Teen Killed In Neighborhood Watch Shooting

[jbombard]

I think you're projecting your own failing too hard on to others. Its not hard to explain what a percentage match means. I did it with three sentences.

And if you took that into a court with competent opposition you would be laughed out of court. If you have to explain what it means you fail, you need the expert to tell the jury specifically that the voice can be verified as not being Zimmerman without a doubt, otherwise the opposition will turn it around and use it against you.

Read this
http://www.audioforensics.com/PDFs/VoiceIDpaper.pdf

Then talk about what your percent match means as it pertains to positively excluding somebody vs. positively identifying them.

[Leonard McCoy]

So let's say Zimmerman's account is accurate but instead of using his gun he suffered permanent brain damage or death, do you think Martin would be tried as a child?

You'll forgive me I'm not familiar with your legal system. In this country (Canada) he would be charged under the Youth Criminal Justice act as a minor. The judge may or may not see to try him as an adult depending on the circumstances.

[xylophone]

You'll forgive me I'm not familiar with your legal system. In this country (Canada) he would be charged under the Youth Criminal Justice act as a minor. The judge may or may not see to try him as an adult depending on the circumstances.

So under the circumstances do you believe he would be tried as a minor or an adult?

[Leonard McCoy]

So under the circumstances do you believe he would be tried as a minor or an adult?

I'm not a judge and not qualified to make that determination.

[xylophone]

I'm not a judge and not qualified to make that determination.

I'll assume that means adult.

[Wells]

And if you took that into a court with competent opposition you would be laughed out of court. If you have to explain what it means you fail

What? No you don't. That's the whole fucking point to expert witnesses.

you need the expert to tell the jury specifically that the voice can be verified as not being Zimmerman without a doubt, otherwise the opposition will turn it around and use it against you.

Again, no you don't. You aren't going to be able to convince a jury that there's even an unreasonable chance that a 48% match could be your client.

Because again, you don't understand what it means when they say 48% match.

[Leonard McCoy]

I'll assume that means adult.

Your welcome to make all the assumptions you like. Simply put I am not qualified to make the judgement because:

A. I don't have every single fact available before me
B. I am not trained in the legal profession.

[xylophone]

Your welcome to make all the assumptions you like. Simply put I am not qualified to make the judgement because:

A. I don't have every single fact available before me
B. I am not trained in the legal profession.

Well it's just a hypothetical so I won't really push it, but IMO in those circumstances he would be tried as an adult.

[holyevil44]

So let's say Zimmerman's account is accurate but instead of using his gun he suffered permanent brain damage or death, do you think Martin would be tried as a child?

if i provoke somebody to a fight and get a leg broke i deserve it, i still provoke a fight and get brain damage i still deserve it even if it was self defense Zimmerman put all the right things so that the kid got so threatened to start a fight Zimmerman should of fight back not pull his gun and shoot if you cant fight back like a men dont start a fight. guns make people act like pussy's

[xylophone]

if i provoke somebody to a fight and get a leg broke i deserve it, i still provoke a fight and get brain damage i still deserve it even if it was self defense Zimmerman put all the right things so that the kid got so threatened to start a fight Zimmerman should of fight back not pull his gun and shoot if you cant fight back like a men dont start a fight. guns make people act like pussy's

Zimmerman could have said whatever the fuck he wanted to, that doesn't give Martin the right to touch him. Like I've said before, the thing that matters in this case is who touched who first.

[Leonard McCoy]

Well it's just a hypothetical so I won't really push it, but IMO in those circumstances he would be tried as an adult.

Their is alot that gets factored into those decisions and ultimately it boils down to the opinion of the justice assigned to the case. Out of curiosity what state is this in?

[jbombard]

What? No you don't. That's the whole fucking point to expert witnesses.



Again, no you don't. You aren't going to be able to convince a jury that there's even an unreasonable chance that a 48% match could be your client.

Because again, you don't understand what it means when they say 48% match.

Aww you didn't read the link did you. Because it is fairly obvious you don't know what you are talking about. Identifying somebody is not the same as excluding them, and also comparing a voice that is screaming for help to a voice that is talking in a rational manner provides very inconclusive results. On top of all that audio forensics aren't very conclusive to begin with. If you are just going to pay an expert witness to spew out a bunch of inconclusive information in front of a jury, the other side will be able to pay an expert to oppose it and that argument can be made much more convincingly.

[Wells]

Zimmerman could have said whatever the fuck he wanted to, that doesn't give Martin the right to touch him. Like I've said before, the thing that matters in this case is who touched who first.

Not under stand your ground. If Martin felt he was being threatened by a man who was following him around at night he could have legally struck first, especially if he saw the fire arm.

[holyevil44]

also he could of get off self defence because Zimmerman had a gun and martin was probably scared i know i would be gun vs punch = gun win

[Leonard McCoy]

Zimmerman could have said whatever the fuck he wanted to, that doesn't give Martin the right to touch him. Like I've said before, the thing that matters in this case is who touched who first.

uhh not quite. If Zimmerman for instance made verbal threats and waved a gun in front of him then his lawyers will claim self defence. In this case Martins legal team would make quite a valid case that Zimmerman was threatening enough that Martin felt his life in danger.

[Twiddly]

This is still going on? This is so obviously a media ploy to get attention, just like all the other recent "high-profile" cases.

[jbombard]

uhh not quite. If Zimmerman for instance made verbal threats and waved a gun in front of him then his lawyers will claim self defence. In this case Martins legal team would make quite a valid case for self defence.

Actually whether or Martin can claim self-defense is not all that important from a legal standing. Even if Martin was acting in what he perceived as self-defense if Zimmerman felt threatened by Martins actions(as he cannot possibly know what Martin is feeling or thinking) that is all the grounds he needs. What would really help is solid proof on who physically attacked who first.

[Leonard McCoy]

Actually whether or Martin can claim self-defense is not all that important from a legal standing. Even if Martin was acting in what he perceived as self-defense if Zimmerman felt threatened by Martins actions(as he cannot possibly know what Martin is feeling or thinking) that is all the grounds he needs. What would really help is solid proof on who physically attacked who first.

I don't understand why Zimmermans mindset is the only important one in this discussion. If Zimmerman is effectively stalking Martin and Martin naturally feels threatened by a man toting a gun and following him around I would think that would factor heavily the juries decision about Zimmermans "mens rea" in legalese. It would follow that Zimmerman may not have commited murder but his negligence in the situation certainly contributed to the death of Martin. Manslaughter I believe the charge would be.

As an aside it's interesting to note the burden of proof has somehow shifted from Zimmerman to Martin.

[Wells]

Actually whether or Martin can claim self-defense is not all that important from a legal standing. Even if Martin was acting in what he perceived as self-defense if Zimmerman felt threatened by Martins actions(as he cannot possibly know what Martin is feeling or thinking) that is all the grounds he needs. What would really help is solid proof on who physically attacked who first.

Stand Your Ground doesn't allow you to intimidate people into defending themselves then killing them. If they can show that what Zimmerman was doing was stalking Martin, following him, giving him a reason to fear for his life, then Martin attacked him for it then Zimmerman committed murder when he killed him.

In otherwords, stand your ground doesn't defend the aggressor or perceived aggressor.

[jbombard]

I don't understand why Zimmermans mindset is the only important one in this discussion. If Zimmerman is effectively stalking Martin and Martin naturally feels threatened by a man toting a gun and following him around I would think that would factor heavily the juries decision about Zimmermans intent.

It isn't that Martin isn't important, I think what happened to him is very important. However as far as the legal trial vs. Zimmerman is concerned he only needs to prove that he felt threatened, and how Martin felt doesn't play into that because Zimmerman cannot be expected to know how Martin felt. How Martin acted and how Zimmerman acted are very applicable though.

---------- Post added 2012-04-03 at 11:05 AM ----------

Stand Your Ground doesn't allow you to intimidate people into defending themselves then killing them. If they can show that what Zimmerman was doing was stalking Martin, following him, giving him a reason to fear for his life, then Martin attacked him for it then Zimmerman committed murder when he killed him.

In otherwords, stand your ground doesn't defend the aggressor or perceived aggressor.

Indeed but perception is in the eye of the beholder. If the aggression is manifested physically there is something to go on, but how somebody felt is not going to hold up.