But why can't he track him or watch him ? What was Trayvon defending himself from ? Being watched ?
I don't understand why GZ didn't identify himself though. Was there some reason he couldn't say I'm with the Neighborhood Watch Program and I don't recognize you as a resident here ?
Maybe, please wait for an officer to provide some ID to prove you're not trespassing ? It doesn't change anything in regards to the stand your ground laws but maybe better training of NW volunteers could prevent another tragedy.
He had already been trained to not to follow, not to engage, not to shoot anybody he saw acting suspiciously. :cow:
Also, Robert Zimmerman, Jr. said in his interview with Piers Morgan that he and George have identical voices and identical screams, and that is how he knows that the scream was George's. They scream exactly alike.
It sounds like he's going to say anything...But hey, that's easy to test. Get them both screaming on tape and then see if they match each other and if RZ matches the 911 scream.
I really doubt we are any more stupid than your average jury which will not consist of experts. So why is it beyond our understanding?
I don't think it would be if the article had explained more of the basics. What is the baseline, the percentage of similarity that can be expected two random different samples to share? What is the percentage of similarity that two matching samples can have at the lowest? I gather that 48% falls into the range for non-matches but it would have been nice to be more explicit about it.
JMO GZ called on everyone, I don't think it had anything to do with him being black, at first in the 911 called he isn't even sure TM is black. Its dark and its raining he sees someone he doesn't know walking in the complex, GZ calls sounds like something GZ would do, he calls on everything.
If he isn't even sure that TM is black how does he know it's somebody he knows? If I don't see the person well enough tell if they're black I'm not going to be able to tell you if I know him or not because the latter distinction requires more information.
Your post leaves me even more confused than before I read it.
You have things like 40-85% being found and then 48% means no match and then a score of 74-88 is inconclusive. Sorry I don't get it.
So sorry.
It's just statistics at heart, really.
You have a range of results. At the other end of the range you're going to have results that are statistically highly improbable to come from matching samples (because they're so different). At the opposite end of the range you've got results that are statistically highly improbable to come from non-matching samples (because they're so similar). Then you might get some results in between those two extremes that are not statistically significant either way and you can't really tell what they mean. . How many exactly fall into the insignificant range depends on the distribution and overlap of the results between the matching and the non-matching sample sets and the level of statistical significance you consider sufficient for your purposes.
Profiling isn't all bad, or all racial, mfcmom.
Profiling is reality. You take into account a person's behavior, and past behavior, and reason for being out in the cold drizzle (we don't know what his reason was, just that he had been trying to do it all day) you have to be aware of what's likely.
You'd be a blind parent otherwise. And there are plenty of those, let me tell you, and there are other parents who would say what is it you're really trying to do? Where are you really planning to go? Might be innocent.
If it's a parent taking into account their child's past and present behavior I wouldn't consider it profiling, I'd just call it being an attentive parent and trying to know what's going in in their child's life.
But it has not been reported that GZ was TM's parent or knew anything about his past behavior or reasons for being out in the rain so I'm not sure how it's relevant.
Goodness, I never realized how utterly suspicious it is to be out in the rain.
THAT IS NOT A FACT - it is misleading at best.
Those tests were inconclusive because they could not
get a high enough percentage to call it a match
What we think does not matter. The facts DO.
That's not what was said though, they didn't say the results of the tests were inconclusive, they said they have a reasonable scientific certainty that the results are not a match.
I think it might have been me who confused the issue by introducing the word inconclusive into this conversation but it wasn't in reference to GZ's test, it was in an attempt to make sense of the failure to match two samples of Nixon's speech by noting that the results are probably not a dichotomy between "reasonable scientific certainty of a match" and "reasonable scientific certainty of a non-match" but there is some gray, inconclusive area in between. This gray area would allow for the tester to say that although his test failed to conclusively match the two Nixons as the same person using the 90 % cut-off for a match it does not mean that the test was invalidated by conclusively and erroneously identifying the two samples as a non-match.
Think of polygraphs. You have a pass/indicates truthfulness and fail/indicates deception but some results come back as inconclusive and you can't interpret it either as a pass or fail. (Let's not get into an OT debate of the LDT accuracy or usefulness please, I think there is a separate thread for that.)
