Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[RandFan]

I am not bringing in the fact that Martin was not a criminal as a reason why it's okay to follow him. I just don't want to come across that I think Martin was actually doing something wrong.

Zimmerman decided to follow someone who had every opportunity for a confrontation and ran away. If he thought they were a part of the previous crime wave, there is no reason to assume that he was violent. Would I follow? Probably not. Does that mean I think it's a good idea? No. Does that mean that anyone with a lick of common sense would come to the same conclusion? No.

I don't know how the law will be applied in Florida. However, IMO, a person with a firearm should take care to avoid situations that a reasonable person would conclude could likely lead to death. Having a firearm does carry with it responsibilities. Not acting in a reckless manner is one of those responsibilities. That GZ acted recklessly would of course have to be determined by a court of law. IMO: I think it more likely than not that he did.

 

[sgtbaker]

I don't know how the law will be applied in Florida. However, IMO, a person with a firearm should take care to avoid situations that a reasonable person would conclude could likely lead to death. Having a firearm does carry with it responsibilities. Not acting in a reckless manner is one of those responsibilities. That GZ acted recklessly would of course have to be determined by a court of law. IMO: I think it more likely than not that he did.

Would leaving your gun in the car, in a neighborhood with a high crime rate be considered reckless? I know it's not illegal but I believe if your gun is stolen, you are held accountable. Supposing he gave it a second thought, is it possible that he felt it was safer on him? Obviously, in the end, it turned out to be the wrong decision but is that possible?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I watched the link. No, her story isn't changing, at all. Originally he looked at them twice before answering, now it's three times. Originally he was nonchalant, "like leave me alone," about saying call the police, now he is pacing in shock, "Like what did I do?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skNKVjSxQys

I'm not sure if you are posting that to make fun of it or because you think it's relevant? That woman seems to have about as much to add as a witness as all of us do. She tells the reporter:

The cries stopped the minute the gun went off so I know it was the little boy

In other words she didn't see anything whatsoever and is engaging in pure speculation. GZ would obviously also stop screaming if those were his calls. But her wording is quite interesting, isn't it?! Martin was anything but a little boy. Where has she seen a little boy? Hmm...I bet I can guess . This may be semantics but also notice how she says "know" as in present tense, as opposed to "knew" which is the word a person might be more likely to use if they were describing what they thought at the time of the experience.

That media report is everything that is so wrong about the media. I love how the idiot reporter starts out by trying to poison the pool by saying "and she [reporter] talked to the people who really know what happened", even though the women they interviewed doesn't know what happened at all.

Then she continues with the poisoning by saying "police only took a 2 or 3 sentence statement from this woman, how long did you talk to her", whereupon the other reporter relates how they talked to her for a whole 30 minutes. Then they play snippets from that 30 minutes and she doesn't provide one useful bit of testimony. Gee, maybe that's why the police only took a 2-3 sentence statement from her!

 

[crimresearch]

Really? You're going to argue what I meant when I used the word "took"?

Feel free to look up the definition. Keep reading until you get to the part that says "carry or bring with one; convey", then drop this ridiculous line of argument.

The 'ridiculous line' began when you tried to connect Zimmerman's having the weapon on him with anything other than Zimmerman having the weapon on him.

Only one person was minding their own business. Trayvon Martin. George Zimmerman was the person who labeled Martin "suspicious" and decided to take a gun and pursue him as Martin ran away.

Does this mean that no matter what happened afterward Zimmerman is to blame? Of course not. But it does give a very plausible basis for a scenario in which Zimmerman was the aggressor in the ensuing altercation since we know this whole situation began with him being the aggressor.

Bottom line, based on what we know happened prior to the altercation, I don't believe Zimmerman when he says he acted in self-defense. At least not until he provides evidence to back up his story.

 

[sgtbaker]

I'm not sure if you are posting that to make fun of it or because you think it's relevant? That woman seems to have about as much to add as a witness as all of us do.


In other words she didn't see anything whatsoever and in addition to it is engaging in nonsensical reasoning since GZ would obviously also stop screaming if those were his calls. But her wording is quite interesting, isn't it?! Martin was anything but a little boy. Where has she seen a little boy? Hmm...I bet I can guess .

That little media report is everything that is so wrong about the media. I love how the idiot reports starts out by saying "and she [reporter] talked to the people who really know what happened", even though the women doesn't know what happened at all.

Then she says "police only took a 2 or 3 sentence statement from this woman, how long did you talk to her", whereupon she relates how they talked to her for a whole 30 minutes. The they play snipped from that 30 minutes and she doesn't provide one useful bit of testimony. Gee, maybe that's why the police only took a 2-3 sentence statement from her!

I don't think she is a very credible witness. I don't think she is that relevant it was in answer to her story being contrary to Zimmerman's. Her story seems to be contrary to her story. She also said, a long time ago, that the police that interviewed Zimmerman asked him questions instead of letting him tell his story. According to the police report, he was secured in the car and questioned at the station.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Why would GZ be eager to try his case in the court of public opinion ?

GZ hasn't been charged with anything. GZ has already stated it was he who was screaming. Witnesses have corroborated his story. Why would he be worried about untested software that makes outlandish claims ?

We already are trying his case here.

Sure we are. But the involved parties aren't active participants in our discussion.

So, would you like to answer my questions ?

 

[tsig]

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

He took his gun.

 

[RandFan]

Would leaving your gun in the car, in a neighborhood with a high crime rate be considered reckless? I know it's not illegal but I believe if your gun is stolen, you are held accountable. Supposing he gave it a second thought, is it possible that he felt it was safer on him? Obviously, in the end, it turned out to be the wrong decision but is that possible?

I think the prudent course of action is to not leave the vehicle to pursue a course of action that had reasonable degree of likelihood of harm.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It sure is. Too bad no one you've accused of spinning it that way actually did.

He took his gun.

OK then.

 

[sgtbaker]

I think the prudent course of action is to not leave the vehicle to pursue a course of action that had reasonable degree of likelihood of harm.

Me too. That's not what I asked, though. As I said a few pages ago, the dispatcher, early in the conversations plainly says, "let me know if he does anything else." Is it possible that he took that as a request?

 

[RandFan]

Me too. That's not what I asked, though. As I said a few pages ago, the dispatcher, early in the conversations plainly says, "let me know if he does anything else." Is it possible that he took that as a request?

Yes, I did note your post. I found that thought provoking. If we are going to assume that "we don't need you to do that" was important then we should also consider the request to keep the dispatcher apprised of Martin's actions. That said I think my point does address your question as it makes it moot, IMO.

 

[sgtbaker]

Yes, I did note your post. I found that thought provoking. If we are going to assume that "we don't need you to do that" was important then we should also consider the request to keep the dispatcher apprised of Martin's actions. That said I think my point does address your question as it makes it moot, IMO.

I get your position. Don't get out of the car and it's a fair and safe position to have. I don't disagree that staying in the car would have prevented all of this from happening. For the sake of the argument though, and sticking with the actually events; for reasons unknown to us, Zimmerman did decide to get out of the car. Assuming he gave the fact that he had a gun on his person a second thought (because we really don't know if he did or not), is it possible that his line of thinking was that there was not going to be a confrontation and the gun would be safer on him?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Question for everyone. One of the things that keeps getting brought up again and again is that it is was reckless of GZ to follow TM. Maybe so, but it seems to me that may be the result of 20/20 hindsight resulting in an assumption there that GZ's following was of such a nature that he should have foreseen it as being dangerous.

But I don't see that as necessarily being the case. Is it possible that GZ was just trying to keep track of TM from a safe distance? And that TM lost him (or GZ lost TM) and that the two ended up closer than GZ ever intended?

 

[RandFan]

I get your position. Don't get out of the car and it's a fair and safe position to have. I don't disagree that staying in the car would have prevented all of this from happening. For the sake of the argument though, and sticking with the actually events; for reasons unknown to us, Zimmerman did decide to get out of the car. Assuming he gave the fact that he had a gun on his person a second thought (because we really don't know if he did or not), is it possible that his line of thinking was that there was not going to be a confrontation and the gun would be safer on him?

I'm willing to grant the proposition. Though to be sure GZ found Martin suspicious. Assuming his suspicions why would he assume there would not be some likelihood of a confrontation? Perhaps he thought he would only keep Martin in sight. Assuming that, it didn't turn out so well. From my perspective we have to really stretch to preserve Zimmerman's prudence. Not impossible but it's like drunk driving. Sure, perhaps prior to all of the arrests and convictions for DUI/DWI someone could reasonable argue that they were not aware of the risks. Well, they should be. Ignorance isn't always an excuse. If you are going to carry a fire arm then perhaps you should bear some responsibility and not simply appeal to good faith ignorance.

 

[bynmdsue]

Pussy Ass Cracker! Get yer Pussy Ass Cracker Tee-shirts!
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/trayvon-martin/cracker-tshirt-759832

Well, that must be a joke, surely noone would wear such an inflammatory tee-shirt in public. Like at a memorial or something.http://weaselzippers.us/2012/04/07/top-southern-baptist-leader-rips-race-hustlers-sharpton-and-jackson-over-trayvon-martin-case-obama-for-pouring-gasoline-on-the-racialist-fires/

 

[bynmdsue]

Armed Neo-Nazis Patrol Sanford

Either it's a hoax or the Nazi's are goosestepping vewy vewy quietly.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sanford-police-deny-report-armed-neo-nazis-are-patrolling-town-in-case-of-race-riots/

 

[Jekyll's Guest]

Pussy Ass Cracker! Get yer Pussy Ass Cracker Tee-shirts!
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/trayvon-martin/cracker-tshirt-759832

Well, that must be a joke, surely noone would wear such an inflammatory tee-shirt in public. Like at a memorial or something.http://weaselzippers.us/2012/04/07/top-southern-baptist-leader-rips-race-hustlers-sharpton-and-jackson-over-trayvon-martin-case-obama-for-pouring-gasoline-on-the-racialist-fires/

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
H. L. Mencken
US editor (1880 - 1956)

 

[triforcharity]

If there were clear answers, we wouldn't need lawyers to interpret the laws. 776.012 says yes. But...

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.​

What seems confusing about that statute?

Seems pretty clear to me. But hey, I am not a lawyer......Oh, wait, I'm NOT a lawyer, but understand it perfectly.

 

[curi0us]

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.

My claim is that Owen (and Primeau) can't do what they claim to do. Where did they ever back up their claims?

If Owen allowed his program to be tested by a neutral third party it would not work as he said it does. Unlike human experts doing voice identifications the software can be tested incredibly easily and very quickly. Either Owen is so stupid he doesn't realize that, or he is such a practiced con man that he lies naturally and doesn't think he will suffer any consequences.

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.

There is a link for sure but I am not sure if too much can be read into that. Tracertek makes legit audio software and may have thought working with a prestigious name like Owen was good business without realizing how woo he was. Or maybe EVB is Owen's project and he just negotiated a website and tech support deal with TracerTek. Many possibilities there and I dunno the truth at all.

Which leads to the rather interesting and probably unanswerable question of what and whose concepts that software is based on.

This is where there is an interesting twist. From Owen's scant writings he comes across as an audio dinosaur who never evolved past a 1980's skill set. I suspect Owen had very little to do with EVB software development, yet Owen's LLC does own the website it is sold on.

You have a lot of that information from Linehan's post on Wagist?

I have been doing my own research and know some details that Linehan didn't write about.

EVB isn't really that interesting to me, as soon as someone gets a copy of it they will see it's limitations very clearly. What I am wondering about now (and researching) is if there have been other criminal cases were Owen's "scientific certainty" caused a miscarriage of justice.

I haven't really answered all your questions but I just found out how much Owen charges per an hour. Can't talk much, busy starting new business as audio forensics expert.

 

[curi0us]

Now starting American Forensic Audio Standards Association (AFASA) and The Berkley Institute of Forensic Audio Research (BIFAR).

I don't mean to brag, but the American Forensic Audio Standards Association has such high standards that I am the only person in the country to have ever met their certification requirements in all the forensic audio fields. I also am the only person to ever score a perfect 100% on the AFASA Voice ID qualifying test. In honor of my service to the audio forensics community the AFASA just gave me the coveted "Golden Ear" award. Now they made me president. (It's been a busy five minutes.)

For those interested in certification in forensic audio the only school the AFASA has found that can meet our high standards is The Berkeley Institute of Forensic Audio Research. Pricing for the classes at the BIFAR may seem high but remember that it is such a prestigious organization that people like the president of the AFASA teach classes there. To show how important audio science is to the BIFAR they don't have a visual website but instead use advanced vocal methods of description via telephonic transmission to elucidate the education pathways available for audio engineering candidates. Call the phone number of the AFASA to hear the website of the BIFAR today.