1. #3041
    Scarab Lord xylophone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,625
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanyali View Post
    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
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    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%?
    ^^^ Wells using an analogy

  2. #3042
    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.

  3. #3043
    Quote Originally Posted by xylophone View Post
    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.

  4. #3044
    Scarab Lord xylophone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,625
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    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%?
    ^^^ Wells using an analogy

  5. #3045
    Quote Originally Posted by xylophone View Post
    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.

  6. #3046
    Scarab Lord xylophone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,625
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanyali View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    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%?
    ^^^ Wells using an analogy

  7. #3047
    Quote Originally Posted by Plagued00 View Post
    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
    Last edited by Pendulous; 2012-04-03 at 03:13 AM.

  8. #3048
    Quote Originally Posted by xylophone View Post
    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.

  9. #3049
    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.

  10. #3050
    Pandaren Monk Punks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    1,761
    Can we just close this damn thread already?

  11. #3051
    Quote Originally Posted by ElfinHilon10 View Post
    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.

  12. #3052
    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.

  13. #3053
    The Patient holyevil44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    quebec,canada,na,earth
    Posts
    214
    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

  14. #3054
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanyali View Post
    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.

  15. #3055
    Quote Originally Posted by jbombard View Post
    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.

  16. #3056
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    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.

  17. #3057
    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%?
    Last edited by Wells; 2012-04-03 at 01:28 AM.

  18. #3058
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    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%?
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanyali View Post
    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.

  19. #3059
    Scarab Lord xylophone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,625
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    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%?
    ^^^ Wells using an analogy

  20. #3060
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •