Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Professor Yaffle]

I'm assuming this is a Knox-type monster thread, and I have to post this kind of thing in here. Anyone see this from Frank Taaffe? He's the head of the neighborhood watch where Martin was killed:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/03/zimmerman-defender-rants-about-young-black-males/

I saw it live, and it was excruciating. Soledad did not let him go. She and another panelist kept pushing this guy once it was clear that, in Frank's opinion, the idea of Zimmerman doing a racial-profile on Treyvon was ok.

“Neighbor-hood, that’s a great word,” Taaffe said, chuckling. “We had eight burglaries in our neighborhood, all perpetrated by young black males in the 15 months prior to Trayvon being shot.”


“How many of those cases did they arrest people?” O’Brien wondered. “How many of those cases were people actually convicted.”

“One that I know of where the perpetrator was apprehended,” Taaffe admitted. “The young black male went in during the daytime just two houses down from where my my place was.”

Am I missing something here? Only one suspect was apprehended (that he knows of), but he knows that all of the 8 burglaries were by young black males? there were eye-witnesses to all 8 burglaries? Some crap burglars they must have there - and by extension some crap police work....

 

[Cylinder]

Am I missing something here? Only one suspect was apprehended (that he knows of), but he knows that all of the 8 burglaries were by young black males?

Why is that odd? Suspect description but no arrest. That's gonna be pretty much the standard.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Why is that odd? Suspect description but no arrest. That's gonna be pretty much the standard.

In my limited experience, (of people I have known who were burgled), there was rarely a definite sighting of the perpetrator.

 

[RandFan]

What I hilited was the cusp of the issue.

Very good.

If voice identification was as exact as DNA, I would go with you, totally on your point.

That is your imposed restriction to justify a position.

As I see it, there does require some subjective input to reach a final conclusion, which means it's subject to human bias.

Doesn't mean that the science isn't sound. What you think is reasonable has little to do with law enforcement science.

I don't see what's wrong with asking for a test on both voices...

It's an unrealistic standard. If imposed for all forensic testing it would exclude some forensic sciences.

 

[WildCat]

Doesn't mean that the science isn't sound.

I'm still waiting for you to link to some of this science whereby a scream for help can be compared against a spoken phrase that doesn't even include the word "help" to determine whether or not they were spoken by the same individual.

You claim this is science, prove it.

So far, not one person has linked to any science paper that shows this is possible. And yet, that's exactly what these 2 professional expert witnesses claim to be able to do.

 

[johnny karate]

Maybe you can explain why you think that information should be in the public domain at this time?

General medical knowledge isn't in the public domain? Zimmerman's lawyer claims he had a serious head laceration. What we've seen so far belies that claim. It's as simple as that.

But if you think that anyone (prosecution or defense) at trial is going to introduce that video as evidence either way you are delusional. It's completely irrelevant to the case of either side.

And if I believed Bigfoot and Elvis were abducted by aliens, I'd also be delusional. But maybe we just can stick to things I've actually claimed before we start taking sideswipes at my mental state.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't find any of that unreasonable or to be a clear lie. If your point of contention is simply that on the leaked video, there is no bandage, therefor it's all a lie, we'll just have to disagree.

My contention is that what we see on the video does not line up with Zimmerman's version of events. Whether or not you want to label that a lie is up to you. Either way, it casts doubt on Zimmerman's version of events.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

My contention is that what we see on the video does not line up with Zimmerman's version of events. Whether or not you want to label that a lie is up to you. Either way, it casts doubt on Zimmerman's version of events.

??

If it doesn't 'line up' with GZ version of events, doesn't that make it a lie ? What's the other option ?

Just to be clear, let me summarize your argument as I understand it:

GZ attorney claims GZ sustained a serious cut to the head.
In the video, there is no bandage visible on GZ head.
Therefor he did not sustain a serious cut and the attorney is lying.

Which part did I get wrong ?

 

[Metullus]

Because they released the videos at the station and people are asking.

So to satisfy our curiosity? I suspect that they have higher priorities...

 

[WildCat]

General medical knowledge isn't in the public domain? Zimmerman's lawyer claims he had a serious head laceration. What we've seen so far belies that claim. It's as simple as that.

This isn't "general medical knowledge", it's the medical records of a specific patient and also evidence in an ongoing criminal investigation, neither of which are public domain at this time.

And if I believed Bigfoot and Elvis were abducted by aliens, I'd also be delusional. But maybe we just can stick to things I've actually claimed before we start taking sideswipes at my mental state.

You claim this low-res video is actually evidence of some sort. That's where you're delusional, every bit as when 9/11 truthers claim the plane that hit the WTC was a drone because in the youtube video no windows are visible.

 

[sgtbaker]

Very good.

That is your imposed restriction to justify a position.

Doesn't mean that the science isn't sound. What you think is reasonable has little to do with law enforcement science.

It's an unrealistic standard. If imposed for all forensic testing it would exclude some forensic sciences.

That's all a fine argument if you edit out the part where the expert said that he would need a sample from Trayvon to say definitively it was Trayvon. Have the test may be good enough for you but since as far as we know, there are only two possible parties the voice could belong to, and the expert says he would need that test to make a conclusion, I will go with the expert.

"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.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...cation-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty

 

[RandFan]

That's all a fine argument if you edit out the part where the expert said that he would need a sample from Trayvon to say definitively it was Trayvon.

And that would be all well and good if the science (not you) deemed it necessary.

Have the test may be good enough for you but since as far as we know, there are only two possible parties the voice could belong to, and the expert says he would need that test to make a conclusion, I will go with the expert.

If the expert says he doesn't need it to exclude Zimmerman then I will go with that expert, not you.

 

[tyr_13]

And that would be all well and good if the science (not you) deemed it necessary.

If the expert says he doesn't need it to exclude Zimmerman then I will go with that expert, not you.

I don't think you're understand the objection. Right now the method excludes Zimmerman. However, that's the same result as if the method didn't work at all under the conditions. One way to test this would be to see if it matches Martin. If the test came back as rejecting Martin as well, then it's much more likely the method being used isn't suitable for the conditions.

If the test isn't suitable for the conditions, it would fail. It would also fail in such a way as to rule out everyone.

 

[Unabogie]

Owen offered to let Zimmerman record a test sample under similar conditions (screaming, over a phone), so I suppose somewhere along the line, that could happen. However, I wonder if Zimmerman's lawyer would allow this. After all, if he fails the test again, then he's worse off than now, where he can use FUD to impugn the test.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The main gate to the neighborhood can be seen in Google Street view. Some gated communities only close the main gate late at night, if they close it at all.

The gate goes across the sidewalk. Typically everyone's door key also opens gates and doors to community areas.

I'm not sure this helps given I don't see that GZ saw TM enter the gated community.

 

[RandFan]

I don't think you're understand the objection. Right now the method excludes Zimmerman. However, that's the same result as if the method didn't work at all under the conditions. One way to test this would be to see if it matches Martin. If the test came back as rejecting Martin as well, then it's much more likely the method being used isn't suitable for the conditions.

If the test isn't suitable for the conditions, it would fail. It would also fail in such a way as to rule out everyone.

I absolutely understand the objection. Either the science is reliable with certain error bars or it is not. If I can reliably exclude Zimmerman then I can exclude Zimmerman. You are simply voicing your concerns about the science and expressing what would convince you. Science does not work that way. DNA does not carry such a requirement in most minds. Some people don't trust DNA. They could demand the same as you do.

That's not the threshold in science.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I don't think you're understand the objection. Right now the method excludes Zimmerman. However, that's the same result as if the method didn't work at all under the conditions. One way to test this would be to see if it matches Martin. If the test came back as rejecting Martin as well, then it's much more likely the method being used isn't suitable for the conditions.

If the test isn't suitable for the conditions, it would fail. It would also fail in such a way as to rule out everyone.

For the millionth time.... positively excluding someone is not the same as failing to make a match (for example due to poor conditions). Poor audio would affect whether a source voice could be eliminated, if the audio was too poor, the result would come back as inconclusive, not as elimination. It may well be that the media have conflated these options (and in my opinion they have really muddied the waters due to their poor understanding of what the experts are saying), but it is unlikely that the experts have. From what I have heard from the experts they were saying that they had enough to positively exclude Zimmerman with reasonable certainty.

As usual, all of the above is based on the assumption the techniques having the validity they are claimed to have. If they turn out not to be valid and reliable tests, then all bets are off. I have yet to hear of any other scientists claiming there is a problem with them, though.

 

[Cylinder]

Owen offered to let Zimmerman record a test sample under similar conditions (screaming, over a phone...

Why in the hell would it occur to Owen to do that since his software doesn't require it, right?

 

[Unabogie]

Why in the hell would it occur to Owen to do that since his software doesn't require it, right?

I guess you didn't watch the interview with CNN. He was asked if it would help to record a scream under the same circumstances and he said yes. Then he offered Zimmerman to do a recording. Why would he do this? To help better find the truth to everyone's satisfaction. Why is this a bad thing?

 

[RandFan]

Why in the hell would it occur to Owen to do that since his software doesn't require it, right?

Perhaps to disquiet those who don't understand science or don't trust the evidence. In a followup to the OJ trial an expert in DNA explained that one of the major mistakes of the prosecution was to assume that the jury would trust the science without understanding it. That which will convince scientists is often not that which will convince the general public. Of course trying to convince the general public often leads to this damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Gotcha Owen. Dumb ass.