Slashdot Mirror
Forensic Experts Say Screams Were Not Zimmerman's
Hugh Pickens writes "As the Trayvon Martin controversy splinters into a debate about self-defense, a central question remains: Who was heard crying for help on a 911 call in the moments before the teen was shot? Now the Orlando Sentinel reports that Tom Owen, a leading expert in the field of forensic voice identification sought to answer that question by analyzing the recordings. His result: It was not George Zimmerman who called for help. 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. Owen used software called Easy Voice Biometrics to compare Zimmerman's voice to the 911 call screams. 'I took all of the screams and put those together, and cut out everything else,' says Owen. The software compared that audio to Zimmerman's voice and returned a 48 percent match. Owen says to reach a positive match with audio of this quality, he'd expect higher than 90 percent. Owen cannot confirm the voice as Trayvon's, because he didn't have a sample of the teen's voice to compare however 'you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman.'"
Zimmerman's claim of being badly beaten up before he shot the kid doesn't hold up either: there's some footage taken at the police station the night of his arrest, and he looks totally unharmed. No cuts to the back of the head, no broken nose, nothing. Guy's story has more holes than... eh, I'm on my eighteenth hour without sleep due to a project and can't come up with an apt metaphor, but something with a lot of holes.
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
I know that /. is US-centric but wtf is going on? Some guy used a piece of software?
At least he's done more then the police have done in this case.
Really? Slashdot has frequent coverage of human rights, crime, law enforcement. Technology alone isn't the only subject Slashdot readers are interested in. It just so happens that technology and forensics do play a role in this story. However even if they didn't, this is a huge story, and well worth covering on Slashdot.
Has this software been subjected to repeated double-blind testing? Otherwise, there's no point in reporting this.
While I'm personally of the opinion that Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, I've also seen too many cases of "forensic science" of dubious validity being allowed in trials (for example Steven Hayne in Mississippi help convict dozens of people on the base of 'bite mark identification' techniques that are widely considered fraudulent). Can anyone point to any independent blind trials to demonstrate 1) that the metrics used by this program actually are invariant for a particular individual and 2) are sufficiently unique that they can be used to reliably distinguish two individuals?
I'm more concerned that someone under the presumption of innocence is instead being tried in the court of public opinion, which obeys no law and follows no procedure. Regardless of the facts of the matter, I would almost rather have my day in court and be acquitted than have my life torn to pieces in a three-ring media circus.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
all the actual techies have left and been replaced with libertarian trolls.
Huh? I remember way back when quoting Ayn Rand on Slashdot was a sure ticket to +5 Insightful. And you say that Slashdot is infested with libertarian trolls now?
If only the guy who shot another person without witnesses would have been actually *investigated*, instead of letting him walk entirely on his own testimony...
I think I've heard of Jenna Jameson, but I'm not sure...
Is that the old broad?
Was they located the ever elusive "white Hispanic." Not only are they using reputable software such as "Easy Bake Oven Biometrics" to prove that he did it, they were also able to make him of an entirely new race! Lets make sure we turn this into a race war as soon as possible!
Who is shooting an armless scared teen?
He shot a handicap? Or did you mean unarmed?
brandelf -t FreeBSD
I agree, he shouldn't be facing the court of public opinion. He should be facing the court of law. It certainly doesn't look like that is happening.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
I'd be very, very leery of trying to do any sort of "voice print analysis" on the basis of recorded cellphone audio. There's a lot of coding artifacts. After all, the goal is to allow people to communicate, not to convey voice identity.
You can run voice through a fairly low bit rate LPC coder and it's quite intelligible on the other end, and actually "sounds" like the speaker, but if you look at the spectrogram, it's totally different. Your ear hears the dominant formants in the vowels, and you recognize speakers by that. LPC basically encodes the vocal tract as a 8-10 term filter plus a buzz excitation source. "voice print id" depends more on fine structure, which is lost in the encoding/decoding. It would be like trying to identify a paper document that was watermarked by looking at a photocopy. The watermark may or may not come through, but the intelligibility of the document is the same either way.
It's not a question of guilt or innocence, Zimmerman is guilty of shooting and killing Trayvon Martin. That is not in question at all. The question is whether he was legally justified in doing so. Unfortunately, one side of the story (Trayvon) has been removed and cannot be heard.
A human being *died*. A young man was shot and killed while bearing only a can of iced tea and a bag of skittles. An investigation of more than simply accepting the word of the shooter is definitely warranted.
"Trial by social media". "Trial by the self-righteous" Glad we have court systems to sort out all these rumors.
The District Attorney has an obligation to not bring cases he can't win. It took 1.5 years to arrest Michael Jackson's doctor, let investigators do their job.
Easy Voice Biometrics
If it was based on psuedo-science it would have another name. Something like, Crystal Voice Biometrics, or Sonic Wave Biomagnetics.
The fact that the DA's office is standing on a ludicrous interpretation of the stand your ground law as an excuse to not press charges even though the well established facts of the case practically demand a trial.
Just to add insult, a bunch of people actually believe the crap excuse and so are campaigning to repeal stand your ground rather than finding out why the DA hates black people (or loves Zimmerman).
Even if Zimmerman was the one screaming
He followed and confronted someone for no good reason, even after having been explicitly told (by 911 operator) to stay away
Even if Zimmeriman screamed through the whole process, the killing of Trayvon is not justified.
When law enforcement authorities refuse to press charges against a known killer, the only thing left IS the court of public opinion. It's not like George Zimmerman can throw himself into court without personally confessing details that would make him chargeable.
The worst part about this is that the DA office doesn't seem to understand that "Stand Your Ground" is just an affirmative defense against a crime, not a magic spell that means someone can't be arrested.
Except that there are some facts here.
1) "Neighbourhood watch" personnel know that they are not supposed to be armed
2) They are warned not to engage, lest they risk legal repercussions. They are to call the police.
3) Zimmerman was specifically told to stand down in this case by a police dispatcher.
That's the only "opinion" I need to have. Zimmerman needs to be charged, just like he would be if he shot some rich white kid.
I agree, he shouldn't be facing the court of public opinion. He should be facing the court of law. It certainly doesn't look like that is happening.
It looks increasingly likely that he will face a jury. And when he does, the jury will likely be informed of Fla. Stats. 776.041, which states:
776.041âfUse of force by aggressor.â"The justification [of self defense] described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)âfIs attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)âfInitially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)âfSuch force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)âfIn good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
To be brutally honest, I think both his attackers and his defenders sound very silly to me in making bold statements before the facts are in. The prudent thing to do is to simply say that we are not going to condemn him or exonerate him until the process plays out and renders a verdict.
[ Note, I'm not saying that everyone must accept the results of the process -- just because it's the legal result doesn't mean we have to personally believe it. But there is a difference between disagreeing with the result after it happens and jumping to your own conclusion before it has been conducted. The former seems to me reasonable, the latter not so much. ]
There aren't "well established facts" in this case. At least not that are known to the general public. Cases tried in the media tend to be enormously biased because they are about generating interest not about reliable evidence. For instance, was Zimmerman's nose broken and the back of his head injured or not? We don't know but such evidence would obviously make a big difference in the case.
I agree.
Is it self defence if I am breaking into someone's else home, they grab a knife and "attack" me and I shoot them as I fear for my life?
Clearly no. The homeowner has the right to defend themselves from the instigator.
Is it self defence if I stalk someone walking down the road and they "attack" me and I shoot them as I fear for my life?
Or let's ask it backwards.
If I am walking down the street minding my own business and I am followed and stalked by another are they allowed to kill me when I defend myself?
EVEN if Zimmerman found himself defending himself he should still be investigated as evidence indicates that he is defending himself from an event he initiated.
Trayvon, per mobile conversation with his girlfriend:
""He says: 'Oh, he's right behind me. He's right behind me again,'" Crump said the girl told him. "She says: 'Run.' He says: 'I'm not going to run, I'm just going to walk fast.'
She then heard Martin saying "Why are you following me""
Florida stalking law arguably shows that Trayvon was being stalked. Easily as arguable as the "stand your ground" arguement. And that would mean that he was killed by someone in the commision of a crime.
"FLORIDA
Section 784.048. STALKING; DEFINITIONS; PENALTIES. 1997.
(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate purpose.
(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern a conduct composed of series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." Such constitutionally protected activity includes picketing or other organized protests.
(c) "Credible threat" means a threat made with the intent to cause the person who is the target of the threat to reasonably fear for his or her safety. The threat must be against the life of, or a threat to cause bodily injury to, a person."
You forget that the trial will be held in the county he resides in. Not LA or New York or any other bastion of liberal thought and policy. In this county I assure you the majority of Home Owners and Employed Taxpayers who make up the majority of the jury pool will decide and not Al Sharpton nor any members of the New York Times staff. Given this fact I'd bet his peers, who are fed up with thugs wanderning around in the wee hours of the night seeking what they can take will be much more likely to understand what was going through Zimmerman's mind than you are. I'd bet money that he would walk.
The police could use their time-honored tactic of arresting you for resisting arrest to bring him in anytime.
Erm, the case *is* being investigated. For one thing, he was taken into custody for questioning the night of the incident. I also believe that local officials actually tried to present this case to a prosecutor and was denied due to lack of evidence. Now work is being done to present this case to a grand jury. How can you say that there is no investigation?
It's amazing how much misinformation is being spread out there that is fueling a lot of pointless emotions.
It's because Zimmerman's father is a former judge.
That's a fact.
They're using their grammar skills there.
One aspect that seems to have been ignored by everyone is that this happened in a gated community. I used to live in a gated community in Phoenix and the only way in or out was past a guard shack. Did the Martins live in the gated community? If not how did Travon Martin happen to be walking down the street? If his family did live there how come the community watch group was unaware that he was a resident. Something does not make sense.
Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
If a cop murders a kid (unarmed, in the back, running away, etc) everybody says
A He/She feared for their lives/safety
B He/She was only doing their job
C They were resisting
D Oops!
And the cop get's a few days off with pay!
It's a good thing that this retard Zimmerman isn't a cop, maybe he'll get prosecuted!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
We have an unarmed victim, making the supposed deadly threat unlikely. That would mean Zimmerman shot him without a credible fear for his life. We have evidence that the victim was attempting to retreat (evenm though not obligated to do so) which further suggests there was no threat to Zimmerman's life. Of the two people there, one of them who was not Zimmerman was screaming for help. Again, that makes the claim that Zimmerman was reasonably fearful for his life look rather weak.
It's not SYG at all.
(1) Citation needed. Not aware of Florida law in particular, but Zimmerman was licensed to use his firearm. Further, 'neighborhood watch' programs are not regulated in any capacity that I'm aware of - they are simply just bands of civilians who have to follow the same laws that individual civilians do. He is permitted to carry his firearm as a civilian regardless of whether or not he's doing it under the auspices of a 'neighborhood watch' program that the government makes no special deference to.
(2) This is common sense that Zimmerman should have followed. It's not a legal commandment, however.
(3) The suggestions of the 911 dispatcher are not legally binding in any way. 911 dispatchers are not officers of the law, nor does the 911 dispatcher really have full situational awareness of what is going on.
The presumption of innocence under U.S. law is pretty limited. All it means is that the prosecution has the burden of proof in order to convict you.
For example, if you can't pay bail, there's no presumption of innocence. The judge can keep you in jail even though you've never been convicted of anything.
The issue here is that the cops weren't seriously investigating Zimmerman, and that they've failed to prosecute people in the past who killed black victims.
It didn't look like Zimmerman and his accusers would ever have their day in court -- until they went to the media. That's an appropriate role of the media.
BTW there's nothing about "presumption of innocence in the Constitution.
Really?
From Florida Statute 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force
"(1) A person who uses force as permitted in 776.012 [Use of force in defense of person] is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force..."
"(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful."
Sure sounds like they can't be arrested to me.
Zimmerman was a ranking member of the "neighborhood watch", and should eligible for a kind of "sovereign immunity" like cops have when they blast away at unarmed "threats".
I think what the outrage is that if It was a black man that shot a white guy the black man would be still in jail probably under the jail. I think the fact that he is walking free during all of this outrages people.
"...unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful"
Probable cause is the standard for making an arrest in any case. Police routinely cite it with weaker justification than in this case, one which offers ample basis for a probable-cause arrest. Y'know... if they wanted to.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
None of those three items are laws, the breaking of which would be chargeable offenses. Carrying the gun was legal, as was observing someone in public (or a private neighborhood which Zimmerman was responsible for securing). If Martin attacked him, he was the first and only person who broke a law.
God I hope you are joking. A neighborhood watch is simply that a watch (mostly just a deterrent represented by signs) for what is going on. It doesn't mean you have active individual who drives around and patrols the area armed with a sidearm. You see something you report it to the police.
And from my understanding the kid who was shot lived in this neighborhood with his father, so Zimmerman shot someone he was suppose to be protecting.
After the Richard Jewel case I don't get into rush to judgement any more.
However the initial response of the police to let Zimmerman walk without a real investigation deserves a whole lot of criticism. Now we are getting the investigation so hopefully the facts will become evident.
The revelation that pounding the human head against concrete can kill is fairly noteworthy . . . . and news to you?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
They were talkative enough about not being able to charge him due to stand your ground. That is, exactly the sort of thing a DA wouldn't say if they intended to even look into the matter.
Actually, we do know that his nose wasn't broken. He had no injuries at the police station, nor was his light shirt covered in blood, which would be expected from someone with a broken nose.
If someone shoots an unarmed person, until they have been cleared by a court of law, they should be behind bars.
Is that difficult to understand?
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
The eye witness said it was too dark for him to know who was on the ground even in broad terms. Hios mother claims he was pressured by police to give the report they wanted to hear.
There are plenty of questions swirling around this. I don't claim Zimmerman is guilty (I wasn't there and there's too much conflicting information at the moment), I claim that given all of this, the DA has shown remarkably little interest in further investigation.
Note that the events reported in your link are perfectly consistent with Martin feeling threatened by a man who was following him around who had a gun. If he did feel threatened, then he would be perfectly justified in making a grab for the gun and for issuing a beat down. When you approach someone with a deadly weapon, you are the party creating a reasonable fear for safety.
The weird thing I don't get about the "stand your ground" law in this case is how it can apply to both people. By his own account, Zimmerman was chasing Martin. Zimmerman was armed with a gun and was not in a marked security vehicle or wearing any sort of uniform, nor did he identify himself in any way as being part of the neighborhood watch. If Zimmerman had never shot Martin, but Martin had been arrested for attacking Zimmerman (and I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm just looking at Zimmerman's claimed version of events), then "stand your ground" should have been a viable defense for him. He was the one in fear for his life being chased by a suspicious stranger armed with a gun.
Everything that's been revealed about Zimmerman seems to show that he's basically a hyper-aggressive Gladys Kravitz with a gun. In the past he'd called 911 to report suspicious 7-9 year old black males, kids playing in the street, and, apparently, his landlord demanding the rent money. He forced this situation and someone else ended up dead. He's clearly at least guilty of manslaughter.
Actually, apparently Zimmerman's arrest in 2005 was specifically for resisting arrest (and assaulting a police officer, but that probably came after the police officer started arresting him for resisting arrest). That was during a domestic crisis situation.
Yes, I'm sure there are. But are there laws that stop the police from arresting you just because you hunted someone down and then shot them after you caught up with them?
You do know that there was at least one eyewitness that corroborated that Zimmerman was on the ground being attacked and calling for help?
You do know there are other eyewitnesses who claimed that was not the case? That's your probable cause right there.
The thing is, even if Zimmerman's nose was broken, the back of his head injured, etc. (which they do not appear to have been at the time), his own version of the events should be enough for a manslaughter charge. He hunted the boy down, forcing a confrontation, then shot him. The exact nature of the confrontation is what's in dispute and should determine if he's charged with manslaughter or murder, but he should still be charged with at least manslaughter. He was an armed man chasing down a high school kid for no reason. If Martin had managed to sneak up behind him and club him to death with his can of iced tea, then Martin shouldn't be charged with a crime based on the "stand your ground" principle since he was the one being chased by a man with a gun.
(Please note that I am prefacing these statements with 'if' since we do not know for certain. I am merely presenting a case where SYG could legitimately be used and argued for)
That's precisely the point - we don't know for certain. Evidence is seemingly contradictory, and witnesses are claiming different things. At this point, a proper trial is needed to decide on the facts of the case, and Zimmerman can then claim SYG as an affirmative defense during that trial and walk free, if the facts do indeed support his case.
I also believe that local officials actually tried to present this case to a prosecutor and was denied due to lack of evidence.
A dead body is "lack of evidence"?
Coupled with contradictory claims by eyewitnesses, I don't see how it's not sufficient grounds for further investigation.
Where is it documented that Martin was a well-built athlete? He was certainly taller than Zimmerman, but the police video seems to show that Zimmerman was in pretty good shape. He also had a work history as a bouncer at house parties (a job from which he was fired for being too aggressive).
Not really. There's 2 essential elements to charging manslaughter in Florida, and Zimmerman meets them.
They are, (1) Trayvon Martin is dead and (2) George Zimmerman killed him.
I don't give a shit about anything else. Zimmerman can tell his story to a Judge, and if the Judge buys his motion to dismiss, then so be it.
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
It's always bothered me that forensic science doesn't involve science. It would be easy enough to reproduce the events using the same phone and recording equipment and voice samples with a few different people to establish a baseline for what we "should" expect. But instead they simply can't be bothered with scientific controls. We are just supposed to take their word for it that it should be a "90%" match. I'm this context we don't even know what 90% means.
No. The evidence we have shows that Martin was being followed by Zimmerman for the purposes of surveillance (911 call about a suspicious person by Zimmerman), not that Zimmerman was pursuing Martin with a weapon drawn or the threat of violence.
Right there you see Zimmerman following Martin. Another word would be stalking. The 9-11 operator told him not to engage. Any currently tested law applies only if the victim attempted to retreat and was otherwise forced into a confrontation where they had to protect their life.
Voluntarily stalking someone who probably knows you are stalking them is not what comes to mind for 'justifiable homicide'. But hey, anything to feed your fantasy of being neighborhood policeman instead of leaving it up to the police, eh?
What makes you think the police haven't already done this and found the results inconclusive.
You tards are so ready to believe.
I agree with you about too many -tards being willing to believe. Someone is trying to start a race war in this country and I'd sure like to know why.
I feel that the proper question should have started out with: Whose cellphone was the call made on? I doubt that they traded cellphones and the person making the call was probably the person screaming for help.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I don't see many people here arguing that Zimmerman should be convicted. What I see is many people (myself included) arguing that the facts presented so far are clearly very murky, and that the guy should be arrested until a proper trial can be held to determine his guilt or innocence. If he's smart, too, he'll ask to waive jury trial, that way he's much more likely to get an impartial ruling under the circumstances.
You do know that Zimmerman was treated at the scene for injuries from havnig his head slammed into concrete...
But apparently Zimmerman was not injured as he claims. Surely you must be aware of that, which makes me think bad things about you.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
You do know there are other eyewitnesses who claimed that was not the case? That's your probable cause right there.
Fabulous! New information! I'm for new information. Here is a link showing the eye witness I'm referring to:
And here is another report, which seems consistent with the above, and seems to be someone different:
And of course Zimmerman was treated on the scene for head injuries, which is again consistent with the other reports.
As it was, the police took Zimmerman in for questioning in handcuffs, and released him. They know where he lives.
Do you have a link for me?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Stalking someone is often a prelude to assault, robbery and/or murder. In any case, it is not only a provocation, but a direct threat to the subjects safety. While it does not give a right to attack, hindering someone's movements such that they DO have to pass through you or near you would, under most courts, be at your fault.
The fact that you have to argue for the right to stalk and threaten other people while defending someone who stalked and ultimately killed a youth is sickening to say the least.
You know what? I'm not playing this game.
There is no such thing as "injuries severe enough to justify lethal force". If someone has reasonable cause to fear for their safety, if you injure them at all, they are justified in using any and all available force to stop you from injuring them further. Period.
Don't like it? Don't start fights you can't win. And since concealed carry is legal (and Zimmerman had a CCW permit, by the way), you have no way of knowing whether someone has a concealed weapon. So, the moral of the story: don't start fights.
In addition, an eyewitness, 13-year-old Austin Brown, told police he saw a man fitting Zimmerman's description lying on the grass moaning and crying for help just seconds before he heard the gunshot that killed Martin.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/28/10909475-witness-mom-says-police-told-her-trayvon-martin-shooting-wasnt-self-defense
Do you have a link for me?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/30/trayvon-martin-lawyers-evidence-leaks-zimmerman
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/20/neighbor-trayvon-martin-shooting-wasnt-self-defense/
Like I said, the witness story is inconsistent; the problem is that either side cherry picks the lines that support their case. Which, to me, is a clear indication that this should go to trial, where they can properly examine the evidence, question the witnesses etc
I've tried to stick to the indisputable facts in forming my opinion on this case (of which there are few), but regardless of the legal outcome, it seems clear to me that Trayvon Martin did not need to die that night, and that his death was the result of George Zimmerman patrolling the neighborhood with a firearm and choosing to follow Martin.
Had Zimmerman not been patrolling, or had he been patrolling without a firearm, or had he been patrolling with a firearm but taken the 911 operator's suggestion and not followed Martin, Martin would not be dead.
Even if Zimmerman's actions were legally justified, it doesn't mean they were right or intelligent. I was assaulted in downtown Washington, DC in the middle of the day. I could have escalated the situation and probably have been legally justified in doing so, but for all I know I might have gotten myself stabbed or run down by the car the asshole was driving. And for what? And here, Martin is dead--for what?
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
No, a trial may not be needed to decide the facts of the case. If the DA does not have sufficient evidence to believe he/she can obtain a conviction, it is a waste of taxpayer resources to bring the case to trial. The information currently available suggests that the DA so believes. We do not have the ability to analyze the evidence well enough to determine whether or not a trial is called for. However, considering the conflicting evidence that is available to us, it seems likely that the DA would be unable to prove criminal behavior on Zimmerman's part.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Except he wouldn't have broken the law if he believed he was protecting himself. The beauty of the Florida stand your ground law is that it's so broad that had Martin killed Zimmerman he could have plead self defense. Except for the fact that he was black and not the son of a judge. Florida's stand your ground law protects the instigator. That's the point of stand your ground laws. Prior to SYG the standard was that you had to try and avoid or escape situations that require deadly force. Florida's statue is so broad that believing you are preventing a felony is a good enough reason to shoot to kill.
So he had his head pounded into the pavement, his nose broken, and he shows up at the police station less than a half an hour later without a drop of blood on him or his clothes or so much as a bandaid. Not trip to the EF for an x-ray or an MRI.
So according to you, there is a law that states that you are only allowed to defend yourself if your injuries warrant being taken to the ER? I would love to see a link for that! The fact that he has ANY injury means that his story adds up.
There's so many opinions flying around here about this, yet I honestly can't pass judgment on any of this information.
All I do know is that the existing evidence is more than sufficient to merit formal charges and an arrest warrant.
If the DA has not put in for a warrant for Zimmerman as a suspect for murder by end of business on Monday, then I think the DOJ should pursue a more vigorous investigation into racism and misconduct within the DA's office and the Police Department.
Frankly, Zimmerman's story has stunk from the get go, the actions of the police have stunk and the more information comes out, the more the entire thing stinks. If we don't see the DA take swift and immediate action on Monday, we'll know where their motives truly lie.
Where are you guys when missing-white-girl takes over the news for months at a time? Why don't you link to scary white supremacist sites when a white person is the victim of a crime?
It's truly pathetic when your political beliefs allow you to paint any news event into a liberals-are-evil conspiracy.
The police dispatcher told him not to follow because Zimmerman was known to the Sanford PD, having made calls to them forty-six times since the beginning of 2011, for everything from a pothole to the presence of a black child, age seven to nine years of age.
The dispatcher said not to follow because the police dispatcher likely knew he was a lunatic who self-appointed himself the "neighborhood watch" (Zimmerman was not a member of any such sanctioned organization; his authority was the same as if I were to call myself the Queen of Spain), and had a history of violence.
Considering an unarmed boy who was out to buy skittles and iced tea is dead now, the dispatcher was correct.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqKSMMEYHxA
I don't see any head injuries. Or any blood, which is funny, considering head wounds bleed a lot. Oh, and the fact he supposedly just shot a guy to death as the guy was on top of him. If his story is true, he should be covered in blood.
Whar blood, whar?
"Latino" or "Hispanic" are markers of cultural background, not race.
That Slashdot posters don't know this and keep confusing this shows us how little 18-34 year old white males with no children (per Alexa) understand the politics of race in America.
(FYI, 69% of Mexico self-identifies as white or mixed-white per 2012 demographic info.)
If "Stand your ground" means, that you can use deadly force against someone you feel threatened by if you are on your own hometurf, and Mr. Zimmerman can rightfully claim this, then how comes, Mr. Martin should not have the right to confront someone he feels threatened by with deadly force?
If Mr. Zimmerman had this right, then Mr. Martin had it more, because his fears were obviously justified.
I'm not so sure that "stalking" in this case was illegal per se, which would be necessary for Trayvon to be able to legally act in self-defense.
I believe it fits Florida's definition of harassment. Stalking is generally legally reserved for violating a restraining order, so I agree that I may have been using a common word correctly, but not the accurate legal term. Zimmerman was, from his account, illegally harassing a black youth because the youth "looked suspicious" (DWB on feet). I can't figure out the facts of this. There were apparently multiple 911 phone calls from multiple people, and not much of a timeline set up with who said what when. Zimmerman apparently called 911 to report the youth for being suspiciously Black, and the 911 operator told him to back off and let the police respond. Zimmerman knew he could handle anything because he had a gun and apparently wanted to use it. So Zimmerman continued to approach (follow, stalk, harass) the youth until the youth told him to go away, after which Zimmerman shot and killed him.
Robbers in someone else's house do not get to claim stand your ground defenses when they kill homeowners. Zimmerman killed the youth for being Black in *his* neighborhood. The response from the mostly white judicial system seems to indicate that such actions are ok, after all, aren't we all scared of those big bad Black people? I've seen people question the race issue, but none have said that they believe Zimmerman would have followed whites as religiously (and there have been bits of his history from his recorded 911 calls that indicate he only calls on Blacks, which is unusual, as they are a minority in that neighborhood).
Learn to love Alaska
The outrage in this case is because most people believe, if a person, particularly a child, is shot dead in the street, that there should be an accounting before a court of law for that death unless the evidence is overwhelming that no crime took place. Your race-baiting crime stats are irrelevant to the sense of fundamental injustice that people feel about an unaccounted death. If your child was killed while walking home from the store, you would want the perpetrator brought to justice regardless of whether his racial makeup fit into some convenient narrative you seem to think is so important.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
A guy gives you a "warning punch" in a shoulder in the midst on an argument. You feel pain, so you've been "injured". You take out your concealed gun and shoot the guy in the head.
You have to be reasonably concerned about your safety, and this is not reasonable. This is insane.
What, you doubt that version of events? You doubt that Zimmerman, who admittedly followed the kid and confronted him, was the aggressor?
Maybe Zimmerman was innocently keeping an eye on a suspicious, dark, menacing, hoodie-wearing black thug, who flew into a Skittles-crazed Ebonic-profanity laced attack when merely asked about his whereabouts, and fully deserved, therefore, to get gunned down like a sub-human animal? Well, maybe so. Maybe that's exactly what happened.
Let's have a court of law make a determination, is all people are saying.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
If someone has reasonable cause to fear for their safety, if you injure them at all, they are justified in using any and all available force to stop you from injuring them further. Period.
That's just plain wrong. The law allows only for "reasonable force" to be used in self defense not "any and all available force".
So, you are claiming that the police report [sanfordfl.gov] - made before this became a controversial case - is false?
Are you claiming it's not?
Watch the fucking video and decide for yourself if this dude looks like hes just had his head smashed and beaten into pavement.
In 2009 there were 2,867 black males killed in the United States, of which 2,604 were killed by other blacks, 209 killed by whites. Why the outrage in this case? Might it be various people made assumptions about how this would play out?
It might, might, might just have something to do with the fact that this was not such a cut and dry scenario, and the suspect wasn't arrested. Of those 2,867 killings you cite, how many of those killers were arrested for murder or manslaughter? How many of those cases were regarded as self-defense?
People are understandably quick to bring race into the equation, but on it's most underlying level, an unarmed boy was shot by a large adult with a gun and an arrest wasn't made. The unarmed boy was reportedly making a run for junk food for his younger brother, the armed man was at some point following the boy around after being advised not to because the police were on the way. It's suspicious, regardless of what color either character is.
You do know that Zimmerman was treated at the scene for injuries from havnig his head slammed into concrete by the 6'3" (1.9m) athlete Martin, was taken to the police station in hand cuffs, questioned, and released? You do know that there was at least one eyewitness that corroborated that Zimmerman was on the ground being attacked and calling for help?
Wasn't Martin standing his ground? He was walking down the street, unarmed, when he noticed some stranger following him. He may not have known that Zimmerman was armed, but he (Zimmerman) was obviously up to something. Martin may have even tried to escape. (Considering that he was walking away from Zimmerman, it's hard to say if and when his behavior went from "walking home from the store" to "trying to get away from stalker").
So, under the interpretation of SYG being tossed around, didn't Martin have the right to defend himself?
Trayvon Martin DIDN'T start the fight. In case you haven't been keeping up, he was killed because Zimmerman IGNORED THE POLICE and started following and harassing a random kid.
"forensic hair analysis" is actually possible.... you can usually get a DNA sample from the hair as long as the root is intact. Even if you can't get a DNA sample, you can do a chemical analysis (mass spec) on the hair itself and compare it against a known sample to determine if it's from the same person. (traces of what you eat, any drugs you consume, etc. will find their way into your hair and fingernails, which will affect the chemical breakdown of the hair... this is why a hair test can be used to determine if you consume illegal drugs). If the test is accurate enough, it can be used to determine your identity as accurately as a fingerprint or DNA test, but the mass spec does require that the hair be roughly the same age... if you get your hair cut before the "known" sample is taken (or the "unknown" sample is too old and your hair has had time to grow out), it won't match up (which would be why it's never used).
The CSI version where they put a hair under a microscope and take a picture which they put side by side against the killer's, and say "there's your guy!" is complete bullshit, however.
A guy gives you a "warning punch" in a shoulder in the midst on an argument.
There is no such thing legally as a "warning punch", it is battery - a crime. You don't have the right to hit people no matter how much they piss you off in an argument. The only "out" you might get there is "fighting words", but I wouldn't look to it.
If you are smashing someone's head into the concrete pavement you are using potentially lethal force against them and shouldn't be surprised if they do whatever then can to end the threat you pose to them and their life.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
That broken nose sure did repair itself quickly on the police station CCTV!
Is Zimmerman secretly Wolverine?
Well, maybe before you yell you should pay attention to what you're responding to. What I said, in response to a post claiming that the law required a person to retreat, is that Florida law has no duty to retreat. That doesn't mean that Zimmerman actually acted in self-defense, it just meant that his failure to retreat isn't sufficient to demonstrate that.
As for "provoking the entire fucking situation", there's only so far you can go with that as well. To take a totally different hypothetical, if I insult you and you pull a knife and advance on me, and I pull a gun and shoot you, I have still acted in self defense, even though I "provoked the entire fucking situation".
Are you claiming it's not?
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. You are effectively claiming that the police looked into the future and made false statements on the report for a crime that wasn't controversial at the time, or that they doctored or replace an existing report. Evidence? Did they convince the Fire Department members to lie? You are the one making the claim - provide some evidence.
Watch the fucking video [youtube.com] and decide for yourself if this dude looks like hes just had his head smashed and beaten into pavement.
It is already noted in the police report that he was injured, but maybe this will help: Police surveillance video of Zimmerman may show head injury
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Frankly, I think it has a lot more to do with Zimmerman being the son of a judge than it does with racism.
If you can't provide evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the standard needed for conviction
If we could assess evidence like that in advance, we wouldn't need a trial at all - either there's guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt, in which case the arrested is guilty as charged, or it's not, and they walk free. The whole point of a trial is for the judge or jury to evaluate the evidence and decide whether it does indeed prove guilt!
Criminal trials aren't trivial experiments to impose on people on a whim.
That's true. A dead body, however, is one hell of a "whim" if you ask me. I don't see how it would be unreasonably taxing to have a trial in cases that involve one - they're rare enough, and in cases where self-defense is involved, it's usually easy to argue.
Also, in my state at least, if a defendant on the charges of manslaughter or murder successfully argues self-defense and is found not guilty, all his legal fees and reasonable compensation for time lost are paid out in full by the state. I know some other states have a similar arrangement, and I think it's a very good thing - it means that every such case can be scrutinized as need be to make sure that it was really self-defense and not murder, should there be any doubt about it, but it also means that you don't financially ruin the defendant in the process.
The police have no duty to make it clear to you or I what the facts are here. This is the very reason we have laws against lynch mobs. No one should be tried in the media. Your opinion, and mine, simply don't matter.
We don't have a clear set of facts, nor is it important that we ever have them. It's not our problem to solve, nor is it Judge Lynch's case to try. And that's a damn good thing, if history is any indication.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Actually if you dig a little deeper, you'll find some information coming from the 13-year-olds mother which is quite interesting, and brings into question even more of the level of police work done eg leading questions, badgering, etc.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/video-george-zimmerman-killing-trayvon-martin-grainy-proves-lawyer-article-1.1052713
brandelf -t FreeBSD
You do know there are other eyewitnesses who claimed that was not the case? That's your probable cause right there.
Fabulous! New information! I'm for new information. Here is a link showing the eye witness I'm referring to:
And here is another report, which seems consistent with the above, and seems to be someone different:
And of course Zimmerman was treated on the scene for head injuries, which is again consistent with the other reports.
As it was, the police took Zimmerman in for questioning in handcuffs, and released him. They know where he lives.
Do you have a link for me?
How about the surveillance video from the police station showing Zimmerman with no injuries after he was brought in? If his head was slammed into concrete such that he was at risk of dying, you would have been able to see it half an hour later. Here's the link you asked for. I bet you don't even view it - you've already made up your mind.
I think I'm going to need a chart for this. :)
Are you claiming it's not?
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
Local cops in Florida making up a little bullshit to let a white guy in a gated community go for murdering a black guy isn't a terribly extraordinary claim, in my opinion. I'd like to see the crime scene photos of Zimmerman's wounds, but they either haven't been released or were never taken. The video is inconclusive, and Zimmerman himself is in hiding.
Personally, I think Zimmerman should be charged even if he was attacked, but I don't find your pearl-clutching at the thought of police massaging facts in a report very credulous.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
For example, many black americans want massive wealth redistribution. That is the wealth of millions would be arbitarilly ceased and given to black people merely because they're black. You can say that's an extreme view but with the radicals in the streets these are the views those people are upset about.
It's not that black Americans or anyone is demanding wealth distribution, it's a matter of not enough land for everyone because a few families feel entitled to land they stole generations ago. Land is where wealth comes from, along with hard work. For instance if black people wanted to have farm land what does it take from you?
But it doesn't change the fact that some corporation wants to build a mall, or build something else they feel they are entitled to build, they don't ask the native Americans or blacks or the eco-system itself for permission either. So in a dog eat dog environment where some people are hoarding to the point of destroying the eco-system, while redistribution of wealth isn't the solution neither is hoarding. There has to be enough for everyone and this includes non-human animals, and if you can't understand that then you don't deserve what you have.
There is also the question of profiling. Well, the basis of the profiling complaint is the statistical fact that blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime
Okay Mr. Racist. Getting caught and arrested a disproportionate amount of times does not prove anything other than you get caught. It proves blacks are more likely to get caught and nothing more. Crimes aren't set in stone and aren't based on anything other than what some lawmakers agree upon to be a crime. If we look at the crimes on the internet for example are most of those criminals going to be black? What about white collar crime? Insider trader? Spying? These are usually considered to be "white" crimes but since no one ever gets caught these crimes don't really count as crime.
. I don't know why that is and can only speculate there are cultural issues. But that is a reality and many black people have jumped to the wrong conclusion that they are merely caught at crime more then white people rather then disproportionately committing the crimes.
It's true. If we make obscenity a crime for instance in an all white neighborhood but we don't make it a crime in an all black neighborhood then suddenly there are more criminals in that white neighborhood than in that black neighborhood. Now let's say all the lawmakers in the white neighborhood who made obscenity a crime were black, and lets say a small elite group of multi-racials decide what is or isn't obscene. What do you predict will happen? The result is more white crime.
This is the problem with idiotic race statistics. You can create criminals by creating new laws which apply to certain cultures more than others to make it look like it's people choosing to be criminals when in reality you just criminalized whatever they were doing. So when file sharing is criminalized, and anal sex, who suffers?
What are we supposed to do with that? Arbitrarily forgive black criminals and release them back into the community? Arbitrarily find random white people guilty of various crimes and lock them up?
If they aren't violent why not? Why arrest people for their culture? If we outlawed hiphop then of course millions of black people would be criminals overnight but I'd be arguing we release all who were arrested as political prisoners just like I'd argue for those who listen to classical or country music to be released. It's wrong to arrest people for their culture or lifestyle. If you don't like the lifestyles of black people or poor people, if you don't want people to be on welfare, sell drugs, or prostitute, then give them some better options or shut up about it, but to arrest them doesn't solve anything.
We're never going to resolve these issues because the co
The black kid was in the gated community too, since the entire story is that he was not there as a criminal but as a visitor of family, his BLACK family was living in the same gated community as the white man that this BLACK family KNEW was part of the neighborhood watch. Do you have any evidence that Zimmerman ever protested this residence of this BLACK family?
Gosh, how easy it is to point out your bigoted nature. Clearly a white man living in a gated community is a racist but a black family doing the same is.... well is just what? Why are they different?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Our blacks are Moroccans and the hoody is the fur colored coat. Anyway, a person who claimed to have been mugged killed one of them on a moped by slamming their car in to them. RACIST. Then tiny details started to emerge. First the family claiming that he was just an normal muslim kid doing normal every day things... THEN it emerged that the person who claimed to be mugged was not only female, but a BLACK female. Oops, so much for the white man ganging up on a poor kid.
THEN it turned out that the kid was on his way back from court, where he had been involved in a mugging case.
Conclusion? The woman was not prosecuted and a new "joke" was born.
Kid committing a robbery on his way back from court for robbery? Heel normaal, voor een marrokaan. (Very normal, for a Morrocan).
Most people in the beginning were willing to believe that the person in the car had overreacted, Holland is a liberal nation but we are not fools. More incidents like this have now made it perfectly normal for any story along these lines to question any report in favor of the minority person. The media and the minorities have lied so often about the real truth that they fully well knew.
In the US, this case will do nothing but divide the races further. A lot of people try to focus on their favorite points, like the fact this happened in a gated community and ignore the counter points (the black kid was there to visit relatives, who I can only presume are black so the attempt to make Zimmerman a racist for living in a gated community falls flat).
It is like the shootings in France, the image of Muslims in France would have been a LOT better after the shooting if the father hadn't acted like a self-righteous asshole in making demands while he full well knew one of his sons was a mass child killer and another a thief (other son stole the moped). Just a few seconds of keeping your mouth shut can do an awful lot of good will. Instead, the entire Muslim family and by extension all Muslims in France are shown to be criminals with zero sense of values or morals.
At this point I very much doubt that the outcome of the case will really matter. It is more like the Simpson trial all over again. People divided along racial lines with a desperate few to try to hide their own bigotry behind attempts to see the other sides point of view without really doing so.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I would think that arming yourself and chasing someone to confront them would remove your protection from arrest under "stand your ground" laws. After all, they are called "stand your ground", not "chase suspicious people" laws.
And yes, I do favor gun rights, including concealed carry and strong self defense laws, I just think that if you chase someone in order to confront them then a court should decide if you were really defending yourself rather than the police just taking your word for it.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Let's assume a large black man follows a 17-year-old white boy into an alley, claiming the boy looks suspicious. There, the black man shoots the white boy. The black man emerges with minor wounds to his head and claims that he, for unknown reasons, was attacked by the white boy, who, it turns out, had done nothing wrong and wasn't carrying anything suspicious. The prosecutor decides to not prosecute because they have no proof the black man didn't act in self-defence.
Would people be so quick to jump to the black man's defence?
P.S. I mean, think about it. If the police needed to *prove* someone didn't act in self-defence, you could shoot anyone, anywhere, and get away with it, as long as there were no eye witnesses.
When the 6'3" (1.9m) tall Martin [nwsource.com] slammed Zimmerman's head into the concrete, it represented a lethal danger, not actual damage.
Martin supposedly also weighed about 150 lbs and Zimmerman 240 lbs. A tall, gangly teen beats up a heavy adult by slamming him into things? Possible, I supposed, but it seems fishy.
And had Zimmerman followed the 9/11 operator's instructions, this never would have happened. He was told to stand down.
Frankly 'stand your ground' applies to Treyvon. He was followed and tailed, stalked if you will. He was confronted. Since according to Zimmerman's people this was a high crime area, there is reasonable grounds to be wary and 'stand his ground'. Given Zimmerman's arrest history it's clearly evident he has violent tendencies - so there's no way you can prove he didn't strike first.
If Zimmerman created the situation, there is simply no way he can use self-defense as an argument.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people