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

[daisy7]

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.

IMO, they put it out tonight just in time for Sunday's paper.

 

[m00c0w]

Link please?

The article says he used the same technology to testify in January and in that testimony he said he did the tests last year.

Did an updated software version of existing methodology just come out?

I would hope that in the development of voice recognition software that is to be used in court contexts the developers would do reliability research.

If not, it is really useless and letting people testify using the method would be a travesty of justice.

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/local/article/Expert-Davalloo-made-911-call-2753115.php

http://www.easyvoicebiometrics.com/index.php?app=cms&ns=xmodnewsrss_detail&ref=easyvoicebiometrics

Press release from the company themselves, released on March 8, 2012.

 

[justthinkin]

Perhaps the one screaming is the one with a gun pointed at him?

Very well might be that too.

 

[m00c0w]

BBM. Here is a link for Easy Voice Biometrics. Included are video tutorials. Maybe this will help answer questions.

http://www.easyvoicebiometrics.com/index.php?app=cms&ns=display&ref=splash

I've looked at all of the videos. There's very little documentation available about it, and the videos don't help at all.

 

[songline]

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

Becaus he was alive then.

 

[Nova]

I've already explained this.

What happens if Martin's voice scored just as poorly? There's a reason they didn't unequivocally state that it wasn't Zimmerman, and stressed they had not tested Martin's voice.

Per every news source I've read, they DID state it wasn't Zimmerman.

They can't state it was Martin because they don't have a sample of Martin with which to do a comparison. And since they weren't there, they can't swear there were only two people in the yard that night, even though you and I know there were only two.

 

[iluvmua]

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

The 911 dispatcher asked him "do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there".

Not we want you to meet with the officer.

 

[Boytwnmom]

to be held either criminally or civilly responsible for the consequences of your actions, intended or not. Most human behavior is not subject to law. However, when you, for example, undertake to contact law enforcement authorities because of your concern about a person you've concluded is a criminal and then you fail to follow their instructions it can very easily be found that you were not acting reasonably, that you were grossly or simply negligent etc. The whole story, when known, will be knit together and evaluated in terms of what a reasonable person would do in the same or similar circumstance.

It may very well be that his decision to continue to pursue TM after being told such an act was not needed by LE is determined to be a proximate cause of what occurred or that combined with his decision to take and wield a gun against a person who has not committed any crime made that person reasonably fear for his life so that whatever he did to his assailant was justified and thus the assailants killing of TM was unlawful.

Basically, at this point we don't know the whole story but the fact that not doing what 911 tells you is not a crime may not be terribly relevant to the legal analysis and may not act to "save" GZ from any legal consequences that stem from his actions.

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

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

 

[RANCH]

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

I'm not saying that GZ did the right thing at all. I'm not even sure if he did in fact stop following TM and head back to his truck after getting the suggestion.

So you feel that GZ broke a stalking law. I'll have to see if that would work. Thanks.

 

[SuziQ]

To see If he actually went to the store. Just because the media reports that he did does not mean that he actually went to the store.

Then where did he get the skittles and the ice tea?

 

[Ironhorse]

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

No one has to take a test to own a car either...If you've got the money you can buy a car...

 

[LolaMoon08]

The 911 dispatcher asked him "do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there".

Not we want you to meet with the officer.

That tells me that the dispatcher was telling him his (Zimmerman's) job was done (calling in the suspicious kid) and that if he wanted to meet up with them he could... or he could just go home.

 

[Donjeta]

I mean "control" in the manner that it would validate the results of the test. There aren't traditional variable roles in this type of test, however you can still check for reliability and validity. You can have a test that is reliable every time you run the test, but that does not make it valid. These are basic concepts in science.

The only way, in a test such as this, to actually validate the results would be to get a positive result in the manner expected.

Getting TM's voice to match would NOT validate the test. If it could produce a false negative it could produce a false positive. One of the samples would have to be a known match in order to validate the test but both of them are unknowns (in that we don't know with absolute certainty which one of them was screaming or if either one was).

To be proper science I would expect the test to have been validated in independent research with known matches and controls, in similar circumstances, (comparing screaming voice to talking voice, talking in a phone call vs. heard from a distance on a phone call etc.) and the test would have to be able to differentiate between the matches and the controls.

Ideally they should check the validity by getting a number of control samples of the same people talking and screaming, recorded in the same place, in the same conditions as the test samples they're using.

Not sure if GZ would cooperate and agree to go back and scream there. Maybe not.

By known matches I mean that someone knows and can check that the tester got the right results, not that the tester knows the desired result before testing.

 

[rbrnmw2]

I noticed it was 2 experts using 2 different techniques that ruled out Zimmerman being the source of the screams for help It's horrifying I knew in my heart it was Trayvon because it stopped immediately after the shot but the realization has me bawling this is just so heart wrenching.

 

[m00c0w]

One thing that I have noticed... This expert said that he'd expect for it to score over 90% to be considered a match. In one of the video demonstrations for the product, they use two different clips of Nixon speaking, and it only garners an 86% match... So reasonably, according to him, he couldn't say it was a positive match.

I find that interesting.

 

[Donjeta]

http://www.easyvoicebiometrics.com/index.php?app=cms&ns=xmodnewsrss_detail&ref=easyvoicebiometrics

Press release from the company themselves, released on March 8, 2012.

The press release says they started selling it on March 1.

Validation research can and should be done prior to selling a product.

 

[songline]

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.



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.



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...

THANK YOU SO MUCH.
So beautifully said. So right too.

 

[m00c0w]

Getting TM's voice to match would NOT validate the test. If it could produce a false negative it could produce a false positive. One of the samples would have to be a known match in order to validate the test but both of them are unknowns (in that we don't know with absolute certainty which one of them was screaming or if either one was).

To be proper science I would expect the test to have been validated in independent research with known matches and controls, in similar circumstances, (comparing screaming voice to talking voice, talking in a phone call vs. heard from a distance on a phone call etc.) and the test would have to be able to differentiate between the matches and the controls.

By known matches I mean that someone knows and can check that the tester got the right results, not that the tester knows the desired result before testing.

And there's very little documentation about this software and how it was tested. However, if the test came back 95% Martin and 48% Zimmerman, I would not contest those results. I just do not like the assumption that because they "disqualified" Zimmerman that it automatically means it was Martin. It's still jumping to conclusions without all of the facts.

 

[Nova]

Well, I don't know Florida law but if you ask me it's a hate crime under those premises, since GZ didn't actually have any evidence that TM was part of a small criminal subset of black youths burglarizing homes, he just knew that TM was black.

Good point about GZ's lack of evidence. So the hate crime lies in assuming that any member of the larger group must also be a member of the subset.

 

[Concerned Papa]

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.

This is a ridiculous back and forth and I'm through with it.

Arrest Zimmerman, seat a jury, and present them 3 pieces of evidence to consider:

-Have 12 impartial jurors listen to these screams

-Have 12 impartial jurors listen to the chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence tell them whose screams those are NOT.

-Have 12 impartial jurors stand on their heads, squint one eye, and capture just exactly the right frame to see if THEY can find any evidence of his imaginary beating in the video as he's led into the jail.

Then let em go vote.