http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...y?preview=trueThe voice heard crying for help on a 911 call just before Trayvon Martin was shot to death was not that of George Zimmerman, according to two forensic voice identification experts, one of whom told MSNBC on Sunday that he believes the evidence is strong enough to use in court.
...
Zimmerman told police that he screamed for help during his confrontation with Martin, 17. He claims the shooting was self-defense.
And yet, things do exist in the world that YOU are not aware of. I know, it's hard to believe, but true. It might even be the case that in spite of your vast data-gathering operation sitting in front of the TV, there are things about this case that YOU dont know about. Or, even... things that you are wrong about.Originally Posted by Mitlov
So TM was around 6'3", 170 lbs, and GZ was around 5'9" and 180 lbs. Oh yeah, that's definitely twice the size.Any other facts you want to lay on us?
"Oh, how convenient! A theory about God that doesn't require looking through a telescope. Get back to work!"
Mods, do you want to take care of this?
Right-of-way doesn't matter if there is a single light.
I'm not the one advocating the theory that he was dealing drugs and tried to kill Zimmerman to cover up his drug dealing. The people here justifying the shooting should come up with a shred of evidence, i.e., the fact that there were drugs on him when he was shot, if they're going to keep on justifying shooting a 17-year-old kid to death.
So what do you think of Zimmerman apparently lying about being the one on the tape screaming for help?
Or the fact that, according to the funeral director, Treyvon's body showed no signs of being in a fight, such as bruised or scuffed knuckles from allegedly breaking Zimmerman's nose?
Or what do you think about the fact that police video of Zimmerman the evening of the arrest shows no smashed nose and no injuries to the back of his head (and he has a shaved head, so it's not like hair is concealing an injury)? Zimmerman says that Treyvon broke his nose and was repeatedly smashing the back of his head into pavement when he shot him. Don't you think that would leave a mark? Watch the video for yourself:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/...rtin-shot.html
Last edited by Mitlov; 04-01-2012 at 08:39 PM.
Dd you use your Bat Voice Analyzer to discover that?
>:U
Hahaha...in all seriousness, see a few posts up.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...y?preview=trueThe voice heard crying for help on a 911 call just before Trayvon Martin was shot to death was not that of George Zimmerman, according to two forensic voice identification experts, one of whom told MSNBC on Sunday that he believes the evidence is strong enough to use in court.
...
Zimmerman told police that he screamed for help during his confrontation with Martin, 17. He claims the shooting was self-defense.
And less than that before we got the standard liberal line of "Minority killed by white guy=RACISM!" Clean up your own house before you complain about mine.
Yeah, and you've got the balls to call other people "idiot".
Have you stopped to think that Martin was killed only a minute or so after the alleged fight?
How long does it take bruises to show up on you? And if the process is arrested along with all others at death...?
Or if he didn't use his fist, but maybe the palm?
Or if he didn't hit a bony area, but soft tissue?
It's bad enough we're speculating wildly on the actual encounter, without venturing into the realm of medical expert testimony.
At some point, the results of a medical exam of Zimmerman will come out. If his nose was broken, there's no way to miss that. And then what becomes of "But the video shows no evidence!"? Will people be recanting their opinions?
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
Who here is justifying the shooting? Quotes?
If it's true that he's lying about the tape then it would imply that he might be lying about other things, and probably trying to cover the fact that the shooting wasnt self-defense. But that would just be pure speculation on my part.
Then that would tend to contradict what I heard from Zimmerman's brother about the fight and the broken nose. But again, not relevant to what I've been saying.
I guess I have to say it again, I dont know what happened in their altercation. I dont even care to form an opinion because I dont have enough actual evidence. I'm just saying that the stuff we're getting on the news from day one is crap, as is demonstrated by all the wrong things already said in this thread. You seem to think that by pointing out the flaws in your argument that I must therefore be trying to justify the opposite view. That's not how it works.
"Oh, how convenient! A theory about God that doesn't require looking through a telescope. Get back to work!"
Yeah Inq, you and I'll teach those liberals what for! Next thing you know, they'll be trying to say that Obama aint a Muslim.
"Oh, how convenient! A theory about God that doesn't require looking through a telescope. Get back to work!"
Let me ask one question to the Zimmerman defenders here.
I'm a thirty-year-old, upper-middle-class white guy. If a black youth in a hoodie shot me dead when I was walking home, unarmed, from a convenience store, carrying an iced tea and some Skittles, and admitted shooting me, does anyone here think he'd be walking free for weeks after the incident, instead of being held as a suspect to a homicide, because it hadn't yet been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that I hadn't tried to kill him first? Of course not.
That's because self-defense is something the killer needs to affirmatively prove. Legally speaking, it's not something the state needs to disprove. In terms of public opinion, I begin with the pretty reasonable premise that shooting and killing an unarmed person is wrong and wait for the killer to prove that, in his case, it wasn't.
Maybe you should do even the tinniest bit of research before trying to be smart, because really, it doesnt seem to be working for you.
In fact, the judgement that the voice yelling for help on the tape wasnt Zimmerman, was made by experts using voice analysis software:
"Tom Owen, forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services LLC and chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, used voice identification software to rule out Zimmerman. Another expert contacted by the Sentinel, utilizing different techniques, came to the same conclusion."
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...ific-certainty
Oddly enough, the forensic experts didnt rely on the judgement of the media, or of some idiots on internet forums, to tell them who was or wasnt the person on the recording. They used tools specifically designed for the purpose.
"Oh, how convenient! A theory about God that doesn't require looking through a telescope. Get back to work!"
sar·chasm ('sär-"ka-z&m) : The giant gulf (chasm) between what is said and the person who doesn't get it.
I hate to tell you this, but you're the one not getting it.
"Oh, how convenient! A theory about God that doesn't require looking through a telescope. Get back to work!"
Well, as a "Zimmerman defender" to some extent, I don't really disagree with anything you say here. He should be arrested, even if it was self-defense. If I was, for some terrible reason, to kill someone in self defense in very questionable circumstances, I would expect to endure an arrest and trial, and I'm pretty surprised that's not how things actually work.
That said, the issue I have in terms of what others are saying is with things like this:
which is based on conjecture and an unfair portrayal of Zimmerman (as an aside, I find the "racial slur" thing supremely questionable, even if the rest of Treyvon's side of the story is true; it seems based on a completely incomprehensible half second of police tape and could have been "goon" or any number of other words. But I digress).
More than that, I have an issue with the media, which is intentionally leaving out huge, crucial aspects of the story. Basically, Zimmerman's being completely vilified and hung out to dry for the sake of a more clear-cut story, while Treyvon is being painted as an innocent, model child, which he was not. Not to mention the Spike Lee thing and the other threats of vigilante justice.
That said I feel I'm disagreeing with you a lot in this thread considering that you are, most likely, more or less correct. And each day more evidence seems to come out throwing legitimate doubts on Zimmerman's side of the story, mixed in with the half-true garbage. I just resented finding out, many days into the story, that the "white man hunts down and kills innocent black kid" concept was based on more or less nothing factual.
EDIT: Also, I think the wider point trying to be made here, that black people are considered intrinsically more suspicious in our society, IS based on reality and IS a huge issue. And I do think that this story is a reflection of that reality. I just wish that we could attack Zimmerman, and the society he (like it or not) is coming to represent using facts.
Last edited by mrbiggs; 04-01-2012 at 11:35 PM.
I assure you, if I had been trying to sound the tinniest bit intelligent, I would have parroted a different person.
What exactly is it evidence of? Did you run the recording through your Bat Voice Analyzer?I'd say it's funny, but you may have forgotten what was written by the time you get to this.Dd you use your Bat Voice Analyzer to discover that?
>:U
I thought there was some controversy over whether Zimmerman was white or latino. Anyway, I don't see why referencing the Black Panthers is somehow off topic or out of bounds. They're the ones who made the bounty, not you.
>:U
Yes, there are SO many of them, I'll bet there's an avalanche of answers.
[/quote]...self-defense is something the killer needs to affirmatively prove. Legally speaking, it's not something the state needs to disprove. [/QUOTE]
Sorry, that's just not the way our system of justice works. The burden is always on the state.
He was. The prosecutor wouldn't charge him, so he was released.
I'm not sure where this "not arrested" business was born, but if he was taken to the police station in the back of a squad car, in handcuffs, trust me, he was arrested.
You think? When they edit the 911 tape to make Zimmerman look worse, it looks...less than objective.More than that, I have an issue with the media, which is intentionally leaving out huge, crucial aspects of the story.
Oh, c'mon, let's not muddy the "racism!" waters, now, shall we?
You'd have to ask Jeremyb.Anyway, I don't see why referencing the Black Panthers is somehow off topic or out of bounds. They're the ones who made the bounty, not you.
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
Correct--I was looking at it from a tort perspective, where self-defense must be proven by the defendant. I've never practiced criminal law, and upon looking into it, I see that in criminal law, the state has the burden of disproving the affirmative defenses that a defendant raises. In the tort context, the defendant bears the burden of proof for any affirmative defenses.
Morally speaking, however, I stand by what I say. If you admit to killing an unarmed person, I'm going to regard you as a murderer until you demonstrate to me that there was a really really good reason for you for doing so. I'm not going to assume that killing an unarmed person is justified until someone affirmatively demonstrates that it's not justified. Since we generally discourage people from going around killing each other, I think my stance is pretty reasonable.
That's an interesting point, although it appears (after some quick googling) to be not quite true. Or, at least, it's more complicated than that.
http://www.cantonrep.com/newsnow/x58...f-on-defendant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense
It's even more complicated in Florida. Florida has a statute which requires the police to determine that there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful (i.e. that it was not a legitimage use of self-defense) before making an arrest; and the law also provides immunity from criminal prosecution if it was a proper use of self-defense. Florida Statute 776.032.
According to this article by a Florida criminal defense attorney, the determination of immunity is generally done pretrial, and the defendant bears the burden of proof on a preponderance of evidence standard (i.e. more likely than not).
--Philistine
Posting Permissions
45Likes
