Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[TheL8Elvis]

I not sure I understand exactly what type of holster GZ had. It is a waistband type holster but how it attaches to the clothing, I'm clueless.

http://www.google.com/search?q=in+w...ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CCoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1131&bih=676

However, in this case, I'll take you up on your invitation to speculate. I think GZ grabbed his gun from its location in the truck and proceeded to follow TM. In whatever manner the altercation began, it ended with both of them on the ground. (I'd like to leave open the possibility that GZ fired UP at TM, but we have no information on the trajectory) I think during the fight, GZ got his gun out and shot TM. I'm not so much interested in the head wounds but in the police video, his clothing doesn't appear to have bloodstains. Bloodstains would show up even on a red shirt. (see Star Trek, Ensign Redshirt ) I can see nothing about whether his nose was actually broken because they are fixed cameras, offering a limited view.

He didn't get his gun to go to target, put in away in his truck, then get it back out. I think many people with CCP carry constantly. I don't see why GZ would not have had his gun on him in the truck, in the holster.

I think the EMT report will be interesting. I suspect a lot of truth will be found in their records. One thing I know they don't do is clean clothes. Obviously GZ's clothing will be very important.

Basically, I speculate GZ grabbed his gun, got out of his truck, went after TM, started the confrontation and it spun out of control at that point. I will allow for the possibility that GZ might have been in fear but not to the level that he needed to draw his gun and shoot TM.

We are missing so many facts that will ultimately drive the direction of this investigation.

We definitely are. But until then , we dance as the media throws little bits and pieces at us.

And yea, I kinda think GZ is a bit racist. Not KKK level but more than perhaps he knows or would even acknowledge.

Maybe. I suggest you read the NY time article I linked to earlier today. It goes more into 'character' for both GZ and TM. It doesn't paint a racist picture of GZ.

 

[This is The End]

Yes, we do. Because the very experts you cite tell us it is.

It is you who is disagreeing with the experts, not me. The experts tell us you have to compare like to like, even the same phrase verbatim.

OK you keep saying that, but in those quotes wasn't the expert talking about the old way and not the new way?

Are you suggesting that there will never be improvement in voice recognition for the rest of the future?? In the year 3000, if they have improvements in voice tech, I doubt quotes from 2009 would automatically discount it. Even if they are quotes from a guy that is 1000 years old and he uses the new year 3000 tech.

Not a single expert in any published paper claims to be able to compare a scream to a speaking voice.

You keep saying that sentence. A search of this thread says you have said it like 35 times. Could you please stop saying "scream" and replace it with "yelling for help". It seems a bit disingenuous that you make that distinction.

Screaming does not imply a word being used. Yelling for help would be more clear.

To be more specific, I would say most anyone would agree it would be much harder to compare just a scream with a spoken word than it would be to compare a yelled word with a spoken word.

 

[WildCat]

I thought WildCat told us those are the exact same thing?

Yes.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

To be more specific, I would say most anyone would agree it would be much harder to compare just a scream with a spoken word than it would be to compare a yelled word with a spoken word.

I think I heard someone screaming for help. Pursued, followed. Yelled, screamed.

But if you heard some terror in the word help, I think you heard a scream, not a yell.

 

[WildCat]

OK you keep saying that, but in those quotes wasn't the expert talking about the old way and not the new way?

Are you suggesting that there will never be improvement in voice recognition for the rest of the future?? In the year 3000, if they have improvements in voice tech, I doubt quotes from 2009 would automatically discount it. Even if they are quotes from a guy that is 1000 years old and he uses the new year 3000 tech.

We're talking about 2012. You have examples of someone doing what these clowns claim to be able to do?

You keep saying that sentence. A search of this thread says you have said it like 35 times. Could you please stop saying "scream" and replace it with "yelling for help". It seems a bit disingenuous that you make that distinction.

Screaming does not imply a word being used. Yelling for help would be more clear.

To be more specific, I would say most anyone would agree it would be much harder to compare just a scream with a spoken word than it would be to compare a yelled word with a spoken word.

He was screaming the word "help". Nowhere in the 911 call is the word "help" available to compare to. Let alone a longer phrase of 20 words or so, necessary according to all the literature.

But oh yeah, Owen has magical new software...

 

[SomedayGirl]

I'm not so much interested in the head wounds but in the police video, his clothing doesn't appear to have bloodstains. Bloodstains would show up even on a red shirt. (see Star Trek, Ensign Redshirt ) I can see nothing about whether his nose was actually broken because they are fixed cameras, offering a limited view.

My spec on the lack of blood stains on the shirt (you'd think there should be not only Zimmerman's but Martin's as well since the descriptions are of a very close range shooting) is that the jacket was zipped at the time. Initial 911 callers described a man wearing a red shirt IIRC, so that lines up. The blood stains would be on the jacket and the jacket would have been opened by police when the frisked Zimmerman and took his weapon. The way the jacket in hanging on the tape could make it hard to see any dark marks but explain why the light colored shirt doesn't seem to have any.

 

[KatieG]

http://www.google.com/search?q=in+w...ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CCoQ_AUoAQ&biw=1131&bih=676



He didn't get his gun to go to target, put in away in his truck, then get it back out. I think many people with CCP carry constantly. I don't see why GZ would not have had his gun on him in the truck, in the holster.



We definitely are. But until then , we dance as the media throws little bits and pieces at us.



Maybe. I suggest you read the NY time article I linked to earlier today. It goes more into 'character' for both GZ and TM. It doesn't paint a racist picture of GZ.

I read that NYT article, found it very interesting but it doesn't change my feelings. Still, we sit and wait. Damnit, I hate waiting!

 

[This is The End]

We're talking about 2012. You have examples of someone doing what these clowns claim to be able to do?


He was screaming the word "help". Nowhere in the 911 call is the word "help" available to compare to. Let alone a longer phrase of 20 words or so, necessary according to all the literature.

But oh yeah, Owen has magical new software...

Well if you insist on saying "screaming" instead of "screaming the word help" that is your prerogative.

Let me rephrase:

I would say most anyone would agree it would be much harder to compare just a scream with a spoken word than it would be to compare a screamed word with a spoken word.

There is a big difference between a "scream" and a "screamed word". Yet you keep saying the former and not the latter.

Nowhere in the 911 call is the word "help" available to compare to.

OK you keep saying that, but the new tech (that appears to have been proven to you that it is completely different than the old tech even though you claim it isn't) doesn't need to have the same word. Isn't that what that paper SG linked to said?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I suggest you read the NY time article I linked to earlier today. It goes more into 'character' for both GZ and TM. It doesn't paint a racist picture of GZ.

I will read it. I suspect as always, the truth is more complicated. The biggest problem I have when I hear the 911 call is Zimmerman saying "these ******* always get away". The problem with that statement (totally independent of whether it had anything to do with race) is that it appears that in his mind he had already decided Martin was a likely criminal. That is a dangerous way to think, and it could be that mindset that also made him more likely to pull the trigger (regardless of which one initiated violence when the confrontation took place).

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

We're talking about 2012. You have examples of someone doing what these clowns claim to be able to do?

lol, keep fighting the good fight, these people want to believe so badly they'll never see how outrageous the claims are and will likely continue to support them even if the evidence ends up strongly showing it was Zimmerman yelling.

Remember, the party line is that this is "new technology". "New technology" no doubt delivered by some little 3-5 person firm with engineers so brilliant they are developing technology that can identify a person screaming through walls over the phone. In the mean time, billion dollar companies with thousands of engineers like Google, Apple and MS continue to work just to make voice recognition work half way decently .

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I almost forgot. It's also "new technology", even though both of them used completely different methods, and one of them uses "critical listening skills". OK, I'm outta here .

 

[curi0us]

Then why is it Owen drew a conclusion? Why didn't he say what you claim he should have said?

I don't know.

 

[RandFan]

lol, keep fighting the good fight, these people want to believe so badly they'll never see how outrageous the claims are and will likely continue to support them even if the evidence ends up strongly showing it was Zimmerman yelling.

Remember, the party line is that this is "new technology". "New technology" no doubt delivered by some little 3-5 person firm with engineers so brilliant they are developing technology that can identify a person screaming through walls over the phone. In the mean time, billion dollar companies with thousands of engineers like Google, Apple and MS continue to work just to make voice recognition work half way decently .

You were reasonable for awhile. Now you are back to the silliness and browbeating.

 

[nadsat]

Can you take a screen grab of this and post it?

Zimmerman's 26, not 9...

Thanks for the screen shot. For myself, I don't see anything that even remotely resembles the "injuries" in the doctored...pardon me, enhanced images from later in the tape. Mileage varies, of course.

From the high quality videos the Sanford PD released:

http://sanfordfl.gov/investigation/trayvon_martin.html

 

[Checkmite]

What's the first picture supposed to be showing?

 

[RandFan]

I almost forgot. It's also "new technology", even though both of them used completely different methods, and one of them uses "critical listening skills". OK, I'm outta here .

Don't let the door hit your straw men on the way out.

 

[nadsat]

Broken/swollen nose I'm assuming. I agree with most here it's still not 100% conclusive either way.

 

[nadsat]

http://www.coe.montana.edu/ee/rmaher/publications/maher_ieeespmag_0309_84-94.pdf

This paper should interest the more technical folks. It's from 2009. I don't think it's been posted.

-snip-

Audio forensic examination of recorded dialog may lead to a legal dispute over the identity of one or more of the conversation participants. A criminal suspect or a party to civil litigation may deny being the individual who uttered the recorded words, especially if the recording was made via telephone without eyewitnesses to identify the talker visually. In these situations, the forensic audio examiner may be asked to identify or to exclude that the suspect was the source of the words in the recording in question.

The aural-spectrographic method for audio forensic voice identification is based on the judgment of a trained examiner who compares the unknown example of speech with one or more known examples [30]-[33]. As the name of the method implies, the task of the examiner is to render a judgment based on both an aural comparison (careful listening) and a visual comparison of speech spectrograms.

In a typical case, the examiner begins by listening critically to the recording of the unknown talker and identifies specific phrases that are distinctive and relatively noise-free. The examiner then arranges a recording session with the suspect to create exemplars that match the selected phrases of the unknown talker in pace, emphasis, and enunciation. The suspect repeats each example phrase multiple times to produce recordings with as close a match as possible to the timing and speech pattern of the unknown examples.

-snip-

 

[RandFan]

http://www.coe.montana.edu/ee/rmaher/publications/maher_ieeespmag_0309_84-94.pdf

This paper should interest the more technical folks. It's from 2009. I don't think it's been posted.

I don't know but it's been addressed.

• Zimmerman claimed he was the one screaming.
• If Zimmerman is excluded as the one doing the screaming then he lied.
• No Martin match is needed.

 

[Checkmite]

It looks to me like the natural shape of Zimmerman's nose: