Trayvon Martin: 'Shoot first' law under scrutiny

[jen_fla]

How is any recorded fact: audio, video or printed - an assumption? We’d have Zimmerman’s story from the police report, in addition to any evidence that disproves it (I’m inclined to believe there’s plenty). Who needs witnesses? This is being presented as self-defense, right. All that is required is to prove the admitted shooter is lying about the attack.

that is not what you said in your first post on this matter (bold underline mine):

It’s not just witnesses coming forward. Call me crazy, but in my mind, this whole thing could be presented to a jury with just the timeline (recreated from 911 and personal phone calls), the area map and the recorded information. No need to call a single witness, honest or otherwise. I see the hardest part of the trial as the judge’s: finding 12 people on this continent who have not been unduly influenced by what they heard of this case.

a timeline, map and police report still doesn’t prove anything, therefore assumption.

you added the other evidence after you made that first post. did you mean to say, that given all the evidence we have at this point a jury could come to a conclusion without a reasonable doubt that zimmerman was guilty?

 

[seekerz]

maybe i’m just super sleepy right now and can’t see the obvious, but can you give me an example where a victim’s life is in imminent danger and it is more feasible for them to run away?

if someone pulls a gun on me while i’m in a car, i could step on the gas and try to get away, but they also could shoot at my car. it would be up to the victim to decide which course of action gives them the greatest chance of surviving.

Sure. I have called 911, the police are on their way, a stalker is after me who does not appear to be armed and there’s a gas station within running distance.

Edit: For clarity, running distance = a few feet.

BTW, here’s the TX case I referenced earlier.

 

[seekerz]

that is not what you said in your first post on this matter (bold underline mine):

a timeline, map and police report still doesn’t prove anything, therefore assumption.

you added the other evidence after you made that first post. did you mean to say, that given all the evidence we have at this point a jury could come to a conclusion without a reasonable doubt that zimmerman was guilty?

In case you missed it, I’ve underlined in bold below, recorded information does not = police report only:

Originally Posted by seekerz
It’s not just witnesses coming forward. Call me crazy, but in my mind, this whole thing could be presented to a jury with just the timeline (recreated from 911 and personal phone calls), the area map and the recorded information. No need to call a single witness, honest or otherwise. I see the hardest part of the trial as the judge’s: finding 12 people on this continent who have not been unduly influenced by what they heard of this case.

 

[jen_fla]

Sure. I have called 911, the police are on their way, a stalker is after me who does not appear to be armed and there’s a gas station within running distance.

BTW, here’s the TX case I referenced earlier.

you feel threatened, yes, but how is that imminent?

 

[jen_fla]

In case you missed it, I’ve underlined in bold below, recorded information does not = police report only:

but you wanted to exclude all the witnesses? so which reports would you accept. you added video, and audio opinions later, remember?

 

[seekerz]

you feel threatened, yes, but how is that imminent?

You’re right. Okay, he’s got a crow bar and is advancing toward my car but I am closer to the gas station than to him.

 

[seekerz]

It is at the point when deadly force is used that matters, not the events prior to. At the point you shoot your gun, you must not have a reasonable means of escape to avoid being killed. Anything that happened prior to this point is irrelevant to whether you have a means of escape.

Sorry, I’m lost. If I follow an armed burglar to my neighbor’s window and shoot him when he senses my presence and turns sharply around, gun in hand, how is my following him not relevant to my ‘defending’ myself.

 

[Dawnia]

How is any recorded fact: audio, video or printed - an assumption? We’d have Zimmerman’s story from the police report, in addition to any evidence that disproves it (I’m inclined to believe there’s plenty). Who needs witnesses? This is being presented as self-defense, right. All that is required is to prove the admitted shooter is lying about the attack.

You do realize that all of your evidence couldn’t be presented to the court without witnesses right? A judge would never allow any of it in unless someone could be cross-examined regarding it.

 

[jen_fla]

In case you missed it, I’ve underlined in bold below, recorded information does not = police report only:

but you wanted to cut out all the witnesses! honest or not!

you could paint a picture, but i doubt you could prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. look, i’m with you. i personally have the feeling that george is guilty, but given the evidence i still am trying not to jump to any conclusions.

also, i haven’t read anything about trayvon’s hands either. i did read that his autopsy results hadn’t been released so i’m not sure where people are getting their info from.

wsmv.com/story/17286084/trayvon-martins-autopsy-still-under-seal

 

[jen_fla]

You’re right. Okay, he’s got a crow bar and is advancing toward my car but I am closer to the gas station than to him.

yes and let’s even say he is swinging madly in the air staring right at you, Lord help anyone that judges you for how you decide to save your life. if the law forced you to turn your back on him and run into the station and he was close enough to hit you from behind and you died, well that would be tragic.

if he wasn’t close enough to hit you with the weapon (and that includes hurling it at you) then most likely the threat was not imminent.

edit: i’d like to remove bolded statement. i didn’t realize how stupid it was until too late!

our justice system obviously needs to judge, but hopefully you get what i meant.

 

[Dawnia]

Sorry, I’m lost. If I follow an armed burglar to my neighbor’s window and shoot him when he senses my presence and turns sharply around, gun in hand, how is my following him not relevant to my ‘defending’ myself.

Because you aren’t in imminent danger when you’re following him. It is not until the point where your life is in danger that is relevant for the purposes of determining escape, ie when he turns around and a gun is pointed at you. Unless you have your gun out pointed at him before he turns around, then he can use deadly force against you and he would have the burdon of proof for escape.

Just because you do something stupid, like follow someone who is armed, doesn’t take away your right to defend yourself if they threaten your life.

 

[pnewton]

Yes, but if I’m not mistaken one witness says they could see the colors of their shirts while the other could not, right? I could see the reliability of this software in some situations, but I’m not so sure it will be easy to hold up of one of the witnesses was a actually close enough to positively identify the two.

People lie. Are you familiar with the story of Ahab, Jezebel and the vineyard of Nabob?

 

[Bocephus]

People lie. Are you familiar with the story of Ahab, Jezebel and the vineyard of Nabob?

Yes, they do and software has glitches and is prone to operator error.

 

[mary_bobo]

Repeatedly: from every ‘gut friend’/‘uncle’/friendly neighbor who could get near a mic, not to mention his dad and brother. (Of course, I’m assuming the police got the same version as his defenders).

Then why did you say, so definitively that he had given no testimony. I repeat, we do not know that.

 

[L_piperatus]

We don’t know if Zimmerman pulled his gun on Martin or not. What seems pretty logical is that a self-defense law would not require you to allow a person to shoot or punch first, …

According to Z’s dad, Z did not pull his gun on M, and Z did not punch first. According to Mr. Zimmerman Sr., Martin approached his son and asked him, “Do you have a f…ing problem?”, to which Z replied “No”, and reached for his cell phone to call back 911. At this moment, M punched Z in the nose and Z fell to the ground.

According to Martin’s girlfriend however, it was Z who caught up with M, the two exchanged words, M asked Z “What are you following me for?”, and at that point Z must have pushed M, because the phone fell from Martin’s hand and went silent.

My understanding is that it does matter who made physical contact first, and whoever punched/pushed/shoved first, is to blame for starting the fight.

 

[mary_bobo]

Now we know that it wasn’t Zimmerman screaming for help on the 911 call (therefore it was Trayvon’s).
usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/01/10963191-trayvon-martin-case-audio-screams-were-not-george-zimmermans-2-experts-say
Trayvon is more than one month dead, and Zimmerman is still free. It looks like being from a well-connected family lets you get away with murder in the USA (just like it probably got Zimmerman his concealed gun permit despite a past of attacking a police officer.)

More supposition. Murder has not been established nor do we know that Zimmerman’s family is “well-connected”. Let’s not make wild assertions if we do not know what we are talking about.

 

[jen_fla]

According to Z’s dad, Z did not pull his gun on M, and Z did not punch first. According to Mr. Zimmerman Sr., Martin approached his son and asked him, “Do you have a f…ing problem?”, to which Z replied “No”, and reached for his cell phone to call back 911. At this moment, M punched Z in the nose and Z fell to the ground.

According to Martin’s girlfriend however, it was Z who caught up with M, the two exchanged words, M asked Z “What are you following me for?”, and at that point Z must have pushed M, because the phone fell from Martin’s hand and went silent.

My understanding is that it does matter who made physical contact first, and whoever punched/pushed/shoved first, is to blame for starting the fight.

if true, george reaching for his phone was incredibly stupid. he should have taken a step back and said, “i’m reaching for my phone” and done it very, very slowly. trayvon was from miami. he probably thought george was reaching for a gun.

 

[pnewton]

Yes, they do and software has glitches and is prone to operator error.

Glitches can be fixed. Operator error can be eliminated by replication. My concern at this time is reliability of the science. I am just saying that contradictory testimony of one person is not evidence that the science or the technology is deficient.

 

[jen_fla]

Now we know that it wasn’t Zimmerman screaming for help on the 911 call (therefore it was Trayvon’s).
usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/01/10963191-trayvon-martin-case-audio-screams-were-not-george-zimmermans-2-experts-say
Trayvon is more than one month dead, and Zimmerman is still free. It looks like being from a well-connected family lets you get away with murder in the USA (just like it probably got Zimmerman his concealed gun permit despite a past of attacking a police officer.)

i admit analyzing this tape will be crucial, but i’m not sure their two opinions mean the answer is definitive.

i thought they would first have to get a sample of zimmerman screaming to compare? that is what this audio forensic expert says.

*The male voice in the background can be identified. If I were to conduct a formal voice identification test, here are the steps I would take:

1. Remove the samples of the screaming from the 911 call and isolate them in a digital audio file. Remove background noise and raise the volume of the male screams.
2. Remove portions of George Zimmerman’s voice from the 911 call to serve as an exemplar.
3. Edit both speech samples back to back and compare
4. Ask for a speech exemplar from George Zimmerman screaming for help*
5. Conduct a voice identification test.

does anyone know how reliable testing is when comparing calm talking to panicked screams?

another interesting read:

techcitement.com/hardware/cries-for-help-voice-recognition-analysis-in-trayvon-martin-case/

 

[jen_fla]

one more:

mashable.com/2012/03/26/voice-recognition-trayvon-martin/?vm=r