Teen Killed In Neighborhood Watch Shooting

[Wells]

So what if the same test is done with a sample of Martin's voice and it comes back less than 48%? That's the point I'm trying to make but for some reason am unable to articulate properly.

All that means is they can't claim it was Martin. Still contradicts Zimmerman's claim it was him shouting for help.

[Vanyali]

So what if the same test is done with a sample of Martin's voice and it comes back less than 48%? That's the point I'm trying to make but for some reason am unable to articulate properly.

If they can find a sample and use it, then yes, it would be a requirement to use it.

If not, they won't throw it out because they can't find a sample.

So, in a sense, a massive piece of evidence against Zimmerman hinges on NOT finding a sample of Martin... or could, anyway. Depending on the results, of course, but I'd say that the family's lawyer might be at least half-hoping they don't find a sample, as it remains a for-sure piece htey could use as evidence rather than one that might be upset by martin's sample, should it be found.

[xylophone]

All that means is they can't claim it was Martin. Still contradicts Zimmerman's claim it was him shouting for help.

So let's say that we test it against Martin as well and it comes back to be a ~30% match or something like that. Do we then assume it was Zimmerman since it was closer or was it neither of them since it is below the threshold that is usable in court?

[Vanyali]

So let's say that we test it against Martin as well and it comes back to be a ~30% match or something like that. Do we then assume it was Zimmerman since it was closer or was it neither of them since it is below the threshold that is usable in court?

Neither of them match it.

Requires 60% to be used and 90% to be certain.

It's not a 48% chance, it's a 48% match. Kinda like if they took DNA and said it was 48% yours.

[xylophone]

Neither of them match it.

Requires 60% to be used and 90% to be certain.

It's not a 48% chance, it's a 48% match. Kinda like if they took DNA and said it was 48% yours.

I know that, my point is to address the quality of the audio.

[ElfinHilon10]

Guns don't kill people. Idiots with guns kill people.

No, they fucking do kill people you moron.

I'm sick and fucking tired of hearing this statement. This is dumbest thing I've heard. What tool did you use to kill the person? You used a god damn gun, not yourself. Period.

OT: This is extremely sad. This is one of the reasons why I cannot get behind the second amendment. You'll say "Oh he should have just been carrying a gun." Bullshit. The whole point is that we need to get guns off the street to not be used in this way.

Infracted: Play nice

[Wells]

So let's say that we test it against Martin as well and it comes back to be a ~30% match or something like that. Do we then assume it was Zimmerman since it was closer or was it neither of them since it is below the threshold that is usable in court?

You wouldn't be able to claim its either, since the match is so low to either of them. In that case its a third person screaming.

Which is why its rational right now to assume that its Martin screaming if its not Zimmerman, because we can be reasonably sure its not a third person.

Not that that is admissible in court. Whats important is though is it would establish Zimmerman as an active liar in what occurred, which pretty massively deflates him as a credible witness.

[blib]

I just can not get over the fact that in the US there is a law that gives you the right to murder people. Insane.

[Punks]

Can we just close this damn thread already?

[Vanyali]

No, they fucking do kill people you moron.

I'm sick and fucking tired of hearing this statement. This is dumbest thing I've heard. What tool did you use to kill the person? You used a god damn gun, not yourself. Period.

OT: This is extremely sad. This is one of the reasons why I cannot get behind the second amendment. You'll say "Oh he should have just been carrying a gun." Bullshit. The whole point is that we need to get guns off the street to not be used in this way.

So if I use a knife to kill someone (I own several, including a sharp hunting knife, case knife, and a scraping knife that could do some damage if used improperly), would you be as outraged as you are when people claim the gun killed, not the person?

If someone wants to kill someone, they will find a way. A gun is a tool. The person is the killer. If they want someone dead, they will kill them with whatever tool they have available.

[Wells]

The problem is guns are tools for killing. Knives are no more tools for killing than hammers are.

You can't really link the two here.

[holyevil44]

if i was the father of that kid i would do that
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi3Hyxuf5AE
you got a chance to get away whit it to if the judge is not retarded

[jbombard]

No, it can be used in court still.

It CAN NOT be used to say it was Martin's voice.
It CAN be said that it wasn't Zimmerman's voice.

If it isn't Zimmerman's voice, then he wasn't crying for help. If he wasn't crying for help, his "self-defense" theory gets hit pretty hard. It can't be used to SAY Martin was crying for help, but it can be used to imply it without ever saying it.

Trials are dirty things

There is a 48% likely chance it is Zimmerman, in other words it is pretty much 50%/50%. In other words it might be or might not be, but it isn't high enough or low enough to be conclusive one way or the other. Also does a man talking sound the same as a man screaming for help? Just tossing out examples of what they will tell the jury here. The evidence will not be useful even if it is allowed. For each expert you can pay to say it doesn't sound like Zimmerman, you can pay another one to say it does or even better you can say that the voice cannot be discerned and any expert who would say otherwise is obviously paid for.(ironic right) If the evidence is not compelling enough, it can be risky to use it even if it is allowed.

It is very hard to prove someone didn't fear for their life, whether or not they cried for help. Was he a racist that planned on killing? Who knows more investigation is needed, but jumping the gun and rushing to trial without good evidence will ensure he gets away with it if he is guilty.

[Vanyali]

There is a 48% likely chance it is Zimmerman, in other words it is pretty much 50%/50%. In other words it might be or might not be, but it isn't high enough or low enough to be conclusive one way or the other. Also does a man talking sound the same as a man screaming for help? Just tossing out examples of what they will tell the jury here. The evidence will not be useful even if it is allowed. For each expert you can pay to say it doesn't sound like Zimmerman, you can pay another one to say it does or even better you can say that the voice cannot be discerned and any expert who would say otherwise is obviously paid for.(ironic right) If the evidence is not compelling enough, it can be risky to use it even if it is allowed.

It is very hard to prove someone didn't fear for their life, whether or not they cried for help. Was he a racist that planned on killing? Who knows more investigation is needed, but jumping the gun and rushing to trial without good evidence will ensure he gets away with it if he is guilty.

No, it is NOT a 48% likely chance it is him.

It's a 48% MATCH. As in, 48% of it matches his voice and 52% of it DOES NOT. This means that it is very, very very very very very very very very very far beyond "50/50 being him". It's more 99% NOT him.


And when you bring out the expert saying that you can use random sounds to match, since you can, and what the voice is saying matters not at all, it is a lot stronger than the case you're putting forward.

You cannot bring an expert to say "well, there's a 50% chance that it IS him" because it's not. It's flat-out not a chance, it's a matching percent.

[jbombard]

The problem is guns are tools for killing. Knives are no more tools for killing than hammers are.

You can't really link the two here.

Depends on the knife, some knives are tools for cutting steak other knives are tools for cutting throats.
Just like a bb-gun isn't a tool for killing, although most guns are designed for killing albeit animals not people. In this case however hand guns are designed generally for the sole purpose to kill people.

[Wells]

jbombard, let me explain this to you with an analogy.

Lets say you have two 3 inch lines. One is all red and the other is 48% red and 52% blue. Does that mean there's a 50-50 chance they're both red or is the second line matching the all red line by 48%?

[Mekh]

jbombard, let me explain this to you with an analogy.

Lets say you have a two 3 inch lines. One is all red and the other is 48% red and 52% blue. Does that mean there's a 50-50 chance they're both red or is the second line matching the all red line by 48%?

No, it is NOT a 48% likely chance it is him.

It's a 48% MATCH. As in, 48% of it matches his voice and 52% of it DOES NOT. This means that it is very, very very very very very very very very very far beyond "50/50 being him". It's more 99% NOT him.


And when you bring out the expert saying that you can use random sounds to match, since you can, and what the voice is saying matters not at all, it is a lot stronger than the case you're putting forward.

You cannot bring an expert to say "well, there's a 50% chance that it IS him" because it's not. It's flat-out not a chance, it's a matching percent.

To illustrate:

ABABABABAB

is a 50% match to

AAAAAAAAAA

The chance that the two are the same is nil.

[xylophone]

jbombard, let me explain this to you with an analogy.

Lets say you have a two 3 inch lines. One is all red and the other is 48% red and 52% blue. Does that mean there's a 50-50 chance they're both red or is the second line matching the all red line by 48%?

*GASP* an... analogy?

[Vanyali]

The problem is guns are tools for killing. Knives are no more tools for killing than hammers are.

You can't really link the two here.

One of mine is a fairly long ritual knife (length of my forearm, more or less). Unwieldy unless you're doing a ritual, as it'd be more short-sword but too short for that. Ofc, it's a replica, but there's no reason for a blade of that size EXCEPT killing or hurting something

Some knives, though, I'd agree with. The hunting and scraping are for after death, not before

[Tierbook]

zimmerman will get off the legal system owes us after OJ walked scott free.... ya i went there