# Thread: Teen Killed In Neighborhood Watch Shooting

1. Originally Posted by 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.
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.

2. 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%?

3. Originally Posted by Wells
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%?
Originally Posted by Vanyali
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.

4. Originally Posted by Wells
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?

5. Originally Posted by 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.

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

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

7. Originally Posted by xylophone
*GASP* an... analogy?
Careful, I'm starting to think you're a threat to me.

8. Originally Posted by Wells
Careful, I'm starting to think you're a threat to me.
Too late, new sig >=)

9. So a grown man murders a kid and it might be legal. He was out at night stalking random people with a gun and its legal. He is allegedly confrontated for stalking a scared kid at night, he is the only one being armed, and he is armed with a gun, he doesnt use it to scare the kid of, he uses it to kill him and it might be legal becaus you know, poor armed Zimmerman might have gotten scared because a 17 year old allegedly threw some punches at him. Which gave him injuries that were so severe that a few hours later they didnt even show in any shape or form on a video of him.

Stalking people at night and shooting them dead because you got scared might be LEGAL in america...

10. Originally Posted by blib
So a grown man murders a kid and it might be legal. He was out at night stalking random people with a gun and its legal. He is allegedly confrontated for stalking a scared kid at night, he is the only one being armed, and he is armed with a gun, he doesnt use it to scare the kid of, he uses it to kill him and it might be legal becaus you know, poor armed Zimmerman might have gotten scared because a 17 year old allegedly threw some punches at him. Which gave him injuries that were so severe that a few hours later they didnt even show in any shape or form on a video of him.

Stalking people at night and shooting them dead because you got scared might be LEGAL in america...
i thought he was on his front lawn....

11. Zimmerman got full retard and follow the kid , end up shooting the kid now because he went full retard some gang put a bounty on him (we probaly know what will happen if they catch him). my point is like in tropic thunder: never ever go full retard you can go 1/2 retard, 1/4 retard but never go full retard111!!11!111137

12. so... anyone given a shit about guns control? trigger happy neighborhood watch ? he is training for the army, rawr, good shot son! Buy more guns !!
I know douchebags that are fucking addicts to gunpowder.. hell yea, a whole culture based on "I HAVE A GUN, CAREFULL, DONT MESS WITH ME SON"

user infracted

13. You sonofabitch.

you could at least fix my grammar.

14. Originally Posted by shiftbull
so... anyone given a shit about guns control? trigger happy neighborhood watch ? he is training for the army, rawr, good shot son! Buy more guns !!
I know douchebags that are fucking addicts to gunpowder.. hell yea, a whole culture based on "I HAVE A GUN, CAREFULL, DONT MESS WITH ME SON"
Except the members of said culture are extremely careful with their guns so they can avoid situations like Zimmerman has created.

16. Originally Posted by Vanyali
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.
You can rant about it all you want, but the fact is you get that evidence in front of a jury and it still sounds like 50%/50%. Unless Tom Owen comes out and says specifically that this guarantees it is not Zimmerman, saying crap like a 48% match will work against you in a jury trial. I doubt Tom Owen will say that, because it is already fairly obvious who he thinks it is and the reason he isn't saying it definitely isn't Zimmerman is he doesn't have the proof to back it up. I AM NOT SAYING IT IS ZIMMERMAN, I am saying proving it isn't in a jury trial isn't going to be easy.

17. Originally Posted by Wells
You sonofabitch.

you could at least fix my grammar.
Editing your sentence structure? What do I look like? NBC?

18. Originally Posted by xylophone
Except the members of said culture are extremely careful with their guns so they can avoid situations like Zimmerman has created.
Yes americas yearly death toll clearly proves this point. Americans are a people that are arguing that they need guns because people are comming to rob, rape and murder them. Giving guns to people with this mentality is insane. You are afraid of your own shadows so you shoot stuff and now you ahve created a law that makes tghis behaviour legal. ITS INSANE.

19. Originally Posted by jbombard
You can rant about it all you want, but the fact is you get that evidence in front of a jury and it still sounds like 50%/50%. Unless Tom Owen comes out and says specifically that this guarantees it is not Zimmerman, saying crap like a 48% match will work against you in a jury trial. I doubt Tom Owen will say that, because it is already fairly obvious who he thinks it is and the reason he isn't saying it definitely isn't Zimmerman is he doesn't have the proof to back it up. I AM NOT SAYING IT IS ZIMMERMAN, I am saying proving it isn't in a jury trial isn't going to be easy.

It's very easy when you get the experts to say "this voice matches his voice print in 48% of areas, which means that is is not Zimmerman's. It shares 48% of the vocal points of the scream, which is 12% less than is required to determine two are the same".

Couple seconds of thought from someone in a different (though similar - linguistics ) field. Sure an expert + lawyer could make it even more obvious.

20. Originally Posted by jbombard
You can rant about it all you want, but the fact is you get that evidence in front of a jury and it still sounds like 50%/50%. Unless Tom Owen comes out and says specifically that this guarantees it is not Zimmerman, saying crap like a 48% match will work against you in a jury trial. I doubt Tom Owen will say that, because it is already fairly obvious who he thinks it is and the reason he isn't saying it definitely isn't Zimmerman is he doesn't have the proof to back it up. I AM NOT SAYING IT IS ZIMMERMAN, I am saying proving it isn't in a jury trial isn't going to be easy.
That's the trouble with explaining science to a dozen or so of possibly uneducated laymen. It goes from presenting fact to using easy-happy-language-words as to not overload poor jury's brains...

#### Posting Permissions

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