Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[sgtbaker]

Really? It seems you've been happy to speculate when it supports the claims of Zimmerman/his lawyer (e.g. the supposed severity of wounds that may or may not be visible in some video footage), but anyone else's speculation that may cast doubt on them, or attempts to contextualise the whole event, seems to touch a raw nerve.

I don't think Zimmerman woke up that morning, picked up his gun, and thought, "I'm gonna get me a burglar today," but neither do I think it likely on the information that we have at present that Martin attacked him in the way he claims.

I can only assume that you are mistaken me with someone else but I flat out said I don't trust his lawyer. I also said that I don't trust the wounds in the pictures because they change shape in each digitally enhanced video. It's not the speculation that I am actually challenging, it's the conclusion based on things that we don't know, by adding in what people think happened.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I think people mistakenly think that if you have a racist/stereotypical view of a black kid in a hoodie you must have to also be a racist all the time in all circumstances. Even people who aren't racists per se can be affected by racist stereotypes under certain circumstances.

This reminds me of one of the most embarrassing moments of my life, back when I was in high school and working at a barbecue restaurant. It was after closing, and I had finished my cleanup work and was waiting for my ride inside the restaurant. I noticed a young black guy hanging out in front of the store. He looked really, really suspicious, so I kept an eye on him. Every time I looked out there, he was standing there, peering back at me with a stern expression.

What was he doing here? Was he waiting for us to leave so he could hit us over the head and steal our money? I was getting more and more worried.

Just then, one of the waitresses, finished for the night, whisked past me, exiting through the front door. She greeted the black kid, who put his arm around her shoulder, pointed directly at me, and laughed.

I wanted to find a hole somewhere and hide in it.

 

[SomedayGirl]

From the high quality videos the Sanford PD released:

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

nasat, on the consolidated video around 2:40-:44 is a shot of the back of Zimmerman's head and the back of his surprisingly clean jacket. Actually watching the whole consolidated is interesting, various back and side angles but nothing that looks like the enhanced gash in any of them.

I don't think these tapes necessarily show no injury to his head since the quality is somewhat sketchy and there could be one, but I don't think they show an injury either.

 

[WildCat]

Exactly. Excluding Zimmerman would seem a lot easier than trying to match perfectly the voice to either Martin or Zimmerman. All you need is a "not even close" result and Zimmerman's story vanishes.

And isn't that the same result one would expect if the voice analysis didn't work at all?

 

[WildCat]

What fallacy is NBS committing?

Thinking critically, apparently.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

And isn't that the same result one would expect if the voice analysis didn't work at all?

If it didn't work at all, you could get any result, depending on how the system was set up. Anyhow, that's hardly any sort of argument that it doesn't work...

 

[WildCat]

If it didn't work at all, you could get any result, depending on how the system was set up. Anyhow, that's hardly any sort of argument that it doesn't work...

Sure you'd get results - the analysis would show little match. The scream for help is too short in duration, it doesn't repeat any words Zimmerman is known to have spoken on his 911 call, and it's low-quality.

You know, the things the experts say is required before an analysis can be made?

Oh, I forgot, Owen has magical new software not tested in any published peer-reviewed literature that can overcome all of these limitations. And the other guy has super-refined "critical listening skills" that render all the science moot.

Show me an expert witness for hire, and there's a good chance I'll show you someone who will come to the conclusion the person who hires them wants to hear. I wonder if either of these 2 "experts" ever came to a conclusion that was detrimental to the case of the person who hired them?

eta: and we have 2 actual eyewitnesses who told police they saw Zimmerman screaming for help.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Sure you'd get results - the analysis would show little match. The scream for help is too short in duration, it doesn't repeat any words Zimmerman is known to have spoken on his 911 call, and it's low-quality.

You know, the things the experts say is required before an analysis can be made?

Oh, I forgot, Owen has magical new software not tested in any published peer-reviewed literature that can overcome all of these limitations. And the other guy has super-refined "critical listening skills" that render all the science moot.

Show me an expert witness for hire, and there's a good chance I'll show you someone who will come to the conclusion the person who hires them wants to hear. I wonder if either of these 2 "experts" ever came to a conclusion that was detrimental to the case of the person who hired them?

eta: and we have 2 actual eyewitnesses who told police they saw Zimmerman screaming for help.

Owen's software seems to have other indices than the main % match which give an indication of how confident one can be of the result. If there simply wasn't enough data to base a conclusion on, you may get the same percentage match, but the other indices would show low reliability (ie it wouldn't get the green light). Now sure you can argue that his algorithms etc just don't work full stop (which would simply be a guess because neither of us know much about how these things work), but don't pretend that in a working system you would get the same result in the 2 situations, of (a) the samples are clearly different and (b) there isn't enough data for the system to base a conclusion on.

I'm really not at all sure which you are arguing. Are you saying that you think his system doesn't work under any circumstances? Or that there isn't enough data for his system to work with? Or that under low information conditions, his system ignores the confidence level and gives a confident result anyway? Or that his confidence calculations are necessarily flawed?

I mean, I'm on the fence about this whole thing in general, and also on the reliability levels of this technology specifically, but you seem to be dismissing it out of hand rather than just reserving judgement on it. I'm sure you'll deny it, but I doubt you would be arguing so vehemently if the experts had come back with a result of it being reasonably likely to be Zimmerman screaming.

 

[Cylinder]

Exactly. Excluding Zimmerman would seem a lot easier than trying to match perfectly the voice to either Martin or Zimmerman.

No. It's the same standard. Pixie dust aside, the standard is 20 matches useable matches for an authintication, 20 useable diqualification for an exclusion. Not authinticated is a wholly different claim than excluded. By media reports, 48% of the sampled points matched Zimmerman.

All you need is a "not even close" result and Zimmerman's story vanishes.

You still have spontaneous and independant eyewitness testimony that Zimmerman was on the ground crying for help.

 

[WildCat]

Owen's software seems to have other indices than the main % match which give an indication of how confident one can be of the result. If there simply wasn't enough data to base a conclusion on, you may get the same percentage match, but the other indices would show low reliability (ie it wouldn't get the green light). Now sure you can argue that his algorithms etc just don't work full stop (which would simply be a guess because neither of us know much about how these things work), but don't pretend that in a working system you would get the same result in the 2 situations, of (a) the samples are clearly different and (b) there isn't enough data for the system to base a conclusion on.

I'm really not at all sure which you are arguing. Are you saying that you think his system doesn't work under any circumstances? Or that there isn't enough data for his system to work with? Or that under low information conditions, his system ignores the confidence level and gives a confident result anyway? Or that his confidence calculations are necessarily flawed?

I'm arguing that these are extraordinary claims and as such require extraordinary evidence.

So far, the only evidence for these claims are the words of the people making them.

 

[Cylinder]

I have made the point before that the screamed word was "help".

"I took all of the screams and put those together, and cut out everything else," Owen, chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, said.

 

[Dan O.]

We know Martin was return to the development, and that Zimmerman was leaving it. Given the obvious routes of both in relation to where they both lived/were staying, the area around the main entrance is the most likely place Zimmerman could have first seen Martin. You are, of course, free to offer up alternative routes for both and a location for that first "meeting" that you think more likely.

I think we can rule out Zimmerman witnessing Martin actually entering the gate. If Martin had jumped the fence or tailgated behind a car to get in, this would have been a more suspicious behavior than "staring at houses" and would have been reported. If Martin had used the security code to open the gate, that would have told Zimmerman that Martin was either a resident or guest if the community.

[does the security gate log the times that it opens? That could give us one more reference to where people were and when]

It's more likely to be RVC, because it would explain the <=2m 21s between the end of Zimmerman's call to the police, and the end of Martin's call to his girlfriend, i.e. looking for someone who wasn't actually there, but who he thought was in the area, heading for the back entrance. You are, of course, free to offer up an alternative explanation for the missing <=2m 21s.

Where was Martin durring this time? Two and a half minutes is enough time to get Martin almost home at a normal walking pace. At a fast walk, Martin would be home long before Zimmerman could pull his suragate ***** out of his pants. If Martin had simply stopped on the path, he would have been easily visible in any light sufficient to keep Zimmerman from walking into a lamp post and busting his nose. A conclusion can therefore be reached that Martin having walked fast to get away from Zimmerman, turned the corner at the first condo and hid in the shadows as Zimmerman walked or ran past.

Others have suggested that the area would be unlikely to be unlit under normal circumstances, whether by house lights or communal lighting. Given that Zimmerman expressed concerns about burglaries in the area, if seems rather unlikely that the residents could think that such an area being unlit at night would be a good thing.

One example of the neighborhood lighting can be seen in the google street view of the back entrance.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

No. It's the same standard. Pixie dust aside, the standard is 20 matches useable matches for an authintication, 20 useable diqualification for an exclusion. Not authinticated is a wholly different claim than excluded. By media reports, 48% of the sampled points matched Zimmerman.

I would think someone of his experience would know the difference between being unable to match and being able to positively exclude. Until I hear someone else in the field explain why he is wrong, I'll still give these results some weighting in forming my opinion.

You still have spontaneous and independant eyewitness testimony that Zimmerman was on the ground crying for help.

I also give these witnesses some weighting in forming my opinion, also bearing in mind the fallibility of eyewitness testimony. Having recently watched a documentary which set up a fake crime and then watched eye-witnesses be totally confident that one guy started the pub fight and be entirely wrong, I know how fallible this can be too.

 

[SomedayGirl]

eta: and we have 2 actual eyewitnesses who told police they saw Zimmerman screaming for help.

I thought the 13yo's account is now suspect, according to his mother?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...martin-grainy-proves-lawyer-article-1.1052713

 

[sgtbaker]

I think we can rule out Zimmerman witnessing Martin actually entering the gate. If Martin had jumped the fence or tailgated behind a car to get in, this would have been a more suspicious behavior than "staring at houses" and would have been reported. If Martin had used the security code to open the gate, that would have told Zimmerman that Martin was either a resident or guest if the community.

[does the security gate log the times that it opens? That could give us one more reference to where people were and when]

Does anyone have any images of what kind of gate the community has? Where I live consists of multiple unconnected subcommunities, with different names, all under the Bayside Lakes title. Mine used to have a live guard at the entrance with just an arm that draws up and drops down, blocking the road. We still have the arm but the guard was dropped in exchange for a keypad. Either way, the sidewalk next to the gate allows for any pedestrian access. All the other subcommunities have a rolling or a swinging 8 foot gate with brick columns on either side, but still have unlimited pedestrian access.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

From the high quality videos the Sanford PD released:

Thanks for pointing out that the SPD released higher quality video.

It's funny, I have that page in my list of links, but had not watched the videos linked from there, because I had locally downloaded copies I grabbed from abc, etc.

But yes - those are youtube links, and youtube offers them in 480p - and it is better resolution than I had seen before. It looks almost the same as the 'enhanced' video abc is touting.

 

[tsig]

I've already provided the cite.

Cylinder
Poster, Internet Message Board

Having carefully examined the word and letter count as well as the vocabulary and word length I can conclusively conclude that a poster named "Cylinder" posted this post.

tsig

Official JREF Poster Authenticator (self-appointed)

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I thought the 13yo's account is now suspect, according to his mother?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...martin-grainy-proves-lawyer-article-1.1052713

Thanks for that link. I had read that before, but couldn't find it again and thought I might have been misremembering.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Not really. It denotes a level of severity.
"I cut my hand the other day."
"How bad?"
"I needed stitches."

Right - but whether you need them or not is open to interpretation by the doctor. Not worth arguing about anyway.

So Zimmerman's lawyer can go on television and blatantly lie, and we're all just supposed to shrug our shoulders? How about if he says Martin was in a coma or rendered paralyzed because of the altercation? Would that be okay, too?

The bottom line is that the story we're getting from the Zimmerman camp does not line up with the facts. It therefore places everything about what Zimmerman claims happened that night in a dubious light.

Honestly, IDK how I feel about a lawyer lying in a media interview, in general. And circumstances are important. Yes, a blatant lie is more egregious than a questionable statement or using loaded language. If GZ told his attorney 'they said I should have had stitches' - then the attorney is simply is repeating what he was told - no problem.

I don't want to engage in tu quoque - but - if I can show you clips of benjamin crump (the martins lawyer) blatantly lying, will you censor censure him in the same way as GZ lawyer ? I'm not claiming it's ok - I just want you to treat them equally for it, fair enough ? That will cast doubt on anything the martins say ?

The narrative would then be that Zimmerman received a severe scalp laceration during the altercation but didn't go to the hospital, showed up at the police station a short while later with no apparent signs of this laceration, and then went to the hospital the next day to get stitches for a wound that didn't even need a band-aid the night before.

I don't see how that makes a lick of sense.

He gets treated on the scene - declines to go to hospital. He just shot and killed someone and is probably in some sort of shock/denial/ecstasy/whatever.
He shows up at police station with clear signs of lacerations on the back of his head ( see what I did there ? ) and after he goes home and all the adrenaline wears off , he wakes up the next day and decides it hurts enough to go to the hospital. Someone at the hospital mentions, "you should have had stitches". GZ tells his family/attorney 'They said I should have had stitches'.

You can disagree with that narrative (and obviously do). But I don't think you can claim it's fantastic or far-fetched.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Does anyone have any images of what kind of gate the community has? Where I live consists of multiple unconnected subcommunities, with different names, all under the Bayside Lakes title. Mine used to have a live guard at the entrance with just an arm that draws up and drops down, blocking the road. We still have the arm but the guard was dropped in exchange for a keypad. Either way, the sidewalk next to the gate allows for any pedestrian access. All the other subcommunities have a rolling or a swinging 8 foot gate with brick columns on either side, but still have unlimited pedestrian access.

Google street view works on the streets outside the subdivision.

Also, I have seen a few different stories. Some of the claim GZ first saw TM at the clubhouse, under the awning.

I am fairly certain there is no indication of a guard or anything blocking pedestrians from entering the subdivision from the pictures I have seen and accounts I have read.