stalked and attacks.

People who argue your position keep getting hung up on the fact that the 911 operator told him he did not have to follow, as if that someone transfers all responsibility to what happened to Zimmerman but it does not.

My position is that we have to wait for all of the facts to come out and don't have nearly enough information to decide who if anyone is to blame.

I don't care at all what the 911 operator said. I care about the fact that Zimmerman was clearly out for conflict, had a fun, and killed someone. This was a conflict he chose. He could simply not have followed Martin.

 

[LTC8K6]

Actually, I disagree. I don't care who initiated the violence. I care about who was armed, amd who initiated the incident. Zimmerman clearly followed Martin. I also don't care if using the gun was "justifiable" because other than under rhe truly moronic stand your ground law in Florida it just wasn't.

To reiterate. Martin did not even know of the existence of Zimmerman, and clearly wasn't following Zimmerman around.

Yes there was an unfortunate confluence of events. All of it atarted by Zimmerman making ****** choices.

We probably disagree about the place of guns in society as well. I don't think there is any way it is ever a good thing to have crazed morons walking around the neighborhood looking to **** with people.

And let's not be disingenuous: Zimmerman was clearly out to **** with Martin.
.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Moderated content removed.

Why bother to post that junk here? Why don't you just go and lynch the crazed moron?