Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[RandFan]

If Zimmerman was told not to continue to follow Trayvon, can that be considered in this investigation?

I think it can be reasonably construed that it was what was meant and what Zimmerman understood.

“are you following him”. Zimmerman replied, “yes”. The call taker stated “you don’t need to do that".

Which means what? Again it seems desperate and frankly silly.

In any event, I don't think it was legally binding no matter what the dispatcher said. Aside from assertions, why do you think otherwise?

 

[LTC8K6]

I think it can be reasonably construed that it was what was meant and what Zimmerman understood.

Which means what? Again it seems desperate and frankly silly.

In any event, I don't think it was legally binding no matter what the dispatcher said. Aside from assertions, why do you think otherwise?

Think otherwise about what? Are you attributing the police statement on the matter to me?

A poster said "Zimmerman followed someone, while armed, after the cops told him not to."

I said it was not true. I am correct.

I linked and quoted a police release on the matter.

 

[totoro]

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.

Why not follow and kill any random stranger then? You never know, they might be a criminal. This is how we get Somalia.

If you think it's ok to walk around shooting random strangers on the off chamce they might be criminals, I can only be glad we aren't neighbors.

It's not fuzzy reasoning at all to say if he didn't follow him he wouldn't be dead, it's simple cause and effect: if anyone is engaging in fuzzinees it is you.

 

[RandFan]

I linked and quoted a police release on the matter.

The police release is self serving. The police are NOT the finders of fact.

Try again.

 

[LTC8K6]

Why not follow and kill any random stranger then? You never know, they might be a criminal. This is how we get Somalia.

If you think it's ok to walk around shooting ramdom strangers on the off chamce thwy might be criminals, I can only be glad we aren't neighbors.

It's not fuzzy reasoning at all to say if he didn't follow him he wouldn't be dead, it's simple cause and effect: if anyone is wngaging in fuzzinees it is you.

Don't worry, it's clearly against the law in Florida to walk around and shoot random strangers, and several independent agencies are investigating, so there's no chance Zimmerman will get away with it.

 

[LTC8K6]

The police release is self serving. The police are NOT the finders of fact.

Try again.

Try what again?

Is a 911 operator a police officer?

Not the finders of fact?

Who cares?

 

[totoro]

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

Right, because clearly the important thing is

"whether the use of a gun was justified" in a conflict entirely created by Zimmerman or some other swill about how he might have been a hero if Martin had actually turned out to be the reincarnation of Pol Pot.

What is your position on this, then? That somehow there is information we don't have that will magically make what Zimmerman did ok?

Good luck with that one.

 

[RandFan]

Try what again?

Is a 911 operator a police officer?

What do you mean try what again? What's so damn difficult to understand?

• The police release is worthless as it is self serving.
• I don't claim that the 911 operator is a police officer.
• Hell, I DON'T CLAIM ANYTHING other than your assertion is silly.

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

This is not in fact. A judge could very well find that the dispatcher was a representative of the police department. So, if you want to argue this you will need something other than a self serving police release and an assertion by implication that a dispatcher cannot speak on behalf of the police department. Okay?

 

[LTC8K6]

What do you mean try what again? What's so damn difficult to understand?

• The police release is worthless as it is self serving.
• I don't claim that the 911 operator is a police officer.
• Hell, I DON'T CLAIM ANYTHING other than your assertion is silly.

This is not in fact. A judge could very well find that the dispatcher was a representative of the police department. So, if you want to argue this you will need something other than a self serving police release and an assertion by implication that a dispatcher cannot speak on behalf of the police department. Okay?

When a judge rules it so, I'll change my mind.

Until then, have a nice discussion.

 

[RandFan]

When a judge rules it so, I'll change my mind.

Well of course. Your mind is made up why would you take a neutral position? Ad hoc rationalization and confirmation bias.

 

[LTC8K6]

My mind is clearly not made up, as anyone who follows the thread knows, and I'm tired of your childish jabs.

 

[LTC8K6]

Right, because clearly the important thing is

"whether the use of a gun was justified" in a conflict entirely created by Zimmerman or some other swill about how he might have been a hero if Martin had actually turned out to be the reincarnation of Pol Pot.

What is your position on this, then? That somehow there is information we don't have that will magically make what Zimmerman did ok?

Good luck with that one.

My position is to wait for the courts. It often takes years for a felony case to get to trial. I expect this one to be no different.

 

[RandFan]

My mind is clearly not made up....

Ahem...

When a judge rules it so, I'll change my mind.

 

[Cylinder]

Is Florida still a Frye standard state?

Yes. Ramirez v. Florida articulates Florida's implementation of the Frye test.

The Frye test since has been broken down into a four-step process as outlined by the Florida Supreme Court in Ramirez v. State:

- First, the trial judge must determine whether such expert testimony will assist the jury in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue.

- Second, the trial judge must decide whether the expert‟s testimony is based on a scientific principle or discovery that is “sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.”

- Third, the trial judge must determine whether a particular witness is qualified as an expert to present opinion testimony on the subject in issue.

- Fourth, the judge may then allow the expert to render an opinion on the subject of his or her expertise, and it is then up to the jury to determine the credibility of the expert‟s opinion, which it may either accept or reject.

 

[Cylinder]

We do know that they filed charges against Zimmerman contrary to early reports that they 'just let him go'.

Did they actually file against Zimmerman? I am under the impression from initial media reports that SPD investigators recommended manslaughter charges which the State Attorney declined - presumably in accordance with the immunity statute.

That's what piqued my curiosity initially - why SPD did not place Zimmerman in custody under the 48-hour rule.

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

The police release is self serving. The police are NOT the finders of fact.

Try again.

Gee wizz, I should contact the world's police departments. They're wasting billions employing detectives and forensic experts! The fools think sifting and collecting evidence, then applying it to find the probable guilty party is finding facts, little did they know they should be using a narrow court definition as spelled out in the dictionary.

 

[This is The End]

In addition, an eyewitness, 13-year-old Austin Brown, told police he saw a man fitting Zimmerman's description lying on the grass moaning and crying for help just seconds before he heard the gunshot that killed Martin.

He's lying too.

I thought a post pages ago said the 13 year old kid admitted to lying? The parents said the kid made up details or was pressured or something...

 

[This is The End]

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.

Yeah, but it was a very serious sounding suggestion to not follow. To which Z said "Okay".

Z was given a very serious sounding suggestion to stop following M by a police dispatcher. This suggestion was given during Z's pursuit of M and was within several minutes of the fatal shot being fired. Z responded to this suggestion with the word "Okay".

 

[Dan O.]

Uh, yeah... sounds like woo to me. I'm sure it's as reliable as polygraphs.

It tells us the woo peddlers have another totally scientific machine to play with.

A total BS claim. You simply cannot take a mono recording of such poor quality and do what he claims he has done. And it's also a lossy recording, much data has been lost. Complete woo.

What these guys claim to be doing certainly is.

It's one thing to identify a voice recorded in a studio, quite another under the conditions they claim to have done it.

What happened in the other 69%?

Were any of the comparisons made between a talking voice and a scream? On a recording made over the telephone, through walls, and recorded in a lossy format?

Total, utter woo.

Separating woo woo from reality is what the JREF does. I don't think the JREF would accept this challenge.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Bull. You are pulling this out of your confirmation bias rear. Some dispatch centers use very high tech equipment and any center that has been modernized uses digital recording. And, 911 calls are frequently used in court so there is a value in having quality recording equipment.

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

So 'WC says so' vs a company that has been consulting on voice recognition forensics for more than a decade with dozens of published papers, and, who actually had access to the recording. I have no problem with my personal conclusion here.