Self Defense Killing in Florida...Geeks got an opinion?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Why are you defending this scared little peon? You guys are usually all about prosecuting

You are confusing waiting for the investigation to play out with defending someone you have already convicted before all the facts are known.

 

It's called common sense. Obviously a foreign concept to you.

[drobeski 3,061]

How do you feel now that it would appear that Trayvon Martin was likely the one screaming for HELP as heard on the 911 tapes?

Likely ? Same way as before ...let the facts come out before rushing to judgement. The same way anyone that is unbiased and has a rational mind should feel.

Not to be mean here but its pretty obvious your rationality flew out the window when your dad started banging a black guy.

Transparent is beyond the word.

[DankNuggs 305]

What the he!! does this mean? Where did you pull that 60% number from? The lower % means it has less chance of being Zimmerman than if there was 60% correlation. It doesn't mean it was Martin, but I think you'd have to be pretty conspiratorial to think there is an unknown third person screaming, unless there is an as-yet unidentified eye witness.

The first report i read about this said they'd expect 60% to be able to make some conclusion, now its 90%... numbers always changing, making me believe this isn't cut and dry evidence...

 

They are leading you to believe that because they couldn't 100% conclude it was zimmerman, that it was Martin... That isn't necessarily logical.

[nikki2200 4]

Hang em

 

 

Likely ? Same way as before ...let the facts come out before rushing to judgement. The same way anyone that is unbiased and has a rational mind should feel.

Not to be mean here but its pretty obvious your rationality flew out the window when your dad started banging a black guy.

Transparent is beyond the word.

 

Weird....

 

Seems you only started becoming "rational" once this became a political thing.

[phillybear 366]

How do you feel now that it would appear that Trayvon Martin was likely the one screaming for HELP as heard on the 911 tapes?

 

The reason there has been no credible match so far is that they can't reproduce the high pitched sissy, girly screams of that c0ck sucker Martin. But, somebody that claims that it's a match has been in business for 3 weeks, so that should be a great asset for the defense attorneys trying to prove Martin's innocence.

 

How come Martin got off his phone with his gal, did not call the police and report that somebody was following him, double back, and attack Zimmerman. Why didn't he just go inside his relative's home, which he was near? Was he afraid for his life, or a monster trying to kill somebody? Logically, Martin should be convicted and sentenced to death by lethal injection.

[jerryskids 7,192]

 

Not to be mean here but its pretty obvious your rationality flew out the window when your dad started banging a black guy.

 

 

This may be the best use of the "no offense but..." card I've ever seen.

[drobeski 3,061]

Weird....

 

Seems you only started becoming "rational" once more of the facts came out .

Fixed

[IGotWorms 4,063]

Who's defending anyone ? Are you trying to tell me your privy to all the facts in this case ? You must be the way you talk like a know it all blowhard.

No chance in hell you're a lawyer, if you were you would understand how things work

Do you work in your uncles law office "helping out" when they run out of paper is have to take the trash out ?

 

Not even close. Do you make it a policy to be wrong in every post you write or are you just that focking dumb?

[nikki2200 4]

The first report i read about this said they'd expect 60% to be able to make some conclusion, now its 90%... numbers always changing, making me believe this isn't cut and dry evidence...

 

They are leading you to believe that because they couldn't 100% conclude it was zimmerman, that it was Martin... That isn't necessarily logical.

 

Dank... I think those voice identification programs are pretty accurate. It's like a fingerprint. And the guy who did the analysis seems to have all the credentials to make him an "expert". 48% match on a fingerprint or DNA means it's not a match. I would expect the same to be true here. Or I could watch too much TV. The original article said that the "expert" expected there to be above 90% match if it were a match, and that his program is accurate over 99% of the time. Not sure where you got your 60% number, but that's what the original article said.

 

And if it's not Zimmerman's voice... there's only one other "logical" conclusion.

 

I'm assuming that the DOJ will be doing voice identification on BOTH Zimmerman and Martin as part of the investigation. But at this point, it doesn't look good.

[DankNuggs 305]

Dank... I think those voice identification programs are pretty accurate. It's like a fingerprint. And the guy who did the analysis seems to have all the credentials to make him an "expert". 48% match on a fingerprint or DNA means it's not a match. I would expect the same to be true here. Or I could watch too much TV. The original article said that the "expert" expected there to be above 90% match if it were a match, and that his program is accurate over 99% of the time. Not sure where you got your 60% number, but that's what the original article said.

 

And if it's not Zimmerman's voice... there's only one other "logical" conclusion.

 

I'm assuming that the DOJ will be doing voice identification on BOTH Zimmerman and Martin as part of the investigation. But at this point, it doesn't look good.

So what chance is there that the machine won't conclude there is a match when there is one? I am doubtful that this type of science is as accurate as DNA...

 

Maybe it is that simple, but i am skeptical. This is Nancy Grace BS...

[drobeski 3,061]

Not even close. Do you make it a policy to be wrong in every post you write or are you just that focking dumb?

I'm certainly right that you have no clue how the legal system works, you've proven that with every post you made.

It's quite possible you're more retarded than al nottoosharpton

[hoytdwow 202]

 

because they couldn't 100% conclude it was zimmerman, that it was Martin... That isn't necessarily logical.

Nowhere in the article does the guy say it's Martin. He just says it's not Zimmerman. That leaves either Martin or a bystander. Or maybe Zimmerman was beating someone else up, too.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

 

Look at thesr conservatives questioning every piece of evidence and standing up for pvssy fence-sitting prosecutors.

 

Usually these guys don't give a damn about the rights of the accused but in this thread you would think they are all bleeding heart soft-on-crime commie pinko queers.

 

I wonder why that is? What could explain their newfound desire to protect The accused at every turn, evidence be damned?

 

Better not suggest it may be the race of the victim. Oh no, that's "race baiting"

[Herbivore 1,222]

So what chance is there that the machine won't conclude there is a match when there is one? I am doubtful that this type of science is as accurate as DNA...

 

Maybe it is that simple, but i am skeptical. This is Nancy Grace BS...

 

I have seen the 60% number somewhere in all this, or one of the links also.

[NorthernVike 2,100]

What was the first thing Zimmerman told the cops when they showed up at the scene of the altercation?

 

-Ees a ham bush.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

 

I wonder why that is? What could explain their newfound desire to protect The accused at every turn, evidence be damned?

Link to charges being brought. Apparently our "Attorney" doesn't know the definition of "accused".

 

Hmmmmmm...............

[BLS 315]

Strike provided a multitude of examples where it would appear that according to Florida's self defense laws, if you want to kill someone, all you have to do is chase them down, pick a fight with them, wait until they hit you, then shoot.

 

 

Every state has legislature that requires you to be an "innocent victim" (aka 'reluctant participant') in self defense situations.

You cannot knowingly agitate someone in an effort to get them to attack so you can use force to defend yourself.

 

 

Any case showing otherwise would have to show extenuating circumstances.

[drobeski 3,061]

 

Look at thesr conservatives questioning every piece of evidence and standing up for pvssy fence-sitting prosecutors.

 

Usually these guys don't give a damn about the rights of the accused but in this thread you would think they are all bleeding heart soft-on-crime commie pinko queers.

 

I wonder why that is? What could explain their newfound desire to protect The accused at every turn, evidence be damned?

 

Better not suggest it may be the race of the victim. Oh no, that's "race baiting"

Race is the only reason you give a rats ass. That's how racists like jessy Jackson, al sharpton and ass clowns like you roll.

So focking desperate to make this a white black issue, is sad pathetic and funny all wrapped up in one

A focking Mexican ....white guilt ...its how dems try to win elections

[NorthernVike 2,100]

Race is the only reason you give a rats ass. That's how racists like jessy Jackson, al sharpton and ass clowns like you roll.

So focking desperate to make this a white black issue, is sad pathetic and funny all wrapped up in one

A focking Mexican ....white guilt ...its how dems try to win elections

This

[nikki2200 4]

Every state has legislature that requires you to be an "innocent victim" (aka 'reluctant participant') in self defense situations.

You cannot knowingly agitate someone in an effort to get them to attack so you can use force to defend yourself.

 

 

Any case showing otherwise would have to show extenuating circumstances.

 

Apparently that is not true in Florida. Read Strike's article and some of the cases where people have gotten off without prosecution where they were the agitator in the situation. Including and not limited to:

- Someone shooting a man as he was walking away from a fight

- A man approaching a vehicle that was following him and when he gets up to the window the guy shoots him

- A guy chasing someone down the street wielding a knife and then stabbing him after he took an unsuccessful swing at him

 

[nikki2200 4]

So what chance is there that the machine won't conclude there is a match when there is one? I am doubtful that this type of science is as accurate as DNA...

 

Maybe it is that simple, but i am skeptical. This is Nancy Grace BS...

 

It's a science that has been around since the 1970s and has been used by the FBI, police departments, attorneys on both sides of the table, etc. And the guy who did the analysis has worked with all of those entities. They used it when trying to determine if recordings released were actually of Osama bin Laden a few years ago.

 

I doubt it's as accurate as DNA analysis, but it's not like it's some newfangled thing that has no scientific merit.

[penultimatestraw 473]

The first report i read about this said they'd expect 60% to be able to make some conclusion, now its 90%... numbers always changing, making me believe this isn't cut and dry evidence...

 

They are leading you to believe that because they couldn't 100% conclude it was zimmerman, that it was Martin... That isn't necessarily logical.

If it wasn't Zimmerman, who was it?

[IGotWorms 4,063]

If it wasn't Zimmerman, who was it?

 

The man on the grassy knoll, of course.

[BLS 315]

Apparently that is not true in Florida. Read Strike's article and some of the cases where people have gotten off without prosecution where they were the agitator in the situation. Including and not limited to:

- Someone shooting a man as he was walking away from a fight

- A man approaching a vehicle that was following him and when he gets up to the window the guy shoots him

- A guy chasing someone down the street wielding a knife and then stabbing him after he took an unsuccessful swing at him

 

 

Which of the 21 pages do you think it's on, because I'm not reading the whole thread.

 

The 'Stand your ground' law does NOT give you the ability to instigate or initiate contact in an effort to escalate for malicious purposes.

[drobeski 3,061]

If it wasn't Zimmerman, who was it?

Worms crying for his mom to wipe his ass ? Could be, he's only in Alaska

[IGotWorms 4,063]

Worms crying for his mom to wipe his ass ? Could be, he's only in Alaska

 

You sure seem to know things about me, which is odd. I have no idea where you live or what you do.

 

Actually this is exactly why I deleted my Ask Me Anything thread. You creepy little weirdos are obsessed with me.

[drobeski 3,061]

You sure seem to know things about me, which is odd. I have no idea where you live or what you do.

 

Actually this is exactly why I deleted my Ask Me Anything thread. You creepy little weirdos are obsessed with me.

Your mom is very talkative

[nikki2200 4]

Which of the 21 pages do you think it's on, because I'm not reading the whole thread.

 

The 'Stand your ground' law does NOT give you the ability to instigate or initiate contact in an effort to escalate for malicious purposes.

 

Just read the part the Strike quoted and it has some of the cases.

 

It seems all the people involved in passing these laws do not think so either. But the way the legislation is being determined in court, seems to be different than the original intent. The only thing that matters is if you say you were in fear for your life or bodily harm, even if you started it, and you can go ahead and shoot away.

 

ETA: Hold on a sec. I'm trying to find the article he posted.

[nikki2200 4]

OK BLS. Here is the article:

 

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/stand-your-ground-law-protects-those-who-go-far-beyond-that-point/1222930

 

Another case they mentioned was a bouncer at a strip club going out to the parking lot where a drunk guy threw a bottle at him and he shot him 6 times. Judge threw the case out as self defense.

[penultimatestraw 473]

So what chance is there that the machine won't conclude there is a match when there is one? I am doubtful that this type of science is as accurate as DNA...

 

Maybe it is that simple, but i am skeptical. This is Nancy Grace BS...

I suspect it isn't as accurate as DNA analysis but 99% is pretty good. You want the negative predictive value of the test I believe, which isn't stated in the article.

[penultimatestraw 473]

 

Look at thesr conservatives questioning every piece of evidence and standing up for pvssy fence-sitting prosecutors.

 

Usually these guys don't give a damn about the rights of the accused but in this thread you would think they are all bleeding heart soft-on-crime commie pinko queers.

 

I wonder why that is? What could explain their newfound desire to protect The accused at every turn, evidence be damned?

 

Better not suggest it may be the race of the victim. Oh no, that's "race baiting"

It would be interesting to see how critical they would be if the voice was identified as Zimmerman...

[Strike 6,032]

It's a science that has been around since the 1970s and has been used by the FBI, police departments, attorneys on both sides of the table, etc. And the guy who did the analysis has worked with all of those entities. They used it when trying to determine if recordings released were actually of Osama bin Laden a few years ago.

 

I doubt it's as accurate as DNA analysis, but it's not like it's some newfangled thing that has no scientific merit.

 

You're full of sh*t, as usual. Got any proof as to the reliability of said evidence? Here's an article from one of those biased sources....CNN. I'll just quote the relevant portion:

 

But David Faigman, a professor of law at the University of California-Hastings and an expert on the admissibility of scientific evidence, said courts and the overall scientific community have mixed opinions about the reliability of such "voiceprint" analysis.

 

However, because one goal in the Martin case might be ruling out Zimmerman as the source of the screams -- rather than precisely identifying who actually was yelling -- it could lower the bar for getting such evidence into court, he said.

 

Still, he said, it wouldn't be too hard for Zimmerman's attorneys to find an audio expert to offer an opposing opinion.

 

"These expert witnesses come out of the woodwork when money is concerned," he said.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/justice/florida-teen-shooting/?hpt=hp_c1

 

And I read in another article that one of these two experts sells the s/w he used for this analysis for 5k a pop. So getting this type of publicity might just help him a little, ya know? So, how about that link to the reliability of this type of analysis?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

It would be interesting to see how critical they would be if the voice was identified as Zimmerman...

I'm sure you would still be touting some mythical 99% accuracy rate.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

So now you all are opposed to expert testimony in general? Here's a tip: expert witnesses are almost always paid for their testimony. So if that means that we have to completely discount their opinions, well, we are going to do one hell of an overhaul of our entire system of law!

[nikki2200 4]

You're full of sh*t, as usual. Got any proof as to the reliability of said evidence? Here's an article from one of those biased sources....CNN. I'll just quote the relevant portion:

 

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/02/justice/florida-teen-shooting/?hpt=hp_c1

 

And I read in another article that one of these two experts sells the s/w he used for this analysis for 5k a pop. So getting this type of publicity might just help him a little, ya know? So, how about that link to the reliability of this type of analysis?

 

http://www.forensictapeexpert.com/published/voice_identification.htm

 

Several studies have been published on the reliability of voice identification. A Federal Bureau of Investigation survey of its own performance in the voiceprint examination of 2,000 forensic cases revealed an error rate of 0.31 percent for false identifications and 0.53 percent for false eliminations.

 

Is the FBI a reliable source? This type of analysis is also admittable as evidence in 35 states. And it's been around for years. How am I full of shiit? They were trying to do this on Deep Throat in the 70s FFS.

 

I'm not going to sit here and google shiit and now pretend that we are audio forensics experts. But it's not like this science is new or has never been used in a court case before. Maybe you need to keep googling.

[KSB2424 3,174]

So now you all are opposed to expert testimony in general? Here's a tip: expert witnesses are almost always paid for their testimony. So if that means that we have to completely discount their opinions, well, we are going to do one hell of an overhaul of our entire system of law!

I think the point is that if there is any expert witness, said witness would be propely vetted and not some random person doing side work for their own publicity.

 

The funeral director was CSI-Sanford all the sudden. Is he now an expert medical examiner in your eyes?

 

Look, maybe this Zimmerman dude was in the wrong here, but there has been so much crapola bullshat going on that its really hard to decipher what is peanuts and what is shit right now. That's sort of the point.

[Strike 6,032]

http://www.forensictapeexpert.com/published/voice_identification.htm

 

 

 

Is the FBI a reliable source? This type of analysis is also admittable as evidence in 35 states. And it's been around for years. How am I full of shiit? They were trying to do this on Deep Throat in the 70s FFS.

 

I'm not going to sit here and google shiit and now pretend that we are audio forensics experts. But it's not like this science is new or has never been used in a court case before. Maybe you need to keep googling.

 

You left out several relevant parts of that link:

 

While Cain agrees that "there is disagreement in the so-called 'scientific community' on the degree of accuracy with which examiners can identify speakers under all conditions, there is agreement that voices can, m fact, be identified."

 

So even your own link agrees with the quote I posted. I have no doubt a voice can be identified. I have doubts that you can take disparate voice samples and do it though, which is what these experts did with Zimmerman.

 

The process of identifying voices visually involves translating the wave patterns produced by the voice into a pictorial display called a spectogram. The spectogram serves as a permanent record of the words spoken and facilitates the visual comparison of similar words spoken by an unknown and known speaker's voice.

 

Cain says that it's essential that speech samples contain exactly the same words and phrases as those in the questioned sample, because only identical speech sounds are used for comparison. He says the suspect should not be allowed to read the phrases from a transcript but should repeat each phrase after it is spoken by someone else. To avoid an unnatural response, the suspect should repeat the first phrase and proceed in the same manner with each successive phrase.

 

So you get the person to say the same words twice and compare them. I can agree that there could be some validity and level of accuracy when done using that method. That's not what happened here. Nice try though. At least you provided a link for once. Too bad it doesn't support your assertion.

[BLS 315]

OK BLS. Here is the article:

 

http://www.tampabay....t-point/1222930

 

Another case they mentioned was a bouncer at a strip club going out to the parking lot where a drunk guy threw a bottle at him and he shot him 6 times. Judge threw the case out as self defense.

 

 

Here's the FL statute:

Florida statute 776.013(3) says: (a) person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

 

I've read two cases so far.

 

1. Guy stealing radios out of a dudes car. Dude confronts bad guy, chases bad guy until bad guy swings at him (great bodily harm), and he uses a gun to defend himself.

2. Bouncer goes to confront someone who threw a beer bottle at him. If bouncer shot the man, he would have to have been attacked again in order to use deadly force. He could not use the bottle being thrown at him as justification because once it landed is was no longer a threat to him. However, under the stand your ground law, he has the right to be in a public place (parking lot) and has the right to discuss what happened with the drunk guy. Drunk guy obviously did something after that to justify use of deadly force, and thus got ventilated.

 

Here's right from Florida's FAQ:

 

Q. WHAT IF I SEE A CRIME BEING

COMMITTED?

A. A license to carry a concealed weapon

or firearm does not make you a free-lance

policeman. But, as stated earlier, deadly

force is justified if you are trying to prevent

the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

The use of deadly force must be absolutely

necessary to prevent the crime. Also, if the

criminal runs away, you cannot use deadly

force to stop him, because you would no

longer be “preventing” a crime. If use of

deadly force is not necessary, or you use

deadly force after the crime has stopped, you

could be convicted of manslaughter.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You left out several relevant parts of that link:

 

 

 

So even your own link agrees with the quote I posted. I have no doubt a voice can be identified. I have doubts that you can take disparate voice samples and do it though, which is what these experts did with Zimmerman.

 

 

 

 

 

So you get the person to say the same words twice and compare them. I can agree that there could be some validity and level of accuracy when done using that method. That's not what happened here. Nice try though. At least you provided a link for once. Too bad it doesn't support your assertion.

 

Well then, there is an easy solution here. Put Zimmerman outside some house, have someone on the inside call 911, get Trayvon to pummel Zimmerman until he screams "Help!", and compare the recording made thru the phone to the actual 911 recording.

 

Simple.

[DankNuggs 305]

If it wasn't Zimmerman, who was it?

Gotta ask the Speak n' Spell apparently.