17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #13

[legalmania]

Well, yes. But the dispatcher didn't say that.

The dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that". IMHO, meaning, "we can find him, thanks anyway." This is in no way the same thing as LE saying "get back".

No because a police officer was en route, so they were coming.

 

[Donjeta]

I was referring to Owen, and that entire paragraph is:



It seems like that last part is a pretty big exception to me. He only has half of the puzzle. You cannot determine validity in a certain scenario without a control group. "Reasonable scientific certainty" means just that - he's taken what he has into account and can reasonably make a hypothesis, however, he cannot confirm it was Trayvon's voice.

I didn't interpret it like that.
I think he's just being scientifically precise and notes that although he can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not GZ (and a number of other random comparison people that he could test) he can't say that it's TM because he didn't test that. It's a pretty standard disclaimer imo.

If there was a partial fingerprint and he'd have tested it against GZ's prints he could say the same thing. That he is reasonably certain it's not a match to GZ but he can't conclude that it's Trayvon's because he didn't have TM's fingerprints to compare.

IMO it doesn't mean that he has to test TM's voice to know for sure that it's not GZ's.
If his method is any good he should have the research to know how accurate his tests would be with the kind of samples he's using.
(if not, we can ignore what he says but I assume a court recognized expert has to provide some background to become an expert)

 

[Boytwnmom]

hate crime statute. I really don't know if FL has a state statute or not but I do know the feds are investigating and that would be under the

Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes

I'm not very familiar with hate crimes but an essential part of all crimes is mens rea or intent. Here there needs to be racial animus not just a bias or prejudice against a group that causes you to be more likely to draw a conclusion against one of them. Now, that's my completely unresearched opinion based upon general knowledge of criminal law.

I think the hate, the racial animus, has to be the prime motivator. I'm not at all convinced that was the case here. I do believe GZ's conclusions about TM were based in some part on race but I don't think he was motivated in his actions by hatred of black people nor am I even sure he actually intended to commit a crime against him although there is some evidence that he had some point formed an intent to detain him which would be unlawful. I might suggest he was more driven by fear than hate. I also think he was an over-zealous, hyped up person who was a ticking time bomb once he had a gun but who was not consciously out gunning for anyone-if that makes sense!

Interesting issue-I know there have been some on line discussions about this topic but I haven't really had time to read the actual statute and any case law to see how it may be applicable or not applicable here. Of course, he could always be charged under the law and be acquitted but I don't think the feds want to bring unsustainable hate crime prosecutions, at least I hope they don't.

Sorry to snip your excellent post. I hope everyone reads it in its entirety on page 1 of this thread.

But you hint at an interesting question: suppose hypothetically that one believes African-American teens have been committing burglaries in the neighborhood and then getting away because police response times are slow. And further suppose that GZ was fed up and decided that THIS AA teen wasn't getting away, not tonight, enough was enough.

Is that a HATE crime? It has a racial element, certainly, but the animus is directed at a small, CRIMINAL subset of black youths, not necessarily at African-Americans in general. Racism being a complicated impulse, one might well have close AA friends and simultaneously feel a deep resentment at black criminals who were robbing one's neighbors.

Or to put it more briefly, assuming the above, GZ shot TM because GZ believed TM was yet another black youth burglarizing nearby homes, NOT merely because TM was black. Still not self-defense, but is it a hate crime under Florida law?

 

[rbrnmw2]

Nite guys

nite Tulessa

 

[LambChop]

Well, yes. But the dispatcher didn't say that.

The dispatcher said "we don't need you to do that". IMHO, meaning, "we can find him, thanks anyway." This is in no way the same thing as LE saying "get back".

They told him to wait for the patrol car on it's way....I never heard the dispatcher say....go get em George, head him off at the pass. It's like "what the meaning of is, is". GZ knew exactly what he was suppose to do. There was no "gray" area he was fully aware of what he was doing. jmo

 

[SuziQ]

it's like with DNA, the higher the "match" the more likely it is the same person. From what I understand the 48% excludes it being GZ's voice. So that method focused on GZ. The other method did not exclude GZ it instead concluded it was Trayvon so essentially one test was a negative for GZ and the other was a positive for Trayvon.

The two experts here actually used different methods to do the voice match. The 48% one was by Tom Owen who used voice identification software, Easy Voice Biometrics" to

The other person, Ed Primeau, used to conclude:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...-george-zimmerman-911-20120331,0,250481.story

Sigh

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

(snip)
The software compared that audio to Zimmerman's voice. It returned a 48 percent match. Owen said to reach a positive match with audio of this quality, he'd expect higher than 90 percent.

 

[songline]

The news on weekends is no less reliable than it is on weekdays. Saturday editions tend to have lower readership than Sundays (though this may have changed somewhat with the advent of online news, the 24-hour news cycle, and the decline of printed papers).

The fact that this hit the OS today doesn't indicate that the voice analyses were inaccurate somehow... IMO it indicates that the results were probably released yesterday, and/or that perhaps the OS was attempting not to fan the flames in this case and so chose to drop the story on the "slowest" of the news days.

Just some thoughts I'm noodling around.

Possible, still a bit odd.

 

[vlpate]

Well, in most places you do have to take a written test and be able to drive the car within the traffic laws.

I don't know of anywhere that tests any safety measures for owning a gun.

Just sayin'

Salem

Classes are required in most states to carry a concealed weapon.

However, if Ted Nugent can lawfully own an arsenal of firearms, it's probably safe to say mental evaluations are not always done.

Just sayin'

 

[legalmania]

What law did GZ break when he disregarded the dispatchers suggestion?

Do we know for a fact that GZ did disregard the dispatchers suggestion?

Well when the witness called they were seen together fighting, then the witness heard the shot. So yes.

 

[Nova]

I personally think both of them could have been screaming. Have these expert considered that possibility?

Yes, I'm sure they did. They were already having to filter out the voices of the caller and 911 dispatcher; the experts were aware there were more than one voice on the tape.

As for whether an expert can compare screaming to speaking in a normal tone, volume and pitch are only two factors in a voice comparison. There are others.

 

[m00c0w]

I didn't interpret it like that.
I think he's just being scientifically precise and notes that although he can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not GZ (and a number of other random comparison people that he could test) he can't say that it's TM because he didn't test that. It's a pretty standard disclaimer imo.

If there was a partial fingerprint and he'd have tested it against GZ's prints he could say the same thing. That he is reasonably certain it's not a match to GZ but he can't conclude that it's Trayvon's because he didn't have TM's fingerprints to compare.

IMO it doesn't mean that he has to test TM's voice to know for sure that it's not GZ's.
If his method is any good he should have the research to know how accurate his tests would be with the kind of samples he's using.
(if not, we can ignore what he says but I assume a court recognized expert has to provide some background to become an expert)

The software has only been out for around three weeks. I'm not sure how anyone could gauge its reliability in that time, much less in case where they only have one side of the story and cannot test the other.

 

[Donjeta]

One has been eliminated by a test that hasn't been validated. The media can portray it how they want, but you still need a control in an experiment for a reason. This is why he "stressed" that he did not have Trayvon's voice to confirm.

Trayvon wouldn't be a control sample imo, he'd be another subject.

 

[Peliman]

This case has gone viral in here and I've got some pieces of what happened (I think) I'm curious if a medical examiners report has been released. Besides the gunshot wound I wonder if any other medical findings were made on Trayvon?

 

[iluvmua]

IMO when the police dispatcher said don't follow him that should have ended that. Zimmerman should have stopped. I think from that point on Zimmerman took the law into his own hands.

he told him " We do not need you to do that".

 

[LolaMoon08]

I agree. And now that we are reasonably sure the screaming is coming from Martin, I wonder what people imagine was happening? Were TM and GZ wrestling for the gun? Was TM just standing there pleading for his life?

I realize no one knows for sure. I'm just wondering what people think.

This is always what I thought happened.

Trayvon thinks he loses Zimmerman.

Zimmerman gets out of his car.

Trayvon is walking down the long stretch of sidewalk.

Zimmerman cuts through the buildings.

They come face to face.

Trayvon "Why are you following me?"

Zimmerman "What are you doing here?"

I think it was here that Trayvon knew Zimmerman had a gun. Whether he actually took it out of the holster or he was trying to intimidate Trayvon and lifted his jacket to show him.

This is also where the girlfriend says she heard pushing and the phone went dead.

I believe whatever altercation started was based on the fact that Trayvon knew Zimmerman had that gun.

 

[Nova]

If this guy testifies using things like 48% that it is Zimmerman, a jury could say it's almost 50/50 either way and disregard it entirely. JMO.

If an expert testifies to that figure with no other explanation, perhaps, but that will take incompetence on the part of both the expert and the prosecutor.

I think juries tend to ignore expert testimony largely when they get diametrically opposed opinions and don't have the scientific knowledge to sort them out. So unless the defense can come up with an expert who says the screams ARE Zimmerman's, I think the jury will assume they are Martin's.

 

[daisy7]

i WOULD LOVE TO SEE THOSE TAPES IF ANYONE HAS THEM
FROM THE 7/11

I'm curious why seeing those tapes would be helpful?

 

[Ironhorse]

I think the major thing to consider is the concept that "laying blame is of no material importance". So, let's use instead the phrase "accepting responsibility", since I, too, agree blame serves no one. Who is responsible and therefore accountable?
IF the man had climbed over a private fence and encountered an attacking dog, he is liable for any injury he does the dog, and the property for that matter, because he made a conscious choice to commit an illegal action. If the dog encountered the man on the man's property, the dog owner is liable for injury to the man or his property because he committed an illegal action.

We know who shot Martin.
What we don't know was it justifiable.

Two trains of thought here:
1# The newly assigned DA found the same lack of evidence that her predecessor had and that's why we've not seen an arrest?

2# Or the newly assigned DA is buying her time so that she shift the determination onto the Grand Jury?

As for the dog & my neighbor they both was in the middle of the street the one inciting the other and neither willing to back down. The dog had as much right to be where he was as the man. But it became a standoff and had the dog bitten my neighbor I would have told him he got what he was asking for. Of course had the dog attacked him and he killed it I would have said the dog got what it had coming... See the point I'm making is each had a right to be where they was, each had a right to defend themselves. Yet, neither had the right to provoke the other as they was doing but in doing so this didn't evaporate the right of the attacked to not defend themselves... The dog's owner is inconsequential right at the moment you're having to deal with whether your about to get bitten... It's a bit like the government surveyor showing the bull in the pasture his papers, the bull is still going to chase him regardless of what authority he may think he has.

I feel that leading people to believe that situations like this just happen as a matter of coincidence and that the factors LEADING UP TO the event causing injury is of no importance, even in that moment at hand, is advocating a sense of irresponsibility. It is a sure thing that the factors leading up to and the conscious choices made by people involved have EVERYTHING to do with who MUST accept responsibility after the fact. It's just the way life is. And if we want to use the word "blame" synonymously, it really only makes a difference in that "blame" is more inflammatory from a neurolinguistic perspective than "holding responsibility for" or "holding accountable for" the outcome.

Yes, I agree everyone is accountable for his/her actions... All I was saying is time after time we hear the what "if's" and a number of people depend upon those to justify their outlandish claims. Many try to convert those what if's into facts throwing all critical thinking aside when it doesn't support their assumptions... If this or If that... Life behaves funny and sometimes turning left when we should have turned right causes us to get caught in a traffic jam, that could have otherwise avoided.

I can't explain it but for some unknown reason Martin/Zimmerman was set on some sort of collision course. And from what I gather each added to it till it culminated in the tragedy we are witnessing.

If the outcome caused great harm, who is responsible and accountable, and to what extent? Bring on the investigation.

Now we've got two investigations and neither have resulted in an arrest. Some will see this and say LE hasn't gotten it right. To some it will never be right until they see someone hanged for it regardless if that person was guilty or not...

 

[RANCH]

Well when the witness called they were seen together fighting, then the witness heard the shot. So yes.

That doesn't answer either of my questions. By disregarding the dispatchers suggestion, what law did GZ break. I say none but I'm open to anything that says I'm wrong.

 

[LambChop]

What law did GZ break when he disregarded the dispatchers suggestion?

Do we know for a fact that GZ did disregard the dispatchers suggestion?

He was asked to meet the patrol car. He knew not to follow, he was asked politely not to follow to stay with the car meet LE. Obviously some do not understand the importance of following instructions from LE and not pursue a subject. According to LE comments to the press following personel on their personal time is considered stalking and they will be arrested. So I guess what GZ did was against the law. jmo