Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Natural Born Skeptic]

The Easy Voice Biometrics software package doesn't know who George Zimmerman is or care whether he is guilty or not. It's just a program that does what it has been programmed to do without subjective input from the operator. The program can be tested quite easily to determine the limits of its capabilities. So why doesn't George Zimmerman want to prove that it is his voice screaming on that 911 tape?

Does your brain hurt after you make these types of arguments? Or are you just trying to be funny?

 

[Dan O.]

Does your brain hurt after you make these types of arguments?

This thread isn't about me.

Do you dispute any of the facts in my argument?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

This thread isn't about me.

Do you dispute any of the facts in my argument?

Sorry, I refuse to believe you are being serious.

 

[curi0us]

The Easy Voice Biometrics software package doesn't know who George Zimmerman is or care whether he is guilty or not. It's just a program that does what it has been programmed to do without subjective input from the operator. The program can be tested quite easily to determine the limits of its capabilities. So why doesn't George Zimmerman want to prove that it is his voice screaming on that 911 tape?

The problem with Easy Voice Biometrics is that it should be really easy to test but it's never been tested. Especially in the manner Owen used it with poor quality samples of emotional screams. Plus the software has been priced at five thousand dollars and there is no demo.

Owen's CV and background look so impressive I can understand why people are inclined to trust him but he is some kind of pseudoscientific con artist. I wouldn't cooperate with him at all because he is either a liar or so demented he doesn't realize he is lying. More will come out on this later but apparently forensic audio has some seriously woo people in the field right now.

 

[Moss]

The problem with Easy Voice Biometrics is that it should be really easy to test but it's never been tested. Especially in the manner Owen used it with poor quality samples of emotional screams. Plus the software has been priced at five thousand dollars and there is no demo.

Owen's CV and background look so impressive I can understand why people are inclined to trust him but he is some kind of pseudoscientific con artist. I wouldn't cooperate with him at all because he is either a liar or so demented he doesn't realize he is lying. More will come out on this later but apparently forensic audio has some seriously woo people in the field right now.

You do realize that that is not (yet?) in evidence? I agree that there is some shady stuff there, but whether the person you accuse is part of that subgroup is actually still in question.

 

[This is The End]

Clearing up some mis-information:

http://www.freep.com/article/201204...-up-misinformation-in-the-Trayvon-Martin-case


They could have had a much longer article if they would just read this thread.

 

[Mumbles]

I have a question for those who say that GZ is the initiator of aggression even if TM attacked him first*. Let's imagine every part of this case is identical and change only one factor. Imagine that TM is replaced with HC, short for hardcore criminal. HC has a history of violence. HC doesn't like that he is being followed and attacks GZ and is beating him. GZ screams for help for 60 seconds as he is being beating. GZ shoots him.

Is GZ actually the the one who initiated the aggression?

*Please don't point out the obvious - that such facts are not in evidence, no one claims they are. However it is what GZ claims, and several people have responded that even if GZ's claim is true that GZ is still the initiator of the violence by virtue of following TM. Hence my theoretical question.

In that case...yes, I would still hold Zimmermen liable. And that's actually part of my point - it's incredibly stupid to chase after someone you think is violent, precisely because that person will most likely beat you. And a lot of normally nonviolent people will also turn on you of you do this. Calling 911 is fine, if you see an actual situation - although Zimmerman apparently did not. But chasing strangers around is not a good idea.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

In that case...yes, I would still hold Zimmermen liable. And that's actually part of my point - it's incredibly stupid to chase after someone you think is violent, precisely because that person will most likely beat you. And a lot of normally nonviolent people will also turn on you of you do this. Calling 911 is fine, if you see an actual situation - although Zimmerman apparently did not. But chasing strangers around is not a good idea.

Is it fair to say that based on that reasoning, if someone is following me, it's OK for me to attack them and beat them?

 

[curi0us]

You do realize that that is not (yet?) in evidence?

How is what is "in evidence" being determined?

There is much more evidence about Owen then has been reported so far. I've been going through Owen's CV and looking into the organizations he has been associated with. The story of what he has been doing goes backs twenty years so it is a little hard to research, but so far it looks to me like Owen was the audio expert in a faction of woo forensic "experts" who created their own certification boards when they couldn't scientifically vindicate their theories.

I agree that there is some shady stuff there, but whether the person you accuse is part of that subgroup is actually still in question.

I am not sure which "subgroup" you were referring to but Tracertek (who wrote Easy Voice Biometrics) is a very small group of skilled programmers who maybe didn't intend for Owen to misrepresent their software as he did. It's the ABRE, NYIFA, and ACFE that have clear woo roots.

 

[Information Analyst]

Which is precisely my point. It is irrational to the extreme to argue that because GZ may have made a poor decision/s, that he therefore "started the ball rolling" and that everything that happens afterwards is his fault because well, "this would not have happened if he had not followed him". Likewise that is not how the law works.

Except in other jurisdictions it may well work like that. Certainly elsewhere the apparent immunity from civil prosecution (i.e. in the absence of a criminal prosecution) almost certainly would not exist.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

There is much more evidence about Owen then has been reported so far. I've been going through Owen's CV and looking into the organizations he has been associated with. The story of what he has been doing goes backs twenty years so it is a little hard to research, but so far it looks to me like Owen was the audio expert in a faction of woo forensic "experts" who created their own certification boards when they couldn't scientifically vindicate their theories.

While I can't speak to what you've discovered so far, that type of practice is not uncommon.

I continue to be surprised at how many skeptics here place great value in his credentials. It's just not that hard to generate impressive credentials when none of your credentials require more than a short course. I work in an industry full of people that have walls covered with impressive looking plaques filled with certifications, many of whom get featured in the press. And I can tell you that the highly competent ones are few and far between, and often aren't the ones who are the best known. The best known are often that way for no other reason than they spend a lot of time self-promoting (not bad in and of itself of course).

Let me be clear - I'm not saying that such credentials are worthless. Just near worthless , I'd not trust them to indicate true expertise. Impressive academic credentials followed up by being published in peer reviewed scientific journals and so on are another story.

Some people have disputed this by saying experience can be as important as education. I agree that experience is also of paramount importance, but taking some short courses to pass a certification, and then using that certification to gain experience for many years, well since the barrier to entrance was so low to begin with that often doesn't mean a lot.

 

[Puppycow]

Wow. 138 pages already?

Just popped back in to mention this:

Armed Neo-Nazis Patrol Sanford

(Newser) – Turns out civil rights leaders aren't the only ones marching around Sanford these days. Neo-Nazis are now conducting armed patrols through the Florida city where Trayvon Martin's killing set off a tense national debate, the Miami New Times reports. "We are not advocating any type of violence or attacks on anybody, but we are prepared for it," says Commander Jeff Schoep of the National Socialist Movement. "We are not the type of white people who are going to be walked all over."

With the New Black Panther Party offering a bounty for George Zimmerman's head, Schoep says a race riot is imminent—and Neo-Nazis can stop it: "You can either be prepared or you can be blindsided."

 

[Moss]

How is what is "in evidence" being determined?

There is much more evidence about Owen then has been reported so far. I've been going through Owen's CV and looking into the organizations he has been associated with. The story of what he has been doing goes backs twenty years so it is a little hard to research, but so far it looks to me like Owen was the audio expert in a faction of woo forensic "experts" who created their own certification boards when they couldn't scientifically vindicate their theories.



I am not sure which "subgroup" you were referring to but Tracertek (who wrote Easy Voice Biometrics) is a very small group of skilled programmers who maybe didn't intend for Owen to misrepresent their software as he did. It's the ABRE, NYIFA, and ACFE that have clear woo roots.

That are your claims. What backs them up? I might even be inclined to agree that they might have build that walled garden where everyone vets for everyone else, but so far you have not demonstrated that that is actually the case.
With subgroup I mean those audio forensics experts who are using highly subjective and nonreproducible techniques. Which Primeau seems to be a candidate from.
For some reason I do suspect TracerTek and our "expert" are closely linked. Which leads to the rather interesting and probably unanswerable question of what and whose concepts that software is based on.
You have a lot of that information from Linehan's post on Wagist?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I believe it was originally from this video:

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/46910559/

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...-martin-case-zimmerman-had-run-in-with-police

Thanks. Which msnbc do I believe ?

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...estic-violence-fighting-with-a-police-officer

Court documents obtained by msnbc.com on Tuesday evening show that George Zimmerman, who fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, went to court in 2005 and 2006 for accusations of domestic violence, tussling with a police officer and speeding.
The three incidents took place in Orange County, Fla.
In 2005, Zimmerman, then 20, was arrested and charged with “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer,” both which are third-degree felonies. The charge was reduced to “resisting officer without violence” and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program.

 

[WildCat]

The Easy Voice Biometrics software package doesn't know who George Zimmerman is or care whether he is guilty or not. It's just a program that does what it has been programmed to do without subjective input from the operator. The program can be tested quite easily to determine the limits of its capabilities. So why doesn't George Zimmerman want to prove that it is his voice screaming on that 911 tape?

Any evidence of that Dan?

Why doesn't the guy pimping that software prove it does what he says it can do? He sure doesn't need Zimmerman's cooperation to do that. Here's how it could be done:
1. Record the voices of 10 people over the telephone in a lossy format, do not include the word "help" in these samples.
2. Record the same 10 people screaming "help" for 2 seconds over the telephone, at a distance, and through a wall while someone else is also talking over the phone. Also in a lossy format.
3. Match the voices to the screams in 10 out of ten cases.
4. Double blind in all cases.

Should be no problem for him if this amazing software can do what he claims it can do. I can't imagine why he hasn't done such an experiment!

eta: all participants should be the same sex, and between the ages of 17 and 28.

 

[WildCat]

You do realize that that is not (yet?) in evidence? I agree that there is some shady stuff there, but whether the person you accuse is part of that subgroup is actually still in question.

We do know he has never demonstrated this software in a science journal. We also know that what he claims it can do is so far beyond the state of the art and it would represent a giant leap forward in the science of voice recognition. And he'll sell it to you for $5,000.

Do you see the red flags waving here Moss?

 

[WildCat]

In that case...yes, I would still hold Zimmermen liable. And that's actually part of my point - it's incredibly stupid to chase after someone you think is violent, precisely because that person will most likely beat you. And a lot of normally nonviolent people will also turn on you of you do this. Calling 911 is fine, if you see an actual situation - although Zimmerman apparently did not. But chasing strangers around is not a good idea.

And what evidence do you have that Zimmerman though Martin was violent?

None, correct? You just pulled that out of thin air, didn't you?

 

[Moss]

We do know he has never demonstrated this software in a science journal. We also know that what he claims it can do is so far beyond the state of the art it would represent a giant leap forward in the science of voice recognition. And he'll sell it to you for $5,000.

Do you see the red flags waving here Moss?

I'm seeing those red flags, but those red flags do just indicate that I should be wary, they do not prove those claims. And that is what I was on about, not that we shouldn't be wary.

Having read this article at Wagist I snooped around a bit on the sites of those forensic groups linked to Block. Some of those biographies indicate board members are teachers at known diploma mills like this one.
And then we get to the interesting *cough* coincidence of the American Psychotherapy Association having the same abbreviation as the American Psychological Association.

 

[sgtbaker]

But it's certainly not benign behavior, either. It's not too much of a stretch to imagine someone feeling threatened at the idea of someone else following them around. And as the follower, you have no idea what the mental state is of the person you are following. Maybe they won't care or notice, and will just go about their business. Maybe they will feel intimidated or cornered and respond accordingly.

Either way, that's a risk you are taking by choosing to follow them in the first place.

All these "mays" and having no idea how the person may react certainly strengthens my point that one is not a mind reader. According to Zimmerman, he was running towards the back exit. That could have been enough to give Zimmerman the impression that he was not looking for a confrontation. That is my only point.

All the facts confirm is that prior to the altercation, Martin was running away while Zimmerman followed him.

One of two things happened afterward: 1) Either Zimmerman continued to follow Martin and caught up to him, or 2) Zimmerman immediately halted his pursuit and began to walk back to his truck, while simultaneously Martin stopped running away and instead turned around to pursue and attack Zimmerman.

I guess it's up to each of us to decide for ourselves which scenario seems more plausible.

You certainly make a good case in the first paragraph for 2 happening. He [Trayvon] very well could have been just "acting accordingly."

 

[Dan O.]

The problem with Easy Voice Biometrics is that it should be really easy to test but it's never been tested. Especially in the manner Owen used it with poor quality samples of emotional screams. Plus the software has been priced at five thousand dollars and there is no demo.

I would think that George Zimmerman would be eager to have the claims of this software tested. Has George or his lawyer ever proposed testing? I don't think Owen could refuse that request.