There was only one voice screaming. It was screaming so loud that it could be heard away from the sight of the murder, through the walls of the houses of the people who were calling 911, over the phone to the dispatcher on the other end. It was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that that voice was not Zimmerman's after Zimmerman claimed self defense, and that he was the one screaming at the top of his lungs for help. Unless you're trying to tell me that a third party was present at the murder, there is only one person that can be.
Uh, where was it proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the voice was not Zimmerman's?
The audio expert, Tom Owens (who has his own issues regarding his history of in-court testimony*), said that a 90% match was needed to positively identify Zimmerman in a court of law. Owens said that he was able to get a 38% match, which was insufficient to positively identify the voice as Zimmerman's.
However, the inability of the expert to positively identify the voice as Zimmerman's does not "prove" the voice is not Zimmerman's. It just means that Owens wasn't able to prove that it was. Similar to how a Not Guilty verdict in a criminal case doesn't "prove" the defendant is Innocent. The failure to prove a positive claim does not in itself prove the opposite claim.
And at no point has Owens (or anyone else) "proven" that the voice was Martin's. As it stands, we don't know whose voice it is.
*Owens, in this case, claims he needs a 90% match to identify Zimmerman. But in a previous murder case he testified that he could positively identify the defendant with only a 68% match. That's a pretty big discrepancy for an expert to have when you're talking about convicting a person of murder.
Once again, he said he would expect a 90% match based on the quality of the audio. There are certain situations where the audio quality would be much lower, which would lower the results of the match.
The outcome he received is extremely low for it to be likely to have been him. A 38 percent chance/match is not high at all. That'd be a situation where you could reasonably reject the null hypothesis---That Zimmerman is telling the truth and is innocent. IE: Burden of proof and all that.
If 90% match is the standard to positively identify Zimmerman's voice, then why isn't a 90% match also required to prove it's Martin's voice? If Zimmerman failing to get a 90% match leads us to believe the voice is not Zimmerman's, then a failure to reach a 90% match on Martin would also lead us to believe the voice is not Martin's.
Which leaves us... where, exactly?
Without a positive match one way or the other, I don't see much value in the voice analysis for either side. Failing to prove it's Zimmerman's voice doesn't prove it's Martin's voice, and failing to prove it's Martin's voice doesn't prove it's Zimmerman's voice.
Failing to prove that it's Zimmerman's voice is evidence that it's Martin's voice. Not 100% conclusive evidence, but better than nothing.
There was only one voice screaming. It was screaming so loud that it could be heard away from the sight of the murder, through the walls of the houses of the people who were calling 911, over the phone to the dispatcher on the other end. It was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that that voice was not Zimmerman's after Zimmerman claimed self defense, and that he was the one screaming at the top of his lungs for help. Unless you're trying to tell me that a third party was present at the murder, there is only one person that can be.
Uh, where was it proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the voice was not Zimmerman's?
The audio expert, Tom Owens (who has his own issues regarding his history of in-court testimony*), said that a 90% match was needed to positively identify Zimmerman in a court of law. Owens said that he was able to get a 38% match, which was insufficient to positively identify the voice as Zimmerman's.
However, the inability of the expert to positively identify the voice as Zimmerman's does not "prove" the voice is not Zimmerman's. It just means that Owens wasn't able to prove that it was. Similar to how a Not Guilty verdict in a criminal case doesn't "prove" the defendant is Innocent. The failure to prove a positive claim does not in itself prove the opposite claim.
And at no point has Owens (or anyone else) "proven" that the voice was Martin's. As it stands, we don't know whose voice it is.
*Owens, in this case, claims he needs a 90% match to identify Zimmerman. But in a previous murder case he testified that he could positively identify the defendant with only a 68% match. That's a pretty big discrepancy for an expert to have when you're talking about convicting a person of murder.
Once again, he said he would expect a 90% match based on the quality of the audio. There are certain situations where the audio quality would be much lower, which would lower the results of the match.
The outcome he received is extremely low for it to be likely to have been him. A 38 percent chance/match is not high at all. That'd be a situation where you could reasonably reject the null hypothesis---That Zimmerman is telling the truth and is innocent. IE: Burden of proof and all that.
If 90% match is the standard to positively identify Zimmerman's voice, then why isn't a 90% match also required to prove it's Martin's voice? If Zimmerman failing to get a 90% match leads us to believe the voice is not Zimmerman's, then a failure to reach a 90% match on Martin would also lead us to believe the voice is not Martin's.
Which leaves us... where, exactly?
Without a positive match one way or the other, I don't see much value in the voice analysis for either side. Failing to prove it's Zimmerman's voice doesn't prove it's Martin's voice, and failing to prove it's Martin's voice doesn't prove it's Zimmerman's voice.
Failing to prove that it's Zimmerman's voice is evidence that it's Martin's voice. Not 100% conclusive evidence, but better than nothing.
There was only one voice screaming. It was screaming so loud that it could be heard away from the sight of the murder, through the walls of the houses of the people who were calling 911, over the phone to the dispatcher on the other end. It was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that that voice was not Zimmerman's after Zimmerman claimed self defense, and that he was the one screaming at the top of his lungs for help. Unless you're trying to tell me that a third party was present at the murder, there is only one person that can be.
Uh, where was it proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the voice was not Zimmerman's?
The audio expert, Tom Owens (who has his own issues regarding his history of in-court testimony*), said that a 90% match was needed to positively identify Zimmerman in a court of law. Owens said that he was able to get a 38% match, which was insufficient to positively identify the voice as Zimmerman's.
However, the inability of the expert to positively identify the voice as Zimmerman's does not "prove" the voice is not Zimmerman's. It just means that Owens wasn't able to prove that it was. Similar to how a Not Guilty verdict in a criminal case doesn't "prove" the defendant is Innocent. The failure to prove a positive claim does not in itself prove the opposite claim.
And at no point has Owens (or anyone else) "proven" that the voice was Martin's. As it stands, we don't know whose voice it is.
*Owens, in this case, claims he needs a 90% match to identify Zimmerman. But in a previous murder case he testified that he could positively identify the defendant with only a 68% match. That's a pretty big discrepancy for an expert to have when you're talking about convicting a person of murder.
Once again, he said he would expect a 90% match based on the quality of the audio. There are certain situations where the audio quality would be much lower, which would lower the results of the match.
The outcome he received is extremely low for it to be likely to have been him. A 38 percent chance/match is not high at all. That'd be a situation where you could reasonably reject the null hypothesis---That Zimmerman is telling the truth and is innocent. IE: Burden of proof and all that.
If 90% match is the standard to positively identify Zimmerman's voice, then why isn't a 90% match also required to prove it's Martin's voice? If Zimmerman failing to get a 90% match leads us to believe the voice is not Zimmerman's, then a failure to reach a 90% match on Martin would also lead us to believe the voice is not Martin's.
Which leaves us... where, exactly?
Without a positive match one way or the other, I don't see much value in the voice analysis for either side. Failing to prove it's Zimmerman's voice doesn't prove it's Martin's voice, and failing to prove it's Martin's voice doesn't prove it's Zimmerman's voice.
Failing to prove that it's Zimmerman's voice is evidence that it's Martin's voice. Not 100% conclusive evidence, but better than nothing.
And by the same standard, failing to prove it's Martin's voice is evidence that it's Zimmerman's voice.
I am assuming nothing. I am just providing opinion and conjecture. It is easy to lookup why the law was written which is essentially what I presented. Then I added a quick opinion on it. But this wasnt even the main point of my posting. Looks like I got in another dialogue with someone who likes to nitpick.
You complained that Zimmerman was being denied his right to shoot people (or right not to be charged? What other "right" is being taken away, exactly?) and accused the prosecutor of abusing loopholes to keep him in jail. Yes, that still looks an awful lot like Zimmerman/SYG advocacy.
Yeah I stated he is being denied his right to shoot people. That is exactly what I said.
Your exact phrasing was "But I also find it equally disturbing that people are calling for what is essentially taking away Zimmerman's rights given to him by federal and floridian law." Which rights?
Namely SYG. It specifically states that an individual cannot be charged without probable cause. There are many experts on the webs now perplexed that the Proscecutor went for 2nd Degree and state an opinion that the Prosc did this to try to appease the masses demanding justice. With what I have seen I tend to agree. And so the Prosc used a charge she may not be able to win in order to get a man in jail without bail because the the bail procedure for 2nd degree is very lengthy.
Edit: With information at hand I simply find anyone that cheers this situation to be equally hypocritcal as myself
LOL this case just gets more interesting. I am sure you all know that Martin's mom called the situation an unfortunate accident and she was just happy Zimmerman was charged. Well it looks like the lawyers got to her now and she retracted that satement and is now saying "in cold blood".
Failing to prove that it's Zimmerman's voice is evidence that it's Martin's voice. Not 100% conclusive evidence, but better than nothing.
But enought to disprove eye witness accounts?
It would provide strong opposing evidence to an eyewitness claiming that Zimmerman was screaming, and weak supporting evidence to an eyewitness claiming Martin was screaming. Also, eyewitness testimony after having what, a couple weeks to simmer? That's definitely not going to be a slam dunk.
Failing to prove that it's Zimmerman's voice is evidence that it's Martin's voice. Not 100% conclusive evidence, but better than nothing.
And by the same standard, failing to prove it's Martin's voice is evidence that it's Zimmerman's voice.
Oh, no. Testing the audio against Zimmerman's voice and finding a low probability of a match is completely different from not testing it against Martin at all.
Your exact phrasing was "But I also find it equally disturbing that people are calling for what is essentially taking away Zimmerman's rights given to him by federal and floridian law." Which rights?
Namely SYG. It specifically states that an individual cannot be charged without probable cause. There are many experts on the webs now perplexed that the Proscecutor went for 2nd Degree and state an opinion that the Prosc did this to try to appease the masses demanding justice. With what I have seen I tend to agree. And so the Prosc used a charge she may not be able to win in order to get a man in jail without bail because the the bail procedure for 2nd degree is very lengthy.
If they do have probable cause, then it's perfectly legal. If they don't have probable cause, then Florida has legalized murder as long as you claim self-defense. And have you considered the possibility that the prosecutor charged him with murder because she believes that's the crime he actually committed?
Jubal77 wrote: »» show previous quotes
Tenek wrote: »Your exact phrasing was "But I also find it equally disturbing that people are calling for what is essentially taking away Zimmerman's rights given to him by federal and floridian law." Which rights?
Namely SYG. It specifically states that an individual cannot be charged without probable cause. There are many experts on the webs now perplexed that the Proscecutor went for 2nd Degree and state an opinion that the Prosc did this to try to appease the masses demanding justice. With what I have seen I tend to agree. And so the Prosc used a charge she may not be able to win in order to get a man in jail without bail because the the bail procedure for 2nd degree is very lengthy.
If they do have probable cause, then it's perfectly legal. If they don't have probable cause, then Florida has legalized murder as long as you claim self-defense. And have you considered the possibility that the prosecutor charged him with murder because she believes that's the crime he actually committed?
Its not murder if Martin attacked first... we dont know who did. That is what the Prosc will have to prove to get 2nd Degree and what makes this case so slippery. Because if they cant then the defense can sit on SYG. This is an anomoly case. It doesnt allow you to break into peoples homes and murder them. It doesnt allow you to shoot someone who ran into your car. This particular case had just enough to it to stand and be controversial.
I'm seeing it live on the BBC. The defense lawyer is giving statements, I think. I don't know what the law system is in the US.
Typical self defense requires you to try and flee first before resorting to lethal force. The big change with this law is that you do not have to do that.
Jubal77 wrote: »» show previous quotes
Tenek wrote: »Your exact phrasing was "But I also find it equally disturbing that people are calling for what is essentially taking away Zimmerman's rights given to him by federal and floridian law." Which rights?
Namely SYG. It specifically states that an individual cannot be charged without probable cause. There are many experts on the webs now perplexed that the Proscecutor went for 2nd Degree and state an opinion that the Prosc did this to try to appease the masses demanding justice. With what I have seen I tend to agree. And so the Prosc used a charge she may not be able to win in order to get a man in jail without bail because the the bail procedure for 2nd degree is very lengthy.
If they do have probable cause, then it's perfectly legal. If they don't have probable cause, then Florida has legalized murder as long as you claim self-defense. And have you considered the possibility that the prosecutor charged him with murder because she believes that's the crime he actually committed?
Its not murder if Martin attacked first... we dont know who did. That is what the Prosc will have to prove to get 2nd Degree and what makes this case so slippery. Because if they cant then the defense can sit on SYG. This is an anomoly case. It doesnt allow you to break into peoples homes and murder them. It doesnt allow you to shoot someone who ran into your car. This particular case had just enough to it to stand and be controversial.
If you allow a dead-men-tell-no-tales excuse then like I said, legalized murder. Does this not sound absolutely asinine to you? "We can't prove the dead guy didn't attack you, therefore you're free to go?"
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Jubal77 wrote: »» show previous quotes
Tenek wrote: »Your exact phrasing was "But I also find it equally disturbing that people are calling for what is essentially taking away Zimmerman's rights given to him by federal and floridian law." Which rights?
Namely SYG. It specifically states that an individual cannot be charged without probable cause. There are many experts on the webs now perplexed that the Proscecutor went for 2nd Degree and state an opinion that the Prosc did this to try to appease the masses demanding justice. With what I have seen I tend to agree. And so the Prosc used a charge she may not be able to win in order to get a man in jail without bail because the the bail procedure for 2nd degree is very lengthy.
If they do have probable cause, then it's perfectly legal. If they don't have probable cause, then Florida has legalized murder as long as you claim self-defense. And have you considered the possibility that the prosecutor charged him with murder because she believes that's the crime he actually committed?
Its not murder if Martin attacked first... we dont know who did. That is what the Prosc will have to prove to get 2nd Degree and what makes this case so slippery. Because if they cant then the defense can sit on SYG. This is an anomoly case. It doesnt allow you to break into peoples homes and murder them. It doesnt allow you to shoot someone who ran into your car. This particular case had just enough to it to stand and be controversial.
If you allow a dead-men-tell-no-tales excuse then like I said, legalized murder. Does this not sound absolutely asinine to you? "We can't prove the dead guy didn't attack you, therefore you're free to go?"
That is not unique to this case or this law. A lack of evidence will put a damper on any case.
Jubal77 wrote: »» show previous quotes
Tenek wrote: »Your exact phrasing was "But I also find it equally disturbing that people are calling for what is essentially taking away Zimmerman's rights given to him by federal and floridian law." Which rights?
Namely SYG. It specifically states that an individual cannot be charged without probable cause. There are many experts on the webs now perplexed that the Proscecutor went for 2nd Degree and state an opinion that the Prosc did this to try to appease the masses demanding justice. With what I have seen I tend to agree. And so the Prosc used a charge she may not be able to win in order to get a man in jail without bail because the the bail procedure for 2nd degree is very lengthy.
If they do have probable cause, then it's perfectly legal. If they don't have probable cause, then Florida has legalized murder as long as you claim self-defense. And have you considered the possibility that the prosecutor charged him with murder because she believes that's the crime he actually committed?
Its not murder if Martin attacked first... we dont know who did. That is what the Prosc will have to prove to get 2nd Degree and what makes this case so slippery. Because if they cant then the defense can sit on SYG. This is an anomoly case. It doesnt allow you to break into peoples homes and murder them. It doesnt allow you to shoot someone who ran into your car. This particular case had just enough to it to stand and be controversial.
If you allow a dead-men-tell-no-tales excuse then like I said, legalized murder. Does this not sound absolutely asinine to you? "We can't prove the dead guy didn't attack you, therefore you're free to go?"
So I assume you'd like the victim to sit there and take it or be a MANLY MAN and go home and put some meat on the bruises and learn from his mistakes?
I don't know where you're holier than thou attitude is coming from when your solution is to cut off their hands or feed them to a yak or some bullshit.
Zimmerman is arrested and going on trial. As per our social contract, justice will be served.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Jubal77 wrote: »» show previous quotes
Tenek wrote: »Your exact phrasing was "But I also find it equally disturbing that people are calling for what is essentially taking away Zimmerman's rights given to him by federal and floridian law." Which rights?
Namely SYG. It specifically states that an individual cannot be charged without probable cause. There are many experts on the webs now perplexed that the Proscecutor went for 2nd Degree and state an opinion that the Prosc did this to try to appease the masses demanding justice. With what I have seen I tend to agree. And so the Prosc used a charge she may not be able to win in order to get a man in jail without bail because the the bail procedure for 2nd degree is very lengthy.
If they do have probable cause, then it's perfectly legal. If they don't have probable cause, then Florida has legalized murder as long as you claim self-defense. And have you considered the possibility that the prosecutor charged him with murder because she believes that's the crime he actually committed?
Its not murder if Martin attacked first... we dont know who did. That is what the Prosc will have to prove to get 2nd Degree and what makes this case so slippery. Because if they cant then the defense can sit on SYG. This is an anomoly case. It doesnt allow you to break into peoples homes and murder them. It doesnt allow you to shoot someone who ran into your car. This particular case had just enough to it to stand and be controversial.
If you allow a dead-men-tell-no-tales excuse then like I said, legalized murder. Does this not sound absolutely asinine to you? "We can't prove the dead guy didn't attack you, therefore you're free to go?"
So I assume you'd like the victim to sit there and take it or be a MANLY MAN and go home and put some meat on the bruises and learn from his mistakes?
I think the problem here is that your assumptions are crazy and not an immediate, obvious, or rational conclusion as you'd like to believe.
Jubal77 wrote: »» show previous quotes
Tenek wrote: »Your exact phrasing was "But I also find it equally disturbing that people are calling for what is essentially taking away Zimmerman's rights given to him by federal and floridian law." Which rights?
Namely SYG. It specifically states that an individual cannot be charged without probable cause. There are many experts on the webs now perplexed that the Proscecutor went for 2nd Degree and state an opinion that the Prosc did this to try to appease the masses demanding justice. With what I have seen I tend to agree. And so the Prosc used a charge she may not be able to win in order to get a man in jail without bail because the the bail procedure for 2nd degree is very lengthy.
If they do have probable cause, then it's perfectly legal. If they don't have probable cause, then Florida has legalized murder as long as you claim self-defense. And have you considered the possibility that the prosecutor charged him with murder because she believes that's the crime he actually committed?
Its not murder if Martin attacked first... we dont know who did. That is what the Prosc will have to prove to get 2nd Degree and what makes this case so slippery. Because if they cant then the defense can sit on SYG. This is an anomoly case. It doesnt allow you to break into peoples homes and murder them. It doesnt allow you to shoot someone who ran into your car. This particular case had just enough to it to stand and be controversial.
If you allow a dead-men-tell-no-tales excuse then like I said, legalized murder. Does this not sound absolutely asinine to you? "We can't prove the dead guy didn't attack you, therefore you're free to go?"
So I assume you'd like the victim to sit there and take it or be a MANLY MAN and go home and put some meat on the bruises and learn from his mistakes?
To me, it's equally ridiculous to claim that someone can be justified in ending a life because they got their nose broken.
Jubal77 wrote: »» show previous quotes
Tenek wrote: »Your exact phrasing was "But I also find it equally disturbing that people are calling for what is essentially taking away Zimmerman's rights given to him by federal and floridian law." Which rights?
Namely SYG. It specifically states that an individual cannot be charged without probable cause. There are many experts on the webs now perplexed that the Proscecutor went for 2nd Degree and state an opinion that the Prosc did this to try to appease the masses demanding justice. With what I have seen I tend to agree. And so the Prosc used a charge she may not be able to win in order to get a man in jail without bail because the the bail procedure for 2nd degree is very lengthy.
If they do have probable cause, then it's perfectly legal. If they don't have probable cause, then Florida has legalized murder as long as you claim self-defense. And have you considered the possibility that the prosecutor charged him with murder because she believes that's the crime he actually committed?
Its not murder if Martin attacked first... we dont know who did. That is what the Prosc will have to prove to get 2nd Degree and what makes this case so slippery. Because if they cant then the defense can sit on SYG. This is an anomoly case. It doesnt allow you to break into peoples homes and murder them. It doesnt allow you to shoot someone who ran into your car. This particular case had just enough to it to stand and be controversial.
If you allow a dead-men-tell-no-tales excuse then like I said, legalized murder. Does this not sound absolutely asinine to you? "We can't prove the dead guy didn't attack you, therefore you're free to go?"
So I assume you'd like the victim to sit there and take it or be a MANLY MAN and go home and put some meat on the bruises and learn from his mistakes?
No, although I love the part where you've turned Martin into some kind of Bruce Lee clone. I'm saying it should not be enough to claim self-defense.
Comon now it doesnt take that much to break a persons nose lets not bring back that by breaking someones nose and then taking them down you are a bruce lee clone.
I find it funny that the response to this killing has been to repeal the SYG law.
The stand your ground law makes a good talking point for the media. I'm not sure that it will really have any bearing on this case. According to Zimmerman's account he was on the ground with Martin on top of him. He was getting his head knocked into concrete while he is calling out for help.
If that is true, can you honestly say that he was in a position where retreat was an available option to him?
That stand your ground exists, and that he doesn't have to show that he attempted to remove himself from the situation seems to be a moot point to me.
Comon now it doesnt take that much to break a persons nose lets not bring back that by breaking someones nose and then taking them down you are a bruce lee clone.
No, I'm saying that Zimmerman's account reads like "Gee, I was just walking along minding my own business, when all of a sudden this scary black guy jumps out at me, and I try to run but it's too late and he smashes my nose and wrestles me to the ground and starts beating my head against the pavement, so I had no choice but to pull out my gun that he didn't notice and shoot him."
Comon now it doesnt take that much to break a persons nose lets not bring back that by breaking someones nose and then taking them down you are a bruce lee clone.
No, I'm saying that Zimmerman's account reads like "Gee, I was just walking along minding my own business, when all of a sudden this scary black guy jumps out at me, and I try to run but it's too late and he smashes my nose and wrestles me to the ground and starts beating my head against the pavement, so I had no choice but to pull out my gun that he didn't notice and shoot him in the back."
There is eye witness that Zimmerman was definately taken down. Other than that the account reads more like "I saw a suspicious teen wandering around on a rainy night. I follow him. Lost him. He attacked me when I returned to my car. I shot him."
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
If that is true, can you honestly say that he was in a position where retreat was an available option to him?
Which is what I'm arguing. If Martin was on top of Zimmerman pounding his head, then there would be no recourse except to injure or kill him to stop. How else do you expect the attacker to stop? When you have brain damage?
Since you're so convinced of his innocence, you should probably wear this:
Vanguard on
0
Options
tuxkamenreally took this picture.Registered Userregular
Uh...do not claim that he was shot in the back unless you have documentation to that effect.
(I'm pretty sure that would be valuable information to have if it existed.)
If that is true, can you honestly say that he was in a position where retreat was an available option to him?
Which is what I'm arguing. If Martin was on top of Zimmerman pounding his head, then there would be no recourse except to injure or kill him to stop. How else do you expect the attacker to stop? When you have brain damage?
Since you're so convinced of his innocence, you should probably wear this:
Travyon Martin’s Mother: ‘I Believe It Was an Accident’
...
On NBC’s Today show, Trayvon’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, told Ann Curry
...
“One of the things that I still believe in, a person should apologize when they are actually remorseful for what they’ve done. I believe it was an accident. I believe that it just got out of control and he couldn’t turn the clock back. I would ask him, did he know that that was a minor, that that was a teenager, and that he did not have a weapon?”
This is descending into crazyland. You don't come out after Murder charges have been filed against the man who killed your son and call it an accident. The charge, by definition, requires Zimmerman to have a mindset of ill will, hatred, spite, etc., - not "this is all spiraling out of my control, oh no I've accidentally killed someone! If only I could turn back time and undo it!"
BubbaT on
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited April 2012
She clarified that statement saying that the encounter itself was an accident, but the murder was deliberate.
Failing to prove that it's Zimmerman's voice is evidence that it's Martin's voice. Not 100% conclusive evidence, but better than nothing.
Yes, and "better than nothing" is certainly an impressive standard of evidence in a criminal trial.
Evidence is cumulative!
Yet any given piece should probably meet some minimum standard before being admitted for consideration. I didn't think this was a controversial position, but I guess it it.
Also, a whole lot of not much is still basically not much.
Comon now it doesnt take that much to break a persons nose lets not bring back that by breaking someones nose and then taking them down you are a bruce lee clone.
No, I'm saying that Zimmerman's account reads like "Gee, I was just walking along minding my own business, when all of a sudden this scary black guy jumps out at me, and I try to run but it's too late and he smashes my nose and wrestles me to the ground and starts beating my head against the pavement, so I had no choice but to pull out my gun that he didn't notice and shoot him in the back."
There is eye witness that Zimmerman was definately taken down. Other than that the account reads more like "I saw a suspicious teen wandering around on a rainy night. I follow him. Lost him. He attacked me when I returned to my car. I shot him."
She clarified that statement saying that the encounter itself was an accident, but the murder was deliberate.
Yeah. Sure.
When in reality as a society sometimes our desire to see somebody pay after a tragedy outweighs the actual evidence of malice, or even recklessness.
Saw this recently with a cyclist who was killed by a driver who had a suspended license. It was determined that it was an accident, and the suspended license played no part, but the cycling community freaked out that there weren't at least manslaughter charges. Because "ZOMG suspended license."
Comon now it doesnt take that much to break a persons nose lets not bring back that by breaking someones nose and then taking them down you are a bruce lee clone.
No, I'm saying that Zimmerman's account reads like "Gee, I was just walking along minding my own business, when all of a sudden this scary black guy jumps out at me, and I try to run but it's too late and he smashes my nose and wrestles me to the ground and starts beating my head against the pavement, so I had no choice but to pull out my gun that he didn't notice and shoot him in the back."
There is eye witness that Zimmerman was definately taken down. Other than that the account reads more like "I saw a suspicious teen wandering around on a rainy night. I follow him. Lost him. He attacked me when I returned to my car. I shot him."
Martin beat Zimmerman back to his own car?
No Martin ambushed Zimmerman as he was returning to his car.
So as Zimmerman leaves his car to chase after Martin, Zimmerman is between Martin and his car.
Then Zimmerman loses Martin and goes back to his car.
Then Martin is between Zimmerman and his car? How exactly did he get there? Or know where to go?
Posts
Failing to prove that it's Zimmerman's voice is evidence that it's Martin's voice. Not 100% conclusive evidence, but better than nothing.
But enought to disprove eye witness accounts?
And by the same standard, failing to prove it's Martin's voice is evidence that it's Zimmerman's voice.
Namely SYG. It specifically states that an individual cannot be charged without probable cause. There are many experts on the webs now perplexed that the Proscecutor went for 2nd Degree and state an opinion that the Prosc did this to try to appease the masses demanding justice. With what I have seen I tend to agree. And so the Prosc used a charge she may not be able to win in order to get a man in jail without bail because the the bail procedure for 2nd degree is very lengthy.
Edit: With information at hand I simply find anyone that cheers this situation to be equally hypocritcal as myself
It would provide strong opposing evidence to an eyewitness claiming that Zimmerman was screaming, and weak supporting evidence to an eyewitness claiming Martin was screaming. Also, eyewitness testimony after having what, a couple weeks to simmer? That's definitely not going to be a slam dunk.
Oh, no. Testing the audio against Zimmerman's voice and finding a low probability of a match is completely different from not testing it against Martin at all.
If they do have probable cause, then it's perfectly legal. If they don't have probable cause, then Florida has legalized murder as long as you claim self-defense. And have you considered the possibility that the prosecutor charged him with murder because she believes that's the crime he actually committed?
Its not murder if Martin attacked first... we dont know who did. That is what the Prosc will have to prove to get 2nd Degree and what makes this case so slippery. Because if they cant then the defense can sit on SYG. This is an anomoly case. It doesnt allow you to break into peoples homes and murder them. It doesnt allow you to shoot someone who ran into your car. This particular case had just enough to it to stand and be controversial.
Typical self defense requires you to try and flee first before resorting to lethal force. The big change with this law is that you do not have to do that.
Yes, and "better than nothing" is certainly an impressive standard of evidence in a criminal trial.
If you allow a dead-men-tell-no-tales excuse then like I said, legalized murder. Does this not sound absolutely asinine to you? "We can't prove the dead guy didn't attack you, therefore you're free to go?"
I find it funny that you think you're a rational being with good ideas about things.
That is not unique to this case or this law. A lack of evidence will put a damper on any case.
Evidence is cumulative!
I don't know where you're holier than thou attitude is coming from when your solution is to cut off their hands or feed them to a yak or some bullshit.
Zimmerman is arrested and going on trial. As per our social contract, justice will be served.
I think the problem here is that your assumptions are crazy and not an immediate, obvious, or rational conclusion as you'd like to believe.
To me, it's equally ridiculous to claim that someone can be justified in ending a life because they got their nose broken.
No, although I love the part where you've turned Martin into some kind of Bruce Lee clone. I'm saying it should not be enough to claim self-defense.
The stand your ground law makes a good talking point for the media. I'm not sure that it will really have any bearing on this case. According to Zimmerman's account he was on the ground with Martin on top of him. He was getting his head knocked into concrete while he is calling out for help.
If that is true, can you honestly say that he was in a position where retreat was an available option to him?
That stand your ground exists, and that he doesn't have to show that he attempted to remove himself from the situation seems to be a moot point to me.
No, I'm saying that Zimmerman's account reads like "Gee, I was just walking along minding my own business, when all of a sudden this scary black guy jumps out at me, and I try to run but it's too late and he smashes my nose and wrestles me to the ground and starts beating my head against the pavement, so I had no choice but to pull out my gun that he didn't notice and shoot him."
There is eye witness that Zimmerman was definately taken down. Other than that the account reads more like "I saw a suspicious teen wandering around on a rainy night. I follow him. Lost him. He attacked me when I returned to my car. I shot him."
Since you're so convinced of his innocence, you should probably wear this:
(I'm pretty sure that would be valuable information to have if it existed.)
Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
Is there a reason why you chose the pink one?
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/04/12/travyon-martins-mother-i-believe-it-was-an-accident/
This is descending into crazyland. You don't come out after Murder charges have been filed against the man who killed your son and call it an accident. The charge, by definition, requires Zimmerman to have a mindset of ill will, hatred, spite, etc., - not "this is all spiraling out of my control, oh no I've accidentally killed someone! If only I could turn back time and undo it!"
Yet any given piece should probably meet some minimum standard before being admitted for consideration. I didn't think this was a controversial position, but I guess it it.
Also, a whole lot of not much is still basically not much.
You're right, I misremembered that.
Martin beat Zimmerman back to his own car?
Yeah. Sure.
When in reality as a society sometimes our desire to see somebody pay after a tragedy outweighs the actual evidence of malice, or even recklessness.
Saw this recently with a cyclist who was killed by a driver who had a suspended license. It was determined that it was an accident, and the suspended license played no part, but the cycling community freaked out that there weren't at least manslaughter charges. Because "ZOMG suspended license."
That's a pretty big point to misremember. Sure you shouldn't reevaluate how sure you are in your judgment of this case?
So as Zimmerman leaves his car to chase after Martin, Zimmerman is between Martin and his car.
Then Zimmerman loses Martin and goes back to his car.
Then Martin is between Zimmerman and his car? How exactly did he get there? Or know where to go?