Trayvon Martin - black kid armed with skittles killed in "self-defense"

[ElNono]

DSP type processor chips have never been used in my experience. WTF are you talking about?

Sure they've been used. I listed two major brands of DSP boards in the 80's and 90's. Apparently you know very little about this at all.


The forensics software would use the same software type routines with a CPU that a DSP will have built in functions for. Specialized computers may use DSP's for this work though.

Uh? You're dealing with raw audio here. Custom DSPs won't increase the quality of the audio, they simply make processing faster. DSPs have nothing to do with the forensics or audio aspect at all. Simply speed of processing.


I'm not familiar with telecommunications equipment that uses DSP's. Maybe I worked on them without knowing. What equipment used them?

Dialogic was a leading brand 20 years or so ago. They provided DSPs boards to split T1s to analog lines... most of them used AT&T DSPs... the DSPs were mostly used for text to speech, automatic speech recognition, etc...

I worked with Dialogic boards in Brazil back in the 90's...

BTW, if you want to attack the forensics angle, you have to go towards signal quality, which would start with an analysis of uLaw, the premier digital compression algo for telecom calls these days...

[ElNono]

OK, what is the bandwidth used today with telephone systems and cell phones?

Much higher than it was 5 years ago...

[ElNono]

What's taking so long?

Have to look it up?

:lol look what up? I actually know what I'm talking about here...

[ElNono]

Cell Phones: Why You Can't Hear Me Now (http://news.discovery.com/human/cell-phone-frequency-111028.html)

uLaw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9C-law_algorithm)

Now explain why that matters with audio forensics... :lmao

[Wild Cobra]

BTW, if you want to attack the forensics angle, you have to go towards signal quality, which would start with an analysis of uLaw, the premier digital compression algo for telecom calls these days...

Yes, I thought that's what I was doing. Attacking the signal quality, starting with the end to end equipment.

[ElNono]

Hint: Audio forensics isn't based on frequency...

[Wild Cobra]

Hint: Audio forensics isn't based on frequency...

No shit Sherlock. Not based, but it still makes a difference, already downgrading the nominal 90%.

How about attempting to put the pieces together, instead of attacking individual points, because the work together. Not singularly.

[ElNono]

Yes, I thought that's what I was doing. Attacking the signal quality, starting with the end to end equipment.

:lol It's not the frequency range... that's where you're going wrong...

The frequency range is more than capable to distinguish different voices, timbres, accents, etc.

It's the signal/noise ratio... THAT is the quality that matters for audio forensics... and that's individual to every call...

[ElNono]

You're welcome, BTW. You could simply stated you didn't know and wanted to know... but you always have to take the long road and look dumb in the process...

[Wild Cobra]

:lol It's not the frequency range... that's where you're going wrong...

The frequency range is more than capable to distinguish different voices, timbres, accents, etc.

It's the signal/noise ratio... THAT is the quality that matters for audio forensics... and that's individual to every call...

This is my last posting on the topic with you because I am getting pissed that you assume so many things wrong about my reasoning.

Fuck you.

Yes, quality matters. Yes, accents, timber, etc. matters.

Quality was shitty. Signal to noise was shitty, and cannot be completely accounted for.

Accents change... like say a singers often have no accent, but do while talking.

Do you scream with an accent?

Again, too many variables to account for to expect 90%.

[ChumpDumper]

lol timber

[ElNono]

This is my last posting on the topic with you because I am getting pissed that you assume so many things wrong about my reasoning.

Fuck you.

Yes, quality matters. Yes, accents, timber, etc. matters.

:lmao:lmao:lmao

It's all that matters. That's how a voice fingerprint is created. Obviously, I wouldn't expect you to know that, after the garbage you keep posting.



Quality was shitty. Signal to noise was shitty, and cannot be completely accounted for.

But it can. Specifically Owens said the 911 call happened to be of great quality. Tell me, since you know all these things, what was the db signal to noise ratio on the call? :lmao


Accents change... like say a singers often have no accent, but do while talking.

That's why not a single factor is used for voice fingerprinting. But you didn't know this, and now you do. You're welcome :lol


Do you scream with an accent?

I do, actually :lol

I'm not a singer, and my accent is oblivious to me. But it's irrelevant, seeing it's not the only parameter on voice fingerprinting. In my case, it would be an important factor.


Again, too many variables to account for to expect 90%.

I can see how it might look like there's too many variables for an ignoramus of the science like you. Voice research, including forensics, is a 25+ years old field of study. One you apparently have no idea of.

[Wild Cobra]

lol timber
Timbre...

So what.

ElNonothing isn't listening to my argument, and assuming things I have accounted for. Not that I expect you to do any different.

Timbre matters, right...

Now that has to do with harmonics in the voice that exceed 4kz, which is the maximum you can expect to find on these recordings for comparison. Less bandwith reduced the accuracy a little. Each factor reduces the accuracy.

With this expert witness claiming he would expect 90% for a match under these multiple uncontrolled variables with no equipment baseline, that's where I call bullshit and think he just wants his 15 minutes of fame.

[ElNono]

Your argument doesn't hold... if any of the voices were above the frequency limit, they wouldn't be part of the recording...

How dumb are you? :lmao

[Wild Cobra]

I've done a little reading of various links having this information. It seems the real finding is the 48% is "not enough to make a positive match." The experts never said it means it isn't Zimmerman. That is what the media is making up. Even in the original link, Owen cautions that he didn't have a sample of martin's voice.

[ElNono]

"you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman."

[ElNono]

Another analyst came to a similar conclusion using different technology.

[Goran Dragic]

So you don't know shit about audio forensics, but we should take your word over an actual forensic expert because?

You're talking to Wild Cobra :lol, the guy who's more of an expert in anything than anyone. Also the guy who works in whatever "field" happens to suit his argument best at any given time.

[Goran Dragic]

I've done a little reading of various links having this information.
Oh shit! You hear the ElNono, he's done a little reading. Better throw anything those experts have said out the window!

[ElNono]

I actually stayed mostly away from this thread because I thought this story was more the "story of the week" than anything... I don't think anything terribly exceptional happened with this case. I already stated I disagree with the standards set by the state law...

But outright dismissing actual forensic evidence because "too many variables" when you don't know what you're talking about is really a disservice to the rest of the posters here.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm just dismissing unsolicited and unauthorized forensic experts that went straight to the media. My "15 minutes of fame" statement still stands. If the police and FBI corroborate this outsiders opinion it obviously will carry more weight.

[Wild Cobra Kai]

I'm just dismissing unsolicited and unauthorized forensic experts that went straight to the media. My "15 minutes of fame" statement still stands. If the police and FBI corroborate this outsiders opinion it obviously will carry more weight.

Couldn't possibly be that someone is taking steps on their own because the Polizei and the DA aren't doing ANYTHING?

[CosmicCowboy]

And you know this how?

:lmao

You can't be serious. Really? You REALLY think if they had evidence to charge him they wouldn't?

[Wild Cobra Kai]

And you know this how?

:lmao

You can't be serious. Really? You REALLY think if they had evidence to charge him they wouldn't?

Stand your ground. How can they investigate something that isn't a case because of the law?

And no, the police have NEVER sat on evidence before. :rolleyes

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao

The whole fucking world is second guessing them, they are one inflammatory speech away from race riots down there and you think thy are hiding evidence?

:lmao

If they have incriminating evidence they will present it to the grand jury. The prosecution would be stupid to publish it now and give Zimmerman's attorney advance warning to prepare.

[CosmicCowboy]

Hell, they are probably planning to call Manny as an expert witness...



I had not heard that tape. No fucking way I'm buying thats Zimmerman.

After all, He's kind of like a science major....:p:

[TheSkeptic]

I'm just dismissing unsolicited and unauthorized forensic experts that went straight to the media. My "15 minutes of fame" statement still stands. If the police and FBI corroborate this outsiders opinion it obviously will carry more weight.

I think the Orlando Sentinel was the one that contacted those guys. They both have impressive credentials and Owen in particular has years of experience. The technology has been used before in court apparently.

I personally think that between this, common sense, and the boy's mother saying it's her son's voice, it's safe to say that it probably wasn't Zimmerman on the tape. If they can prove that it's Trayvon who was screaming before the gunshot, that will seriously damage Zimmerman's story imo.

[CosmicCowboy]

Eyewitnesses >Earwitnesses

[Fabbs]

I think the Orlando Sentinel was the one that contacted those guys. They both have impressive credentials and Owen in particular has years of experience.
Impressive credentials as he and Sentinel team up to blab info they have no business releasing?

Cred shot.
If they have the goods and the police repress then bring it up at the right time.

[Gutter92]

Eyewitnesses >Earwitnesses

Eyewitnesses who witness something late at night in a brief moment vs. earwitnesses who can analyze the evidence for days, and the evidence is available to anyone to analyze

Yep, eyewitness > earwitness

[CosmicCowboy]

Eyewitnesses who witness something late at night in a brief moment vs. earwitnesses who can analyze the evidence for days, and the evidence is available to anyone to analyze

Yep, eyewitness > earwitness

In a court eyewitnesses still > earwitnesses > smellwitnesses

[Creepn]

In a court eyewitnesses still > earwitnesses > smellwitnesses

No if they present and explain thoroughly to jurors, that would be enough no matter what it is. Like with the audio, if the explain why it's most likely Trayvon's and not Zimerman's by explaining the laws of sound, technique used, and the circumstances surrounding it, it could go a long way.

[DarrinS]

Damn. Forget the eyewitnesses and physical evidence. I'm going with people hearing "koons" and analyzing screams from sketchy audio.

:lmao

[Fabbs]

Sorry if this was gone over way back-thread.
What is the latest on funeral directors purported findings?

The article left it hanging. (#3)
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/trayvon-martin-case-exposes-worst-media-210020839.html
2. NBC told the Washington Post that it has launched an internal investigation of the "Today" show's editorial process after its morning show aired an edited conversation between George Zimmerman and a 911 dispatcher recorded moments before the shooting. The investigation came after Fox News and others pointed out that the network spliced two parts of the call together, making it appear as if Zimmerman had said, "This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black." In reality, Zimmerman was answering a dispatcher's question:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy--is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

3. In an flailing effort to break news in a month-old shooting, CBS News aired an interview with Richard Kurtz, the funeral director who handled Trayvon Martin's burial.

"There were no physical signs like there had been a scuffle," Kurtz declared, which the network said proves Zimmerman's claims of a violent encounter with Martin before the shooting are false. "The hands--I didn't see any knuckles, bruises or what have you, and that is something we would have covered up if it would have been there. He looked perfectly normal to me when he came in and the story just does not make sense that he was in this type of scuffle or fight in anything that we could see."

Except, he said, the gunshot wound.

[ElNono]

I'm just dismissing unsolicited and unauthorized forensic experts that went straight to the media. My "15 minutes of fame" statement still stands. If the police and FBI corroborate this outsiders opinion it obviously will carry more weight.

I just don't see how such evidence indicts Zimmerman... you would need much more to know what could've happened. That's why I don't get why some get so defensive about this finding... it could mean nothing at all.

[Winehole23]

Your argument doesn't hold... if any of the voices were above the frequency limit, they wouldn't be part of the recording...

How dumb are you? :lmaoI used to mock and deride WC's amazing bs, now I try to encourage it.

sometimes, it is amazing bs.

[Wild Cobra]

I just don't see how such evidence indicts Zimmerman... you would need much more to know what could've happened. That's why I don't get why some get so defensive about this finding... it could mean nothing at all.
I see you are now agreeing with me.

The analysis could be used to say it was Zimmerman if it reached the 90%. At 48%, it is inconclusive. 48% does not mean it was not Zimmerman, since too many variables are in play.

[Wild Cobra]

I used to mock and deride WC's amazing bs, now I try to encourage it.

sometimes, it is amazing bs.
Is it BS, or others inability to follow?

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Is it BS, or others inability to follow?

Inability to follow BS!!?

[Wild Cobra]

Inability to follow BS!!?
What have I said that's incorrect about this voice thing? Do you believe a voice has a "fingerprint?"

[Wild Cobra]

I used to mock and deride WC's amazing bs, now I try to encourage it.

sometimes, it is amazing bs.
What have I said about this voice ID thing that you disagree with?

[ElNono]

I see you are now agreeing with me.

No :lol


The analysis could be used to say it was Zimmerman if it reached the 90%. At 48%, it is inconclusive. 48% does not mean it was not Zimmerman, since too many variables are in play.

No :lmao

It's conclusive it was not Zimmerman... that doesn't exclude that Zimmerman acted in self-defense...

[ElNono]

What have I said that's incorrect about this voice thing? Do you believe a voice has a "fingerprint?"

It's not a matter of belief... again, I'm asking your for your credentials in audio forensics to make such a claim... still waiting...

[ElNono]

Is it BS, or others inability to follow?

Most definitely BS... people follow what you're saying, and it's entirely BS...

Expect to get called out on it...

[Agloco]

:lol

WC is an expert in all things scientific. I wish people would remember that and just take his word for things.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

WC is an expert in all things scientific. I wish people would remember that and just take his word for things.
Tell me what I'm wrong about please.

I didn't discount the process, only pointed out 90% cannot be expected under the circumstances. That 48% is probably reasonable under the many variables difference between paths. The individual differing equipment has not been baselined, and the testing of recording were recorded among different communications routes. Screams and voice are different enough alone not to produce a good match. Look what they had to work with. Not much, and so different.

[Fabbs]

Hey, get off this hearing thing for a minute.
Has the funeral directors "no bruises no nothing" been rebuffed?

[CosmicCowboy]

yes

[DarrinS]

Hey, get off this hearing thing for a minute.
Has the funeral directors "no bruises no nothing" been rebuffed?


I wonder if they will call in the funeral director as a forensic expert?

I'd rather hear the opinion of a ME.

[Wild Cobra]

Hey, get off this hearing thing for a minute.
Has the funeral directors "no bruises no nothing" been rebuffed?
Yes.

Martin was dead too soon after the fight started. No time for the blood to cause bruising because the blood stopped pumping. That is something that the autopsy will show, and the results aren't released yet to my knowledge. The funeral guy has no way of making a factual statement regarding if Martin's fists were used.

[Wild Cobra]

I'd rather hear the opinion of a ME.
Exactly.

[clambake]

what if the medical examiner is black?

[CosmicCowboy]

what if the medical examiner is black?

Then he is probably a product of affirmative action and not very good.

[clambake]

Then he is probably a product of affirmative action and not very good.

exactly.

what if the ME is white....and lives in that gated community?

[Sportcamper]

Cobra- I take issue with this so called audio expert who was not contacted by the FBI to examine the audio & then went to the press with his findings…I don’t even know what type of equipment he uses…He has a magic box that tells you who is speaking? WTF is that all about?…DA work stations are interactive…The computer does not know what you are looking for… I am proficient with Sonic Solutions No Noise, Cedar DNF, De Crackle, De click, De hiss and I am in the process of learning “isotope”. Which is a plug in for Pro-Tools DAW…This is the same equipment used by the FBI, recording technicians for the film & record industry & JPL in Pasadena California… The reality is that none of you picked up on this guy’s main flaw…What source or copy did he use?

I need the original tape & recorder or video camera that this was made on…Other wise the project is compromised from the start….Even just one copy can alter the audio restoration and recovery process…I may spend an entire day working with a tape deck engineer loading the audio into a digital audio work station…I would load the audio onto different hard drives with the highest quality A/D converters at the highest sampling rate possible…What did this guy use? A poor quality recording he copied off the news?

The recovery process is labor intensive…You spend all day crunching numbers, (Q/factor) there is no fun in it at all…There is no money to be made on high profile projects such as these…My employer needs to take me out of the loop for a month and eats the cost of that…

When I am done I do not want to go public, let the police, FBI & department of justice do the explaining…Nobody knows what is actually on these recordings and somebody is always pissed off about the final analysis…I once worked on a high profile police beating case…There were several eye witness’s who testified that the police were laughing & yelling racial slurs at the motorist they were trying to subdue…I worked with another person on this project for a month & provided a transcript…After removing things like the night ambience, car motors, etc ours was the most pristine dialogue presented to the prosecution…The enhanced audio showed that the police were not laughing or yelling racial slurs, it was the motorist doing those things…People were pissed and even suggested that we altered the tapes…You think I want Spike Lee giving out my name & address? There are other projects I have worked on including retrieving dialogue from a tape that was bulk erased…We got what they were looking for & the prosecution put away a bad guy for a long time…You think I want to have his family know who I am, where I live? This guy who claims to have examined the Zimmerman 911 has an agenda…

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm glad you finally decided to weigh in on this one SC...I knew you could bring some actual facts to the speculation...

[CosmicCowboy]

exactly.

what if the ME is white....and lives in that gated community?

Then he probably is a racist bigot and will lie to protect Zimmerman.

[Wild Cobra]

Cobra- I take issue with this so called audio expert who was not contacted by the FBI to examine the audio & then went to the press with his findings…I don’t even know what type of equipment he uses…He has a magic box that tells you who is speaking? WTF is that all about?…DA work stations are interactive…The computer does not know what you are looking for… I am proficient with Sonic Solutions No Noise, Cedar DNF, De Crackle, De click, De hiss and I am in the process of learning “isotope”. Which is a plug in for Pro-Tools DAW…This is the same equipment used by the FBI, recording technicians for the film & record industry & JPL in Pasadena California… The reality is that none of you picked up on this guy’s main flaw…What source or copy did he use?

Well, I had considered that, but I didn't think my assumptions would matter. My assumption is that they used the WAV files from the Police Department web site (http://sanfordfl.gov/investigation/trayvon_martin.html), rather than the mp3 and others smaller files from other sites. I figured this expert would refuse anything digitally compressed. I think most people fail to understand how much can be lost with compression.


I need the original tape & recorder or video camera that this was made on…Other wise the project is compromised from the start….Even just one copy can alter the audio restoration and recovery process…I may spend an entire day working with a tape deck engineer loading the audio into a digital audio work station…I would load the audio onto different hard drives with the highest quality A/D converters at the highest sampling rate possible…What did this guy use? A poor quality recording he copied off the news?

That's more than I realized. I know that without having a baseline sample of the send to receive path, that there is compromise in that aspect. I didn't expect the testing to be compromised by using different recording/playback equipment.


When I am done I do not want to go public, let the police, FBI & department of justice do the explaining…Nobody knows what is actually on these recordings and somebody is always pissed off about the final analysis…I once worked on a high profile police beating case…There were several eye witness’s who testified that the police were laughing & yelling racial slurs at the motorist they were trying to subdue…I worked with another person on this project for a month & provided a transcript…After removing things like the night ambience, car motors, etc ours was the most pristine dialogue presented to the prosecution…The enhanced audio showed that the police were not laughing or yelling racial slurs, it was the motorist doing those things…People were pissed and even suggested that we altered the tapes…You think I want Spike Lee giving out my name & address? There are other projects I have worked on including retrieving dialogue from a tape that was bulk erased…We got what they were looking for & the prosecution put away a bad guy for a long time…You think I want to have his family know who I am, where I live? This guy who claims to have examined the Zimmerman 911 has an agenda…

Yes, I was suspicious of this guys motives as well. I agree with the "15 minutes of fame."

How difficult is it to determine a match from a decent voice sample comparing it to a muffled yell for help that we heard? I completely agree with voices being unique, but when it changes from talking, to singing or yelling, I don't see how anyone can expect to claim a match. Add that to the recording coming from different end to end equipment that hasn't had control samples recorded, and I see this guys claim as pure bullshit.

I learned about the voice and digital processes some years back, when someone I know was working on a method on compressing voice audio more than normal. He was in effect, having the software reverse engineering the way we speak. His results were to digitize what it takes to speak, rather than the actual audio. It gets pretty complex, but the end result was pretty cool.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Hmmm. Aren't all calls pretty much compressed?

[Wild Cobra]

Hmmm. Aren't all calls pretty much compressed?
Cell phone calls I believe are, which adds to the problem. I don't know how much, but under all the variables, I find it completely laughable that anyone would expect a 90% match between the known Zimmerman recording, and the recordings with the screams.

Like most things, the quality is no better than the weakest link. Cell phones are probably the weakest link for these recordings. I believe the compressed data is 9.6 kbit during transmission.

[Sportcamper]

Retrieving / enhancing audio is boring, tedious work…Create filters to dissect the information you want to remove without losing the dialogue you want to keep….
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-bandwidth.htm


I went to the Easy Voice Biometrics website to see how their stuff works and admit to being clueless about this software….I don’t even know what computer / audio work station it works with…The waveform display looks crude http://easyvoicebiometrics.com/


Obviously these two audio experts Tom Owen and Ed Primeau know what they are doing I just don’t understand the motive for going public with their work…I would think that Trayvons mother could tell whose voice is crying for help on an enhanced recoding…

[boutons_deux]

Forensic Voice Expert: Trayvon Martin Was the One Screaming for Help on 911 Tape


http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/newsandviews/875450

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I would bet my money on the screaming being Trayvon's voice. Unless Zimmerman never left puberty that is just too high pitched to be a grown man's voice.

KDwODbl3muE

[boutons_deux]

"I would bet my money on the screaming being Trayvon's voice. Unless Zimmerman never left puberty that is just too high pitched to be a grown man's voice."

Z fits the profile of dickless/balless NRA gun fetishist assholes who substitute guns for their absent manhood.

[TheSkeptic]

Retrieving / enhancing audio is boring, tedious work…Create filters to dissect the information you want to remove without losing the dialogue you want to keep….
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-bandwidth.htm


I went to the Easy Voice Biometrics website to see how their stuff works and admit to being clueless about this software….I don’t even know what computer / audio work station it works with…The waveform display looks crude http://easyvoicebiometrics.com/


Obviously these two audio experts Tom Owen and Ed Primeau know what they are doing I just don’t understand the motive for going public with their work…I would think that Trayvons mother could tell whose voice is crying for help on an enhanced recoding…

I know nothing about this stuff so the info you're giving is pretty interesting.

As to the last point, I think Trayvon's mother has already said it was her son on the recording. I believe her even others might not.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

"I would bet my money on the screaming being Trayvon's voice. Unless Zimmerman never left puberty that is just too high pitched to be a grown man's voice."

Z fits the profile of dickless/balless NRA gun fetishist assholes who substitute guns for their absent manhood.

Gfy

[TheSkeptic]

"I would bet my money on the screaming being Trayvon's voice. Unless Zimmerman never left puberty that is just too high pitched to be a grown man's voice."

Z fits the profile of dickless/balless NRA gun fetishist assholes who substitute guns for their absent manhood.

Exactly.

Actually, the fact that he's a coward is probably what bugs me the most.

If I made myself the watchdog of my neighbourhood and started doing regular patrols while carrying a loaded gun, ran into a suspect, shot them playing hero, and it turned out I was wrong - I would be HORRIFIED. I'd be apologizing and not running away even if it meant going to jail for my mistakes.

But this guy's demeanour on that video coupled with his going into hiding for fear of his life (hypocrite), just rubs me the wrong way. I hope his parents file a civil suit no matter what happens here.

It's weird though. I mean, I was in a farming community for a while and just about everyone we knew had one or two guns. It's definitely possible to be safe even if practically everyone has a gun... Maybe the problem is people who have some training but no respect for their weapons? I don't know.

[Creepn]

Exactly.

Actually, the fact that he's a coward is probably what bugs me the most.

If I made myself the watchdog of my neighbourhood and started doing regular patrols while carrying a loaded gun, ran into a suspect, shot them playing hero, and it turned out I was wrong - I would be HORRIFIED. I'd be apologizing and not running away even if it meant going to jail for my mistakes.

But this guy's demeanour on that video coupled with his going into hiding for fear of his life (hypocrite), just rubs me the wrong way. I hope his parents file a civil suit no matter what happens here.

It's weird though. I mean, I was in a farming community for a while and just about everyone we knew had one or two guns. It's definitely possible to be safe even if practically everyone has a gun... Maybe the problem is people who have some training but no respect for their weapons? I don't know.

I hear you.

If you're innocent show your face and profess it. Show your wounds and broken nose. Defy. Shit, if I know I was innocent I would be on tv defending my honor any chance I can.

[DarrinS]

vNaCsbkUkUM

[CosmicCowboy]

I hear you.

If you're innocent show your face and profess it. Show your wounds and broken nose. Defy. Shit, if I know I was innocent I would be on tv defending my honor any chance I can.

He knows it was a fucked up deal.

Wannabe cop meets wannabe thug. Huge misunderstanding. One gets his ass beat the other gets shot. No winners here.

[ElNono]

Retrieving / enhancing audio is boring, tedious work…Create filters to dissect the information you want to remove without losing the dialogue you want to keep….
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-bandwidth.htm


I went to the Easy Voice Biometrics website to see how their stuff works and admit to being clueless about this software….I don’t even know what computer / audio work station it works with…The waveform display looks crude http://easyvoicebiometrics.com/


Obviously these two audio experts Tom Owen and Ed Primeau know what they are doing I just don’t understand the motive for going public with their work…I would think that Trayvons mother could tell whose voice is crying for help on an enhanced recoding…

The technology behind it it's called "Speaker recognition" (not to be confused with Speech recognition). And when two samples of the same person are used, you're doing authentication (as opposed when you're simply trying to determine whose voice is it, which is called identification).

The process goes back 25+ years (maybe more) and with the advent of more processing power, new algos have augmented it. It's based on a bunch of statistical algos, like mixture models, HMM (basically a dynamic bayesian network), decisions trees, and a few more I can't remember off the top of my head. The very, very top ones also include neural networks.

The main issue with these systems is basically signal to noise. Ambient sound being a major issue.

[RandomGuy]

He knows it was a fucked up deal.

Wannabe cop meets wannabe thug. Huge misunderstanding. One gets his ass beat the other gets shot. No winners here.

... I would mostly agree, except I doubt Martin was a "wannabe" thug.

Teenage boys are teenage boys though. All the testosterone and none of the sense. Hell, I don't know how *I* would have reacted if someone was so obviously following *me* through my neighborhood. I would have called the police.

Maybe if Trey had called them instead of his GF.

Anyways, I am with you about this. One is dead and the other has essentially forfeited any normal life he might have.

Hopefully the investigation will make things a bit clearer.

[TheSkeptic]

I hear you.

If you're innocent show your face and profess it. Show your wounds and broken nose. Defy. Shit, if I know I was innocent I would be on tv defending my honor any chance I can.

Exactly. Instead he has family members coming up and giving second-hand information. The other thing I don't like is the assumption that because Trayvon may have started beating him in a fistfight that Zimmerman is automatically the victim and its alright for him to use lethal force on a minor. That's clearly the strategy that Zimmerman's lawyer and father are going for to get public support.

That's boderline racist and I'm starting to think that a lot of the people defending Zimmerman are really defending their right to react the same way if they're ever in a similar situation. It's frightening how so many people (here and on other forums) are tripping over each other in an attempt to justify this. Make Trayvon Martin into Tina Martin and I'll bet these same people would be howling about how Florida's justice system has fallen apart. Sickening.


... I would mostly agree, except I doubt Martin was a "wannabe" thug.

Teenage boys are teenage boys though. All the testosterone and none of the sense. Hell, I don't know how *I* would have reacted if someone was so obviously following *me* through my neighborhood. I would have called the police.

Maybe if Trey had called them instead of his GF.

Anyways, I am with you about this. One is dead and the other has essentially forfeited any normal life he might have.

Hopefully the investigation will make things a bit clearer.

I'm going to assume you're not a "typical not wealthy black person". For many of them, particularly black males, calling the police is a last resort. He was almost home and he probably didn't think that he'd get shot in a gated community. Also, he might've ducked into the side walk area originally to keep Zimmerman from knowing where he lived since he had his little brother there.

He was on the phone with his girlfriend the whole time. It's not like he ran and then gave her a call.

Zimmerman chose his own situation. Thanks to his decisions a teenager has died for no reason. The 911 calls pretty much confirm it and the one with the screams shows, to me, that he likely pulled the trigger because he was angry not because his life was in danger. Like I said, I honestly hope the parents launch a civil suit. They could fund a charity in honour of their son with that money.

[Stringer_Bell]

I hear you.

If you're innocent show your face and profess it. Show your wounds and broken nose. Defy. Shit, if I know I was innocent I would be on tv defending my honor any chance I can.

You know we cool, homie, but you got it twisted on this issue. By the time Z had a chance to speak his mind...the media already doctored the 911 call. The media was already reporting it was a WHITE dude that shot a BLACK boy in a gated community (they made it seem like it was an actual gated community, with big ass houses and shit). The media already started acting like it was clear cut when obviously there's all kinds of gray...and you want Z to come out of hiding, say he's innocent, and expect that the negro militants casing him out will be satisfied and allow "due process?" Hell nah, that's suicide. Z was tried in the court of public opinion, basically sentenced to die, and JUST NOW is the media starting to back track and actually look at the facts.

If someone shot your kid or family member, and the media incriminated them like they did Z, I wouldn't blame you for taking that person out the first chance you get...but in this case, you'd have been wrong and murdered a dude that isn't the cold-blooded racist killer white-man you thought he was. Wanna be cop meets wannabe thug...that's how the cookie crumbled, ya hur me?

[ElNono]

I am proficient with Sonic Solutions No Noise, Cedar DNF, De Crackle, De click, De hiss and I am in the process of learning “isotope”. Which is a plug in for Pro-Tools DAW…This is the same equipment used by the FBI, recording technicians for the film & record industry & JPL in Pasadena California… The reality is that none of you picked up on this guy’s main flaw…What source or copy did he use?

You probably mean iZotope... Are you learning their RX2 advanced tool? I've heard really good stuff about it.

[spursncowboys]

WpUAFGqwiJY#!

[spursncowboys]

NBC NEWS DOCTORED ZIMMERMAN’S 911 CALL TO MAKE HIM SOUND RACIST

When NBC News played the audio of the 911 call George Zimmerman made prior to the confrontation that resulted in the death Travyon Martin, this is what they played:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.
That audio helped fan the nation-wide flames of hysteria over the supposed fact that the police had released an obvious racist who had tracked and killed Martin out of racist motives. Many Republicans, such as Jeb Bush, the highly regarded former governor of Florida, and many “conservatives,” such as Rich Lowry, the editor of America’s flagship “conservative” magazine, believed it.
But the audio played by NBC, though it seemed like “fact” (because it was an audio, and isn’t audio true?) was false.

Here is the transcript of the actual audio of the 911 call:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy—is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

:lmao

[ElNono]

The actual audio files are here (http://sanfordfl.gov/investigation/trayvon_martin.html), BTW... I'm glad I'm not a NBC viewer, tbh

[Wild Cobra]

I honestly hope the parents launch a civil suit. They could fund a charity in honour of their son with that money.
LOL...

Just where will that money come from? You think Zimmerman is flush in cash, as to be able to pay more than the lawyers will cost?

Is that money going to... poof... appear out of thin air?

[Quadzilla99]

vNaCsbkUkUM

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EnhanceButton

[TheSkeptic]

LOL...

Just where will that money come from? You think Zimmerman is flush in cash, as to be able to pay more than the lawyers will cost?

Is that money going to... poof... appear out of thin air?

Don't they have payment plans or what have you? Tbh, I don't particularly care.

They probably have grounds to sue more people than Zimmerman.

I wonder what kind of liability the Home Owners Association or the Police Department would have? They can take Zimmerman to the cleaners while they're also suing some of these other groups.

[Th'Pusher]

Don't they have payment plans or what have you? Tbh, I don't particularly care.

They probably have grounds to sue more people than Zimmerman.

I wonder what kind of liability the Home Owners Association or the Police Department would have? They can take Zimmerman to the cleaners while they're also suing some of these other groups.

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/02/149866203/martins-parents-plan-to-sue-homeowners-association

[elbamba]

That's boderline racist and I'm starting to think that a lot of the people defending Zimmerman are really defending their right to react the same way if they're ever in a similar situation. It's frightening how so many people (here and on other forums) are tripping over each other in an attempt to justify this. Make Trayvon Martin into Tina Martin and I'll bet these same people would be howling about how Florida's justice system has fallen apart. Sickening.


I think that people responded in favor of Zimmerman for two reasons:

1. The media broke this story with a clear agenda: white male ages 25-30 shoots unarmed innocent black child.

2. The media's haste to convict Zimmerman.

3. Gun control laws.


To this day, most news articles and shows refer to Zimmerman as either white or referencing his white father. Most people with common sense can see that an are bothered by it. If it was a casual reference or if it appeared in one story, no one would care, but when the narrative is bad white man shoots innocent black child, and most of the people who watch the news and read the articles are white, you should expect a degree of push back. What surprises me the most in this story, is that the hispanic community has stayed quiet in all of this. I am no civil rights leader for the hispanic community, but if I were an activist for La Raza, I would be demanding Zimmerman get his day in court and I would be holding rallys right next to Martins. After all, anyone who is hispanic on here knows that we don't count for minority status anyway.

The media did not hide its agenda to arrest and convict Zimmerman. It may be justified, but we are no longer living in 1950 and most people believe that everyone should get their day in court. I am of the opinion that if the evidence does not support it, there should be no day in court. Clearly, there has been enough evidence to show significant support to Zimmerman's claims. You may not like it, you may think there is as much evidence to proceed with a grand jury and maybe you are right. However, lets leave it to the local officials, not NBC and ABC.

Finally, if there is one thing that half of America hates, its gun control. A story like this brings out the primary danger of weak gun control policies that we as a society, or half of a society, are afraid to admit, that unqualified, itchy trigger finger individuals have way too easy access to guns. I believe that the second amednment provides the right for every citizen to bear arms, however, like every other amendment, I do not believe that it is a limitless right that should be unchecked by regulation. If there is any good in this story, it would be that we open up a dialog concerning reasonable gun control laws that make sense for the society as a whole.

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, the bias is very disturbing.

[CosmicCowboy]

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/s320x320/524603_10150635081621700_115017781699_9733580_9141 79702_n.jpg

[TheSkeptic]

http://www.npr.org/2012/04/02/149866203/martins-parents-plan-to-sue-homeowners-association

I don't know what they're paying that lawyer, but he's been worth every penny so far. Thorough, professional, going after people. I'm very impressed.

Still sad about this though. They deserve to have their son back. :depressed


I think that people responded in favor of Zimmerman for two reasons:

1. The media broke this story with a clear agenda: white male ages 25-30 shoots unarmed innocent black child.

2. The media's haste to convict Zimmerman.

3. Gun control laws.


To this day, most news articles and shows refer to Zimmerman as either white or referencing his white father. Most people with common sense can see that an are bothered by it. If it was a casual reference or if it appeared in one story, no one would care, but when the narrative is bad white man shoots innocent black child, and most of the people who watch the news and read the articles are white, you should expect a degree of push back. What surprises me the most in this story, is that the hispanic community has stayed quiet in all of this. I am no civil rights leader for the hispanic community, but if I were an activist for La Raza, I would be demanding Zimmerman get his day in court and I would be holding rallys right next to Martins. After all, anyone who is hispanic on here knows that we don't count for minority status anyway.

The media did not hide its agenda to arrest and convict Zimmerman. It may be justified, but we are no longer living in 1950 and most people believe that everyone should get their day in court. I am of the opinion that if the evidence does not support it, there should be no day in court. Clearly, there has been enough evidence to show significant support to Zimmerman's claims. You may not like it, you may think there is as much evidence to proceed with a grand jury and maybe you are right. However, lets leave it to the local officials, not NBC and ABC.


Interesting. That whole hispanic/white thing never really registered with me because I don't think race matters here. (Well it does *now* but given the facts) What bothers me is that a grown man shot an unarmed teenager and walked away. If it wasn't for the media, they wouldn't have even opened the investigation in spite of the fact that the lead investigator wanted to press charges.

I'm not in the US and I don't have NBC/ABC so I don't think I picked up the media angle. Even then the media pushing a narrative doesn't justify the many people who are being callous about the needless death of a child. That complete lack of empathy does not reflect very well in my opinion.

Completely agreed on the trial. Disagree with you on the evidence part.

That said, I don't want him dead or anything. I want him to get a fair trial or at the very least I want them to consider taking him to court and I want the parents to sue him no matter what the results are. Now that the authorities are working on it that's one. Now the parents need to file a civil lawsuit.

Even if they take him for everything he's worth, at least he'd still be able to go home to the people who love him. That's more than what he gave Trayvon.




Finally, if there is one thing that half of America hates, its gun control. A story like this brings out the primary danger of weak gun control policies that we as a society, or half of a society, are afraid to admit, that unqualified, itchy trigger finger individuals have way too easy access to guns. I believe that the second amednment provides the right for every citizen to bear arms, however, like every other amendment, I do not believe that it is a limitless right that should be unchecked by regulation. If there is any good in this story, it would be that we open up a dialog concerning reasonable gun control laws that make sense for the society as a whole.

I completely agree with you on the gun control laws.

I don't fully understand the defensiveness I'm seeing though. Like I said, although pretty much everyone (except for me and my family) knew how to shoot in that community, there was never anything to worry about so it's not like people having more guns is necessarily dangerous. Frankly, not having to worry about unstable personalities getting firearms is the first step towards a safer society as a whole.

That and deaths involving firearms need to be taken more seriously in general. People get upset over a lot of things but when a "toy" or something entertainment-related kills someone, I feel like people tend to gloss over it.

I'm not sure that the gun control conversation is going to happen because it honestly looks like the other side is busy doing the whole "He deserved to die! What? More oversight? Gun con-?! La la la la la la! We're not listening!"

[TheSkeptic]

http://a8.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/s320x320/524603_10150635081621700_115017781699_9733580_9141 79702_n.jpg

That one's actually funny.

[Wild Cobra]

If it wasn't for the media, they wouldn't have even opened the investigation in spite of the fact that the lead investigator wanted to press charges.
No, they did an investigation. They determined Zimmerman lawfully shot in self defense. Now that the media and race baiters got involved, bigger players are now investigating too.

Even then the media pushing a narrative doesn't justify the many people who are being callous about the needless death of a child. That complete lack of empathy does not reflect very well in my opinion.
Self defense is needless?

I'm sorry, but if Zimmerman's story is correct, and I found myself being pounded by someone, and I had a gun and couldn't stop him physically, that motherfucker would be dead once I could get to it.

That said, I don't want him dead or anything. I want him to get a fair trial or at the very least I want them to consider taking him to court and I want the parents to sue him no matter what the results are. Now that the authorities are working on it that's one. Now the parents need to file a civil lawsuit.

Well, he will have a trial if there is ever any evidence found that can be used against him. You can count on that. Now however, with a biased jury pool, it will not be fair. Too many in the jury will start believing they need to convict.

[Stringer_Bell]

WpUAFGqwiJY#!

That was pretty good, didn't feel like I watched 7 minutes at all.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to Trayvon's family suing the real people responsible...HCA's. Those guys are assholes and deserve to get sued, really curious how that will play out. Also can't wait for the Trayvon celebrity album with all the best rappers raising money for the Trayvon scholarship fund.

[TheSkeptic]

Self defense is needless?

I'm sorry, but if Zimmerman's story is correct, and I found myself being pounded by someone, and I had a gun and couldn't stop him physically, that motherfucker would be dead once I could get to it.


Don't put words in my mouth.

I never said self defense wasn't necessary. Just that I didn't believe his story, the lead investigator didn't believe his story, and that there's evidence going both ways though I'm siding with the unarmed teenager.

The police messed up. You don't get to take a botched investigation where mistakes were made and point to that as proof that a trial isn't necessary. I'm saying he should have his day in court. If he's proven not guilty then it is what it is.

*If* Zimmerman's story is correct then he would have a point except he was the one doing the pursuing. I'm sorry but I still think he's responsible for the whole situation.

Since there's no question that he was involved with the shooting, they might as well sue Zimmerman as well as the HOA and anyone else who was found not doing their jobs. That's basically what civil lawsuits look like anyway. Name a whole bunch of people and see what sticks.

[Creepn]

I still think this dude racially profiled this kid, told him "What the fuck are you doing here?", kid felt the need to use self defense from a guy who was chasing him in the night, Trayvon got the best of him and screamed "HELP HELP" then was shot dead. Straight up murder. Then the coward says, "Self defense, look at me! I'm bleeding".

Daddy Zimmerman is a big fat fucking liar and the mere fact that he already lied a few times goes to show that he KNOWS what he needed to do to get around the law to get his son off. Like the way he did the other charges.

Fuck all of you pro-zimmerman muthafuckas. Fuck you all. And fuck that "Kill A Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_" law too. That's what it is. Stalk a black guy, provoke him, and shoot him dead when he's giving you a good ol fashion ass whuppin'. Finally found that loophole!

[Halberto]

^must be nice to be so simple minded

[CosmicCowboy]

^must be nice to be so simple minded

:lol

I got back from the ranch and fixed a quick dinner and opened this thread and saw that and STARTED to respond...and then realized that this idiot is so far gone it was better to just ignore him. It just looks to me like a tragic misunderstanding by both parties that escalated to a tragic end. I don't have sympathy for either one but as the saying goes, shit happens.

[Creepn]

Lol fuck both of yall. I don't need your pity.

[DarrinS]

NBC's altered 911 call -- custom made for idiots like creepn.

Duped

[Sec24Row7]

Lol fuck both of yall. I don't need your pity.

Good, because it looks like you are getting their disdain instead.

[Nbadan]

Excellent reporting from Reuters today...


"He told me Zimmerman's story was that Zimmerman was of course following him and that Trayvon approached his vehicle, walked up to the car and asked Zimmerman, 'Why are your following me?' Zimmerman then rolls his car windows down, tells Trayvon 'I'm not following you.' He rolls his car windows up.

"Trayvon walks off. Zimmerman said he started running between the buildings. Zimmerman gets out of his car. He comes around the building. Trayvon is hiding behind the building, waiting on him. Trayvon approaches him and says, 'What's your problem, homes?' Zimmerman says 'I don't have a problem.'

"Zimmerman starts to reach into his pocket to get his cellphone, and at that point Trayvon attacked him. He says Trayvon hits him. He falls on the ground. Trayvon jumps on top of him, takes his left hand and covers Zimmerman's mouth and tells him to shut the F up and continues to pound on him.

"At that point Zimmerman is able to unholster his weapon and fire a shot, striking Trayvon in the chest. Trayvon falls on his back and says, 'You got me.'"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSL2E8F31ZX20120403

This loosely collaborates what Trayvon's girlfriend said she heard on the phone...Trayvon felt he was being followed by Zimmerman...under Florida law, he had a right to feel threatened and to defend himself....

[TheSkeptic]

I still think this dude racially profiled this kid, told him "What the fuck are you doing here?", kid felt the need to use self defense from a guy who was chasing him in the night, Trayvon got the best of him and screamed "HELP HELP" then was shot dead. Straight up murder. Then the coward says, "Self defense, look at me! I'm bleeding".

Daddy Zimmerman is a big fat fucking liar and the mere fact that he already lied a few times goes to show that he KNOWS what he needed to do to get around the law to get his son off. Like the way he did the other charges.

Fuck all of you pro-zimmerman muthafuckas. Fuck you all. And fuck that "Kill A Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_" law too. That's what it is. Stalk a black guy, provoke him, and shoot him dead when he's giving you a good ol fashion ass whuppin'. Finally found that loophole!

I get where you're coming from.

Tim Wise gave his thoughts on this whole situation

http://www.timwise.org/2012/03/trayvon-martin-white-denial-and-the-unacceptable-burden-of-blackness-in-america/

http://www.timwise.org/2012/03/trayvon-martin-white-america-and-the-return-of-dred-scott/

From what I'm observing he's onto something where the mentalities of some people are concerned.

My emotions are getting drained with this case though. Even if Zimmerman somehow got the death penalty, it wouldn't bring their son back.

[TheSkeptic]

Excellent reporting from Reuters today...



http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSL2E8F31ZX20120403

This loosely collaborates what Trayvon's girlfriend said she heard on the phone...Trayvon felt he was being followed by Zimmerman...under Florida law, he had a right to feel threatened and to defend himself....

You'd think.

[Wild Cobra]

I wonder what kind of liability the Home Owners Association or the Police Department would have? They can take Zimmerman to the cleaners while they're also suing some of these other groups.
There is a reason why the responder to the call said "we don't need you to do that" and why he was an "unofficial" neighborhood watch person. It avoids litigation either way. On what grounds can a case be made? Because the Home Owners association didn't specifically forbid citizens from trying to protect the area?

[Wild Cobra]

*If* Zimmerman's story is correct then he would have a point except he was the one doing the pursuing. I'm sorry but I still think he's responsible for the whole situation.
Just because he doesn't have a badge means he cannot follow someone?

If the plain clothes police officer follow someone they think is suspicious, they get attacked, shoot back and kill.... is it the fault of the police?

Why does the badge make a difference? Is a badge a right to kill?

Since there's no question that he was involved with the shooting, they might as well sue Zimmerman as well as the HOA and anyone else who was found not doing their jobs. That's basically what civil lawsuits look like anyway. Name a whole bunch of people and see what sticks.
Who didn't do their job? I don't see it that way. Please explain. What did I miss?

[Wild Cobra]

I still think this dude racially profiled this kid, told him "What the fuck are you doing here?", kid felt the need to use self defense from a guy who was chasing him in the night, Trayvon got the best of him and screamed "HELP HELP" then was shot dead. Straight up murder. Then the coward says, "Self defense, look at me! I'm bleeding".

Well, I think it would be real difficult to convince anyone unbiased he racially profiled the kid. There is already evidence available that he made several calls about suspicious things in the three communities he lived in since 2004. He went after the kid because there have been multiple burglaries in the area, and he wanted to stop them. The burglary evidence is available online too.


Daddy Zimmerman is a big fat fucking liar and the mere fact that he already lied a few times goes to show that he KNOWS what he needed to do to get around the law to get his son off. Like the way he did the other charges.

Maybe, but so is the media about what they knew about. The facts don't change with what Papa Smurf says.


Fuck all of you pro-zimmerman muthafuckas. Fuck you all. And fuck that "Kill A Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_" law too. That's what it is. Stalk a black guy, provoke him, and shoot him dead when he's giving you a good ol fashion ass whuppin'. Finally found that loophole!

It's not a "kill a niggеr" law. The police would be obligated to offer the same respect to a black man killing a white under similar circumstances.

[DarrinS]

During our investigation it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret. We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future and apologize to our viewers.


Lol

[djohn2oo8]

Well, I think it would be real difficult to convince anyone unbiased he racially profiled the kid. There is already evidence available that he made several calls about suspicious things in the three communities he lived in since 2004. He went after the kid because there have been multiple burglaries in the area, and he wanted to stop them. The burglary evidence is available online too.

Maybe, but so is the media about what they knew about. The facts don't change with what Papa Smurf says.

It's not a "kill a niggеr" law. The police would be obligated to offer the same respect to a black man killing a white under similar circumstances.
He's not a cop, and even if a burglary was going on that wasn't happening on his property, he had no authority to stop it except to call the cops. See. Joe Horn.

[CosmicCowboy]

Excellent reporting from Reuters today...



http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSL2E8F31ZX20120403

This loosely collaborates what Trayvon's girlfriend said she heard on the phone...Trayvon felt he was being followed by Zimmerman...under Florida law, he had a right to feel threatened and to defend himself....

:lol

and that's why you would be a shitty attorney...

[CavsSuperFan]

Your post was awesome Creepn…60 plus pages in this thread & you are the only one to just come out & state what most of us are feeling…:tu

[Trill Clinton]

I still think this dude racially profiled this kid, told him "What the fuck are you doing here?", kid felt the need to use self defense from a guy who was chasing him in the night, Trayvon got the best of him and screamed "HELP HELP" then was shot dead. Straight up murder. Then the coward says, "Self defense, look at me! I'm bleeding".

Daddy Zimmerman is a big fat fucking liar and the mere fact that he already lied a few times goes to show that he KNOWS what he needed to do to get around the law to get his son off. Like the way he did the other charges.

Fuck all of you pro-zimmerman muthafuckas. Fuck you all. And fuck that "Kill A Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_" law too. That's what it is. Stalk a black guy, provoke him, and shoot him dead when he's giving you a good ol fashion ass whuppin'. Finally found that loophole!

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/gallery/yes/2yllfzo.gif

[DisAsTerBot]

RACIAL DIVIDE BIGGER. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

-mass media

[Bill_Brasky]

I've thought about it some more and this story doesn't just piss me off because this dude killed an unarmed kid.

As a person who owns guns and enjoys using them responsibly and safely I absolutely despise an idiot like this. All this story does is paint guns in a bad light nationwide just because one idiot thought he was Rambo. All of us who know wtf we're doing and mind our own fucking business will be the ones who suffer the most whem they try to use this shit as ammo for more gun laws.

[703 Spurz]

All this story does is paint guns in a bad light nationwide just because one idiot thought he was Rambo.

One idiot? What about the simultaneous story of the school killings in California? That guy was teased by his other college-aged classmates and he went postal on them.

There are numerous examples of people being nuts that can have access to guns. Getting access to guns and being batshit isn't helping anyone out.

[Wild Cobra]

Lol
No shit. They do it all the time, and they finally care?

[Wild Cobra]

He's not a cop, and even if a burglary was going on that wasn't happening on his property, he had no authority to stop it except to call the cops. See. Joe Horn.
Wasn't he cleared?

[ElNono]

He's not a cop, and even if a burglary was going on that wasn't happening on his property, he had no authority to stop it except to call the cops. See. Joe Horn.

Actually Joe Horn shot the two guys while they were in his front yard, which automatically triggers being in his property. He was acquitted under Texas laws though, so it might not be similar here seeing it's a different state.

[ElNono]

Wasn't he cleared?

He wasn't even tried. The grand jury simply returned a no-bill on the indictment...

[Wild Cobra]

He wasn't even tried. The grand jury simply returned a no-bill on the indictment...
My money is on the bet that this will happen for Zimmerman too.

[Trill Clinton]

I get where you're coming from.

Tim Wise gave his thoughts on this whole situation

http://www.timwise.org/2012/03/trayvon-martin-white-denial-and-the-unacceptable-burden-of-blackness-in-america/

http://www.timwise.org/2012/03/trayvon-martin-white-america-and-the-return-of-dred-scott/

From what I'm observing he's onto something where the mentalities of some people are concerned.

My emotions are getting drained with this case though. Even if Zimmerman somehow got the death penalty, it wouldn't bring their son back.

Interesting links. I agree with Wise and I'm with you on not engaging in debates when it comes to Trayvon's death. Non blacks act like its no big deal but they've never walked in a black persons shoes.

[TheSkeptic]

Just because he doesn't have a badge means he cannot follow someone?

If the plain clothes police officer follow someone they think is suspicious, they get attacked, shoot back and kill.... is it the fault of the police?

Why does the badge make a difference? Is a badge a right to kill?

It's not about the badge being a right to kill. It's about the years of training, experience, and professionalism that comes with it.

We trust that the cops will make the right call because they have the qualifications. Even then, there's procedures in place to make sure the police aren't randomly killing civilians.

If you can't see the difference, then I don't know what to say.




Who didn't do their job? I don't see it that way. Please explain. What did I miss?

The whole case apparently.




I've thought about it some more and this story doesn't just piss me off because this dude killed an unarmed kid.

As a person who owns guns and enjoys using them responsibly and safely I absolutely despise an idiot like this. All this story does is paint guns in a bad light nationwide just because one idiot thought he was Rambo. All of us who know wtf we're doing and mind our own fucking business will be the ones who suffer the most whem they try to use this shit as ammo for more gun laws.

I understand what you're saying and I get the fact that this frustrates you.

Just out of curiosity though, how come you don't think there needs to be more gun laws?



Interesting links. I agree with Wise and I'm with you on not engaging in debates when it comes to Trayvon's death. Non blacks act like its no big deal but they've never walked in a black persons shoes.

I don't know that it's about the fact that they're not black to be honest.

I've seen this attitude get extended to include Muslims and people from the Middle East, Asia, Africa, etc. so many times that I'm just not convinced that these individuals are discriminating exclusively on the basis of skin colour.

I think it's an inability to empathize with people period.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's not about the badge being a right to kill. It's about the years of training, experience, and professionalism that comes with it.

We trust that the cops will make the right call because they have the qualifications. Even then, there's procedures in place to make sure the police aren't randomly killing civilians.

If you can't see the difference, then I don't know what to say.




The whole case apparently.





I understand what you're saying and I get the fact that this frustrates you.

Just out of curiosity though, how come you don't think there needs to be more gun laws?




I don't know that it's about the fact that they're not black to be honest.

I've seen this attitude get extended to include Muslims and people from the Middle East, Asia, Africa, etc. so many times that I'm just not convinced that these individuals are discriminating exclusively on the basis of skin colour.

I think it's an inability to empathize with people period.

It's also about the inability of people to grasp the fact that this was apparently a tragic misunderstanding between two dumbshits. Take your red or blue glasses off for a minute.

[boutons_deux]

"apparently a tragic misunderstanding between two dumbshits"

bull fucking shit

it was an unstable wannabe cop packing heat going vigilante/stalker on his hated "young black male". YBM got murdered for Standing His Ground.

[Stringer_Bell]

Interesting links. I agree with Wise and I'm with you on not engaging in debates when it comes to Trayvon's death. Non blacks act like its no big deal but they've never walked in a black persons shoes.

Exactly, you know what's up. Non-blacks don't kill other non-blacks at nearly the rate that we kill each other...so of course they don't know what it's like to be black and fear other blacks and whites and browns and yellows. Everyone else worries about getting shot 75% of the time, we worry 100% cuz our own kin wanna take from us too.

It's awful how the media has tried to fan the flames of racial divide, making a straight up merc-job into a circus to push an agenda decided by some assholes we will never see on TV or read about in the papers. But the sheep don't understand the law, the mechanisms that change laws, and are satisfied with twisting this into a hate crime when it's clearly an opportunity to do something about a Florida law that is stupid - and by virtue of being stupid, has the possibility of being adopted elsewhere or twisted even more.

But it's cool, all ya'll wanting Zimmerman's blood aren't concerned with the big picture (fixing a law that COULD hurt a lot of people in the future)...our kin just want a "white boy" to pay for killing a black boy cuz we too scared to call each other out for when we do it to each other every day.

[TheSkeptic]

"apparently a tragic misunderstanding between two dumbshits"

bull fucking shit

it was an unstable wannabe cop packing heat going vigilante/stalker on his hated "young black male". YBM got murdered for Standing His Ground.

I can believe that it was a misunderstanding on Zimmerman's part as well. I don't believe he tried to stop Trayvon with the intention of killing him. That said, he is completely responsible for what happened.

I hope he gets a fair trial and I hope he gets sued.

[TheSkeptic]

Exactly, you know what's up. Non-blacks don't kill other non-blacks at nearly the rate that we kill each other...so of course they don't know what it's like to be black and fear other blacks and whites and browns and yellows. Everyone else worries about getting shot 75% of the time, we worry 100% cuz our own kin wanna take from us too.

It's awful how the media has tried to fan the flames of racial divide, making a straight up merc-job into a circus to push an agenda decided by some assholes we will never see on TV or read about in the papers. But the sheep don't understand the law, the mechanisms that change laws, and are satisfied with twisting this into a hate crime when it's clearly an opportunity to do something about a Florida law that is stupid - and by virtue of being stupid, has the possibility of being adopted elsewhere or twisted even more.

But it's cool, all ya'll wanting Zimmerman's blood aren't concerned with the big picture (fixing a law that COULD hurt a lot of people in the future)...our kin just want a "white boy" to pay for killing a black boy cuz we too scared to call each other out for when we do it to each other every day.

What on earth?

I'm completely against all the black on black violence as well and I advocate measures to put an end to that too. Human life is sacrosanct to me.

And it's not about getting the "white boy" to pay. It's about getting justice.

And also, about getting that Florida law reviewed. That being said, I'm not really convinced that Zimmerman would fall under SYG laws...

[spursncowboys]

Exactly, you know what's up. Non-blacks don't kill other non-blacks at nearly the rate that we kill each other...so of course they don't know what it's like to be black and fear other blacks and whites and browns and yellows. Everyone else worries about getting shot 75% of the time, we worry 100% cuz our own kin wanna take from us too.

It's awful how the media has tried to fan the flames of racial divide, making a straight up merc-job into a circus to push an agenda decided by some assholes we will never see on TV or read about in the papers. But the sheep don't understand the law, the mechanisms that change laws, and are satisfied with twisting this into a hate crime when it's clearly an opportunity to do something about a Florida law that is stupid - and by virtue of being stupid, has the possibility of being adopted elsewhere or twisted even more.

But it's cool, all ya'll wanting Zimmerman's blood aren't concerned with the big picture (fixing a law that COULD hurt a lot of people in the future)...our kin just want a "white boy" to pay for killing a black boy cuz we too scared to call each other out for when we do it to each other every day.
You're a terrible troll. Stringer Bell would never had said that. He would have been pissed that more violence on the corners. Actually it's gated so he would have been invested in that. and probably the one who would hire Zimmerman and tell him to keep black people out.

[Crookshanks]

I've read a lot of this thread, but I haven't read all 64 pages - so if this has already been mentioned, I apologize.

If Trayvon had been a well-mannered, polite young man, he could've answered George Zimmerman's questions in a non-confrontational manner. He could've said his father's girlfriend lived in the neighborhood and he was there visiting. Then he could've said that he'd gone out to get some snacks for his brother and was on his way back. He then could've told Zimmerman where she lived. Heck, since it was raining, Zimmerman might have even offered him a ride back to the house.

Instead, Trayvon acted like the thug he wanted to be - and got himself dead!

[Goran Dragic]

once I saw Crookshanks comment on this thread, I knew I'd see some real stupidity :lmao:lmao:lmao

You still voting for Santorum, c.unt?

[Creepn]

I've read a lot of this thread, but I haven't read all 64 pages - so if this has already been mentioned, I apologize.

If Trayvon had been a well-mannered, polite young man, he could've answered George Zimmerman's questions in a non-confrontational manner. He could've said his father's girlfriend lived in the neighborhood and he was there visiting. Then he could've said that he'd gone out to get some snacks for his brother and was on his way back. He then could've told Zimmerman where she lived. Heck, since it was raining, Zimmerman might have even offered him a ride back to the house.

Instead, Trayvon acted like the thug he wanted to be - and got himself dead!

So you basically want blacks to follow the black codes again. "Sorry massa Zimmerman, me jus walkin home wit sum sweets suh."

Please, he didn't have to tell anybody his business. Zimmerman should have minded his own business that's what. What is wrong with you crookshanks?

[Goran Dragic]

What is wrong with you crookshanks?
Oh boy what a question

[Spurminator]

I wonder why it's Trayvon that keeps being called the "thug" even though he wasn't the one following people around with a gun.

[Crookshanks]

So you basically want blacks to follow the black codes again. "Sorry massa Zimmerman, me jus walkin home wit sum sweets suh."

Please, he didn't have to tell anybody his business. Zimmerman should have minded his own business that's what. What is wrong with you crookshanks?

Oh please... that's not what I said, and you know it! Trayvon was out late at night, in a neighborhood where he didn't live - a neighborhood that had seen several breakins recently. Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch person - it is his business to keep an eye on the neighborhood. All Trayvon had to do was tell Zimmerman why he was there, and everything would've been fine.

It's the attitude like yours that got Trayvon killed

[Crookshanks]

I wonder why it's Trayvon that keeps being called the "thug" even though he wasn't the one following people around with a gun.

Maybe because that's the image portrayed by Trayvon on his facebook and twitter accounts. Maybe because he'd been kicked out of school 4 times, had been found with a burglary tool and several pieces of jewelry that didn't belong to him, and a baggie with pot residue. Add in his twitter handle, the foul gangsta language, the tattoos and the gold grille - and it certainly doesn't portray an upstanding honor student.

[Goran Dragic]

gangsta
:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[Creepn]

I'm not going to entertain this bullshit spewing from your prejudice mind Crookshanks. I'm leaving you off with this: It's attitudes like YOURS is why Trayvon got killed. Don't get it twisted.

[ChumpDumper]

Trayvon was to uppity to live.Cliff's Notes.


Trayvon acted like the thug he wanted to be - and got himself dead!You're moist.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Has Florida passed a vigilante law yet?

[Spurminator]

Maybe because that's the image portrayed by Trayvon on his facebook and twitter accounts. Maybe because he'd been kicked out of school 4 times, had been found with a burglary tool and several pieces of jewelry that didn't belong to him, and a baggie with pot residue. Add in his twitter handle, the foul gangsta language, the tattoos and the gold grille - and it certainly doesn't portray an upstanding honor student.

What does any of this have to do with the night in question? You said he was acting like a thug and that's why he got shot. What specific evidence do you have that he was acting like a thug?

[Goran Dragic]

he was wearing a hoodie!

[MannyIsGod]

I've read a lot of this thread, but I haven't read all 64 pages - so if this has already been mentioned, I apologize.

If Trayvon had been a well-mannered, polite young man, he could've answered George Zimmerman's questions in a non-confrontational manner. He could've said his father's girlfriend lived in the neighborhood and he was there visiting. Then he could've said that he'd gone out to get some snacks for his brother and was on his way back. He then could've told Zimmerman where she lived. Heck, since it was raining, Zimmerman might have even offered him a ride back to the house.

Instead, Trayvon acted like the thug he wanted to be - and got himself dead!

You just make me sad now. How dare that young man get...uppity.

[TheSkeptic]

I've read a lot of this thread, but I haven't read all 64 pages - so if this has already been mentioned, I apologize.

If Trayvon had been a well-mannered, polite young man, he could've answered George Zimmerman's questions in a non-confrontational manner. He could've said his father's girlfriend lived in the neighborhood and he was there visiting. Then he could've said that he'd gone out to get some snacks for his brother and was on his way back. He then could've told Zimmerman where she lived. Heck, since it was raining, Zimmerman might have even offered him a ride back to the house.

Instead, Trayvon acted like the thug he wanted to be - and got himself dead!

Unbelievable.

I'm sorry but just because someone doesn't want to answer your questions, that doesn't give you the right to shoot him/her.

And honestly, mentalities like yours where the killing of a black person is excused for ridiculous reasons, are nothing less than insulting.

This paradigm and the manipulation of the system to excuse this sort of thing needs to end.

[TheSkeptic]

You just make me sad now. How dare that young man get...uppity.

He gets it.

[Gutter92]

I'm not going to entertain this bullshit spewing from your prejudice mind Crookshanks. I'm leaving you off with this: It's attitudes like YOURS is why Trayvon got killed. Don't get it twisted.

No, its the hoodie, clearly he's a very intimidating 17 year old wearing a hoodie and all...and cmon, give him a break, it was dark outside, a bag of skittles could easily (from a distance) be mistaken as a gun/knife :lmao

[Goran Dragic]

Crookshanks is a huge Rick Santorum fan, her posts in this thread don't come as much of a surprise. Or at least they shouldn't.

[ElNono]

I always stop to tell my stalker what I'm doing in the neighborhood... you guys make it sound like it's a rare occurrence...

[bobbyjoe]

It's also about the inability of people to grasp the fact that this was apparently a tragic misunderstanding between two dumbshits. Take your red or blue glasses off for a minute.

I've seen many arguments along these lines, but the problem is there is a hell of a lot more evidence to support Zimmerman being a dumbshit than there is Trayvon:

- The first issue is that a 17 year old should be held to a different standard than a 28 year old. You expect the 28 year old to be much more mature; most people make more mistakes at 17 than they do 28.

- Zimmerman violating the basic principles of neighborhood watch patrol is inarguably the primary catalyst in a 17 year old losing his life. There's a reason why police officers and Homeowners Associations explicitly tell watchmen NOT to be armed.

They aren't trained to handle potentially violent confrontations. Had Zimmerman approached a 25 year old who was actually committing a crime who weighed 200 pounds instead of 140, he very easily could have lost his own life.

- What fact can you point to that indicates Trayvon was a dumbshit? He was walking home to watch an all-star game talking to his girlfriend. No witness has come forth to say what the two said to each other before the altercation so no one knows who the instigator was. However, what we do know for an absolute fact is that Zimmerman was irresponsible at best and illegal at worst in ignoring guidance from the police NOT to pursue Martin and that he was irresponsible in being armed in the midst of a duty where it's universally understood that you shouldn't be armed and that your role is simply to report illegal activity.

- The other issue is that I believe most would agree that you have a legitimate right to be upset when a random, unidentifiable individual is clearly following you. It doesn't make you a dumbshit for being upset about this. It would make you a dumbshit if it was a police officer and you didn't listen to him, cursed him out, hit him, etc but Z wasn't a cop.

[Wild Cobra]

I've read a lot of this thread, but I haven't read all 64 pages - so if this has already been mentioned, I apologize.

If Trayvon had been a well-mannered, polite young man, he could've answered George Zimmerman's questions in a non-confrontational manner. He could've said his father's girlfriend lived in the neighborhood and he was there visiting. Then he could've said that he'd gone out to get some snacks for his brother and was on his way back. He then could've told Zimmerman where she lived. Heck, since it was raining, Zimmerman might have even offered him a ride back to the house.

Instead, Trayvon acted like the thug he wanted to be - and got himself dead!
Well I agree most people may handle it that way, but I will disagree in the aspect that he is not required to be nice to anyone. He has the right to be secure in his person. There is no reason to require him to answer Zimmerman's questions. He had fourth amendment rights. Yes, it probably would have changed the outcome, but it was not his responsibility to answer to someone he didn't know.

That said, I tend to believe that Martin did attack Zimmerman, and that's where all this will rest. With Zimmerman firing his gun in self defense.

Now no matter how suspicious Martin may have been to Zimmerman, if Zimmerman started the violence, then he has no excuse for the shooting and should go to jail.

[bobbyjoe]

I've thought about it some more and this story doesn't just piss me off because this dude killed an unarmed kid.

As a person who owns guns and enjoys using them responsibly and safely I absolutely despise an idiot like this. All this story does is paint guns in a bad light nationwide just because one idiot thought he was Rambo. All of us who know wtf we're doing and mind our own fucking business will be the ones who suffer the most whem they try to use this shit as ammo for more gun laws.

I believe 50 states recognize the very basic and fundamental concept of self-defense, but only a handful have the Stand Your Ground law.

I think most rational Americans, even the anti-second amendment group will accept that if an intruder breaks into your house, you have a reason to shoot them, claim self defense and not do a day of jail time because you have an innate right to self-preservation and every logical reason to belief the intruder is armed and could kill you.

However, I think most rational Americans reject the idea that if you are in a fight at a bar and getting your ass kicked that you have a legal right to pull out a gun and shoot to kill without doing any jail time. In this scenario, your life likely is not in danger. Fights occur everyday in America, but rarely do they result in death. Also, in this scenario, you have clearly taken the violence to another level.

As a responsible gun owner, why would you feel your rights are diminished if Stand Your Ground was banned given that the doctrine of self-defense isn't being questioned?

[bobbyjoe]

Well I agree most people may handle it that way, but I will disagree in the aspect that he is not required to be nice to anyone. He has the right to be secure in his person. There is no reason to require him to answer Zimmerman's questions. He had fourth amendment rights. Yes, it probably would have changed the outcome, but it was not his responsibility to answer to someone he didn't know.

That said, I tend to believe that Martin did attack Zimmerman, and that's where all this will rest. With Zimmerman firing his gun in self defense.

Now no matter how suspicious Martin may have been to Zimmerman, if Zimmerman started the violence, then he has no excuse for the shooting and should go to jail.

I think you are building the case for why the Stand Your Ground Law is flawed.

It's often going to be impossible to know who "started" the violence. In the absence of eye witnesses (which many crimes that lead to convictions do not have), who the initiator was will invariably end up being a he said she said scenario. Should a law exist if its enforcement mechanism relies on having an eye witness? I can't imagine forensics, DNA, etc could ever prove who the initiator was.

If George Z went up to Travyon and in the midst of an argument called him a "thug-ass Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_" and Trayvon punched him is it clear who the instigator is?

Interpreting this law strictly could arguably mean that a person could actually shoot and kill without the instigator ever becoming violent.

Imagine a hypothetical scenario where George Z tried to detain Trayvon and Travyon got upset and verbally threatened to pay George Z a visit with some of his homies and "phuc him up" but never so much as laid a finger on him. By the letter of the law, could defense lawyers conceivably use the Stand Your Ground statute to argue George Z "had a reasonable reason to fear for his life or suffering of severe bodily harm" and thus was lawfully entitled to shoot Martin?

The law needs to be amended so the wording of the law matches the spirit of the law. The law wasn't intended for scenarios like the George Z- Trayvon Martin encounter.

[boutons_deux]

"only a handful have the Stand Your Ground law."

handful is 20+ states, and growing. (all y'all whiteys only) Stand Your Ground Laws are inevitable, with the $200M/year NRA, its financing guns+ammo industry, and ALEC pushing relentlessly for "I whitey feel threatened so I kill you blacks" laws.

[ElNono]

It's also about the inability of people to grasp the fact that this was apparently a tragic misunderstanding between two dumbshits. Take your red or blue glasses off for a minute.

Being a dumbshit shouldn't preclude you from being charged if you end somebody's else life. Actually, outside of insanity pleas, I've never heard of the "dumbshit" defense.

[JoeChalupa]

It's also about the inability of people to grasp the fact that this was apparently a tragic misunderstanding between two dumbshits. Take your red or blue glasses off for a minute.

I've grasped this theory clearly and I do feel that all this controversy could have been avoided if the police would have simply done a better investigation at the scene. They should have examined Martin's body for evidence and also done tests on his clothing that may have shed some light on how close Zimmerman was when he shot him. Also Zimmerman's clothing should have been tested for the same reasons. The fact that they pretty much just took Zimmerman's word as facts is the real issue, IMHO.
I think Zimmerman took on more than he could handle and Martin was simply defending himself against an unknown man who was pursuing him.
Manslaughter.

[Wild Cobra]

I think you are building the case for why the Stand Your Ground Law is flawed.

Well, first of all, the way I understand it, that law isn't what is being used to protect Zimmerman. The evidence available so far shows self defense.


It's often going to be impossible to know who "started" the violence. In the absence of eye witnesses (which many crimes that lead to convictions do not have), who the initiator was will invariably end up being a he said she said scenario. Should a law exist if its enforcement mechanism relies on having an eye witness? I can't imagine forensics, DNA, etc could ever prove who the initiator was.

I don't think anyone has disagreed with this concept. Point is, the law is the law at the moment until it is changed.


If George Z went up to Travyon and in the midst of an argument called him a "thug-ass Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_" and Trayvon punched him is it clear who the instigator is?

Name calling isn't a cause to be violent. Words are not illegal. Hitting is I think at least 3rd degree assault.


Interpreting this law strictly could arguably mean that a person could actually shoot and kill without the instigator ever becoming violent.

Again, Zimmerman's defense will not rest on the stand your ground law.


Imagine a hypothetical scenario where George Z tried to detain Trayvon and Travyon got upset and verbally threatened to pay George Z a visit with some of his homies and "phuc him up" but never so much as laid a finger on him. By the letter of the law, could defense lawyers conceivably use the Stand Your Ground statute to argue George Z "had a reasonable reason to fear for his life or suffering of severe bodily harm" and thus was lawfully entitled to shoot Martin?

The law needs to be amended so the wording of the law matches the spirit of the law. The law wasn't intended for scenarios like the George Z- Trayvon Martin encounter.

Read the law.

[boutons_deux]

"Name calling isn't a cause to be violent. Words are not illegal"

Z was 100 pounds more than M.

Words can be extremely threatening (how about: "I'm gonna kick your YOUNG MALE BLACK ass, n!gg@"), making the target "feel" "reasonably" threatened to aggressive acts that could follow the aggressive words.

[CosmicCowboy]

"Name calling isn't a cause to be violent. Words are not illegal"

Z was 100 pounds more than M.

Words can be extremely threatening (how about: "I'm gonna kick your YOUNG MALE BLACK ass, n!gg@"), making the target "feel" "reasonably" threatened to aggressive acts that could follow the aggressive words.

Still just words Boutons

Thanks for playing.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

George zimmerman family to launch fundraising website for legal defense.

[Stringer_Bell]

You're a terrible troll. Stringer Bell would never had said that. He would have been pissed that more violence on the corners. Actually it's gated so he would have been invested in that. and probably the one who would hire Zimmerman and tell him to keep black people out.

Thats because I don't post "in character" cuz I'm not a troll. I'm a real human being. But I do agree with your overall analysis of how Stringer would have handled the situation, except for Zimmerman bringing unwanted heat to the housing development and HCA.

In other news, I'm glad we're all having a "teachable moment" as we celebrate the 50th anniversary of To Kill a Mockingbird.

[djohn2oo8]

Well, first of all, the way I understand it, that law isn't what is being used to protect Zimmerman. The evidence available so far shows self defense.

.

Name calling isn't a cause to be violent. Words are not illegal. Hitting is I think at least 3rd degree assault.

.

Read the law.
There are certain words that are not protected under the First Amendment, and surely Zimmerman said something to Martin besides the fact that he was FOLLOWING him, that escalated the situation.

[TheSkeptic]

I've grasped this theory clearly and I do feel that all this controversy could have been avoided if the police would have simply done a better investigation at the scene. They should have examined Martin's body for evidence and also done tests on his clothing that may have shed some light on how close Zimmerman was when he shot him. Also Zimmerman's clothing should have been tested for the same reasons. The fact that they pretty much just took Zimmerman's word as facts is the real issue, IMHO.
I think Zimmerman took on more than he could handle and Martin was simply defending himself against an unknown man who was pursuing him.
Manslaughter.

I'd say this is about right although I guess the rest will depend on the jury.

[Wild Cobra]

There are certain words that are not protected under the First Amendment, and surely Zimmerman said something to Martin besides the fact that he was FOLLOWING him, that escalated the situation.
The words do not matter. Period. Who started the physical altercation is what matters.

[Wild Cobra]

He's not a cop, and even if a burglary was going on that wasn't happening on his property, he had no authority to stop it except to call the cops. See. Joe Horn.
Is there any evidence he tried doing anything other than keep an eye on him?

He called the cops, and it look like he wanted to be able to show the cops where he was, so the cops could deal with it.

[Wild Cobra]

And also, about getting that Florida law reviewed. That being said, I'm not really convinced that Zimmerman would fall under SYG laws...
I don't think he would fall under the Stand your Ground law either. Besides, I don't think anyone on his side has been claiming that law, but rather self defense. I think what is driving this are the people who want to repeal the SYG law, and those whom want to control handguns tighter. I don't think they really have the Martin's best interests at heart.

[Wild Cobra]

"Name calling isn't a cause to be violent. Words are not illegal"

Z was 100 pounds more than M.

Words can be extremely threatening (how about: "I'm gonna kick your YOUNG MALE BLACK ass, n!gg@"), making the target "feel" "reasonably" threatened to aggressive acts that could follow the aggressive words.
I'll take on someone with 100 lbs more of fat than me in a heartbeat, because I am more agile and in better shape.

[Wild Cobra]

George zimmerman family to launch fundraising website for legal defense.
What is the link? If the situation arises where I have confidence he didn't instigate a murder, I will contribute. Right now, I'm teetering towards his side, but I'm still on the fence.

[Wild Cobra]

There are certain words that are not protected under the First Amendment, and surely Zimmerman said something to Martin besides the fact that he was FOLLOWING him, that escalated the situation.

Sticks and stone will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

[Wild Cobra]

Anyone know the answer to this?
Ever watch the TV series "Justified?"

Of course it will vary from state to state. Now I didn't see anyone post the relative Florida law on this, so:

CHAPTER 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html)


776.012 Use of force in defense of person.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.
776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.
776.051 Use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.
776.06 Deadly force.
776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.
776.08 Forcible felony.
776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 2005-27.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.
776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.
776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.—A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:
(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;
(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or
(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and:
(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or
(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 75-64; s. 1, ch. 87-147; s. 54, ch. 88-381; s. 1191, ch. 97-102.
776.051 Use of force in resisting arrest or making an arrest or in the execution of a legal duty; prohibition.—
(1) A person is not justified in the use of force to resist an arrest by a law enforcement officer, or to resist a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the execution of a legal duty, if the law enforcement officer was acting in good faith and he or she is known, or reasonably appears, to be a law enforcement officer.
(2) A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, is not justified in the use of force if the arrest or execution of a legal duty is unlawful and known by him or her to be unlawful.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1192, ch. 97-102; s. 1, ch. 2008-67.
776.06 Deadly force.—
(1) The term “deadly force” means force that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm and includes, but is not limited to:
(a) The firing of a firearm in the direction of the person to be arrested, even though no intent exists to kill or inflict great bodily harm; and
(b) The firing of a firearm at a vehicle in which the person to be arrested is riding.
(2)(a) The term “deadly force” does not include the discharge of a firearm by a law enforcement officer or correctional officer during and within the scope of his or her official duties which is loaded with a less-lethal munition. As used in this subsection, the term “less-lethal munition” means a projectile that is designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person without penetrating the person’s body.
(b) A law enforcement officer or a correctional officer is not liable in any civil or criminal action arising out of the use of any less-lethal munition in good faith during and within the scope of his or her official duties.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1, ch. 99-272.
776.07 Use of force to prevent escape.—
(1) A law enforcement officer or other person who has an arrested person in his or her custody is justified in the use of any force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody.
(2) A correctional officer or other law enforcement officer is justified in the use of force, including deadly force, which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape from a penal institution of a person whom the officer reasonably believes to be lawfully detained in such institution under sentence for an offense or awaiting trial or commitment for an offense.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 7, ch. 95-283; s. 1193, ch. 97-102.
776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 4, ch. 75-298; s. 289, ch. 79-400; s. 5, ch. 93-212; s. 10, ch. 95-195.
776.085 Defense to civil action for damages; party convicted of forcible or attempted forcible felony.—
(1) It shall be a defense to any action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death, or for injury to property, that such action arose from injury sustained by a participant during the commission or attempted commission of a forcible felony. The defense authorized by this section shall be established by evidence that the participant has been convicted of such forcible felony or attempted forcible felony, or by proof of the commission of such crime or attempted crime by a preponderance of the evidence.
(2) For the purposes of this section, the term “forcible felony” shall have the same meaning as in s. 776.08.
(3) Any civil action in which the defense recognized by this section is raised shall be stayed by the court on the motion of the civil defendant during the pendency of any criminal action which forms the basis for the defense, unless the court finds that a conviction in the criminal action would not form a valid defense under this section.
(4) In any civil action where a party prevails based on the defense created by this section:
(a) The losing party, if convicted of and incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, shall, as determined by the court, lose any privileges provided by the correctional facility, including, but not limited to:
1. Canteen purchases;
2. Telephone access;
3. Outdoor exercise;
4. Use of the library; and
5. Visitation.
(b) The court shall award a reasonable attorney’s fee to be paid to the prevailing party in equal amounts by the losing party and the losing party’s attorney; however, the losing party’s attorney is not personally responsible if he or she has acted in good faith, based on the representations of his or her client. If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime and has insufficient assets to cover payment of the costs of the action and the award of fees pursuant to this paragraph, the party shall, as determined by the court, be required to pay by deduction from any payments the prisoner receives while incarcerated.
(c) If the losing party is incarcerated for the crime or attempted crime, the court shall issue a written order containing its findings and ruling pursuant to paragraphs (a) and (b) and shall direct that a certified copy be forwarded to the appropriate correctional institution or facility.
History.—s. 1, ch. 87-187; s. 72, ch. 96-388.

[TheSullyMonster]

Is there any evidence he tried doing anything other than keep an eye on him?

He called the cops, and it look like he wanted to be able to show the cops where he was, so the cops could deal with it.

He got out of the car(against police recommendation) and shot him?

It isn't as if his gun spontaneously went off. He was in a car, the kid was on foot. He wasn't in any danger.

[Wild Cobra]

He got out of the car(against police recommendation) and shot him?

It isn't as if his gun spontaneously went off. He was in a car, the kid was on foot. He wasn't in any danger.
Not enough. The police cannot say "Yes, please follow him" in case Zimmerman got hut. He might them have a liability case against them. They also cannot say "No, stay put or go home" because if Martin then committed a violent crime, the police could be sued by the victims of a crime that it was preventable. I see the wording as leaving it 100% to Zimmerman's discretion.

The police are often in no-win situations.

[Blake]

Not enough. The police cannot say "Yes, please follow him" in case Zimmerman got hut. He might them have a liability case against them. They also cannot say "No, stay put or go home" because if Martin then committed a violent crime, the police could be sued by the victims of a crime that it was preventable. I see the wording as leaving it 100% to Zimmerman's discretion.

The police are often in no-win situations.

Fascinating bullshit. :tu

[Wild Cobra]

Fascinating bullshit. :tu
Are you saying the police do not need to protect themselves from such litigation?

[Fabbs]

Fascinating bullshit. :tu
So let's hear your fascinating response as to why the dispatcher said what she said and did NOT say
"Do not follow him."

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The words do not matter. Period. Who started the physical altercation is what matters.

What matters to me is that Florida law allows for people to carry weapons while they patrol neighborhoods and detain other citizens. Thats the issue in my mind.

If someone illegally tries to detain me then I have every right to resist that and initiate a physical altercation to prevent said detainment.

[Wild Cobra]

What matters to me is that Florida law allows for people to carry weapons while they patrol neighborhoods and detain other citizens. Thats the issue in my mind.

If someone illegally tries to detain me then I have every right to resist that and initiate a physical altercation to prevent said detainment.
Please reference and quote the law that says they can detain a citizen?

[Blake]

Are you saying the police do not need to protect themselves from such litigation?

Explain how the police were to prevent Martin from committing a future crime.

lol Minority Report

[spursncowboys]

Let's just put all of our hopes and prayers on the law enforcement.

I guess you have never had your car broken into and how helpful the police are.

I personally rather get together with my neighborhood and hire someone to do security on the area.

[spursncowboys]

Let's just put all of our hopes and prayers on the law enforcement.

I guess you have never had your car broken into and how helpful the police are.

I personally rather get together with my neighborhood and hire someone to do security on the area.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Please reference and quote the law that says they can detain a citizen?

What are you talking about? Laws prohibit behavior and make exceptions. A behavior is legal until a law is made prohibiting it, dumbass.

You stalk that chick to AZ yet?

[spursncowboys]

I didn't know a "behavior" was illegal either. I thought it was the "act" or omission of an act.

[Wild Cobra]

What are you talking about? Laws prohibit behavior and make exceptions. A behavior is legal until a law is made prohibiting it, dumbass.

I guess you don't realize what you said...


Florida law allows for people to carry weapons while they patrol neighborhoods and detain other citizens.
I didn't know Florida Law allowed citizens to detain others.

Link please.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I guess you don't realize what you said...


I didn't know Florida Law allowed citizens to detain others.

Link please.

What do 'not prohibited by law' mean?

You have the critical thinking skills of an elementary student.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I didn't know a "behavior" was illegal either. I thought it was the "act" or omission of an act.

Look up the definitions of 'behavior' and 'mutually exclusive' and get back to me.

[spursncowboys]

Why can't you just tell me if you know it...Why does it have to be some kind of homework assignment?

[Wild Cobra]

Why can't you just tell me if you know it...Why does it have to be some kind of homework assignment?
I tell you... iT'S THAT fUZZY LOGIC.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why can't you just tell me if you know it...Why does it have to be some kind of homework assignment?

Mutually exclusive means that if one thing is defined as something then it cannot be some other thing at the same time.

What i am saying is that behavior and actions are not mutually exclusive. Behavior can be exhibited as an action.

Somethings that are mutually exclusive are WC and intelligent thought.

[Blake]

I tell you... iT'S THAT fUZZY LOGIC.


Explain how the police were to prevent Martin from committing a future crime.

Also please explain why/how police can be held liable if they fail to prevent it. Thanks.

[spursncowboys]

The core elements of a crime is opportunity and desire. As a citizen worried about being a victim, you can truly only control the opportunity. Some believe that having people followed or questioned for no reason might take away their desire. There are studies that show that the police going into areas and neighborhoods with zero tolerance do not actually deter crime. There was a study done that had two neighborhoods with the same crime rate. One neighborhood only had police go into their when a crime was committed and police were called. The other neighborhood had a higher amount of random police drive through patrolling. The result was that the same amount of crime was in both neighborhoods.
Either way, this neighborhood wanted a neighborhood watch for people who were not from that neighborhood. I doubt there is anything wrong with following someone that you view as a threat, when that is your role (neighborhood watch).

[Blake]

I doubt there is anything wrong with following someone that you view as a threat, when that is your role (neighborhood watch).

Has anyone implied that following someone should be illegal?

[boutons_deux]

"following someone that you view as a threat, when that is your role"

Z disqualified himself from neighborhood watch role, according to National Neighborhood Watch org, by

1) carrying loaded gun

2) getting out of his vehicle to stalk closer.

His only watch role was to call the police.

If you permit Z to consider M a threat, then you MUST permit "walking while black" M to view stalking vigilante Z as threat, so M is legal under FL's "kill anyone you view as threat laws", although in FL (and in all similar state laws) threats seems to be only black, not white.

[Agloco]

I doubt there is anything wrong with following someone that you view as a threat, when that is your role (neighborhood watch).

There is a major disconnect here: What is/are the role(s) of a neighborhood watchman?

I don't believe following a threat is one of them, much less doing so while armed. I think that neighborhood watch people are supposed to observe and report, unless someones life is in immediate danger of course.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There is a major disconnect here: What is/are the role(s) of a neighborhood watchman?

I don't believe following a threat is one of them, much less doing so while armed. I think that neighborhood watch people are supposed to observe and report, unless someones life is in immediate danger of course.

Thats what i am trying to get at. Florida law needs to prohibit that type of behavior but it does not.

[Agloco]

Thats what i am trying to get at. Florida law needs to prohibit that type of behavior but it does not.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I wasn't aware that FL allowed watchers to carry. Scary stuff.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I wasn't aware that FL allowed watchers to carry. Scary stuff.

Florida needs vigilante laws. In order to prevent watchers patrolling neighborhoods from carrying you have to have a law that prohibits it. there is no such law. there are laws that allow people in general to carry in FL.

if he had been carrying the firearm illegally then he would be in jail right now on a gun charge if nothing else. i am trying to phrase what i am saying in as many ways as possible because a lot of people do not seem to get at what i am trying to say.

[jack sommerset]

It appears this killing has quieted down. Hopefully cooler heads have prevailed. God bless

[Wild Cobra]

It appears this killing has quieted down. Hopefully cooler heads have prevailed. God bless
I think those driving the media frenzy got slapped pretty hard with the truth.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think those driving the media frenzy got slapped pretty hard with the truth.

Or the story is more than a week old and that is how entertainment news works.

[bobbyjoe]

Or the story is more than a week old and that is how entertainment news works.

For those who are still following the case, I thought this was as interesting read, particularly the comments from the posters.

http://www.logarchism.com/?s=trayvon+martin+map

Post #36 in particular was really interesting in terms of reconciling with the known pieces of evidence.

I'd love to hear theories on how Zimmerman could be beaten for at least 45 seconds (if it was indeed him screaming for help as his family so vehemently maintains) and not have a single bandaid on his body ~30 minutes afterwards. I didn't realize the screaming had lasted so long and that doesn't even include the seconds that weren't picked up by 911.

It just doesn't make sense...

[HoratioCain]

Just one call to C.S.I. would have solved this issue.

[spursncowboys]

Florida needs vigilante laws. In order to prevent watchers patrolling neighborhoods from carrying you have to have a law that prohibits it. there is no such law. there are laws that allow people in general to carry in FL.

if he had been carrying the firearm illegally then he would be in jail right now on a gun charge if nothing else. i am trying to phrase what i am saying in as many ways as possible because a lot of people do not seem to get at what i am trying to say.

So you want to prohibit law abiding citizens to carry guns when most criminals have guns?

I guess you want to make florida, which you don't even live in, like dc? You want to outlaw guns?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

• If you look at the firearms murder rate per 100,000 people, District of Columbia comes out top - with 16 firearms murders per 100,000 man,

• DC is also top for firearms robberies per 100,000 people - with 255.98

You want only the criminals to have guns?

[boutons_deux]

We want everyone to carry guns everywhere, all the time. It's wonderful income for the guns and ammo industry, which hoses the NRA with propaganda and lying funds.

2nd Amendment? :lol GMAFB This is America, Follow The Money.

[Blake]

Guns don't kill innocent people in crossfire, people do.

[JoeChalupa]

Just heard that the State Atty will not use grand jury in this case.

[Sportcamper]

At this point I don’t think it matters what the State Attorney or local police do…The Big Dogs are in charge now…In six months or so when the Feds conclude their investigation sparks will fly…At least that’s my un educated opinion…

[Bill_Brasky]

So you want to prohibit law abiding citizens to carry guns when most criminals have guns?

I guess you want to make florida, which you don't even live in, like dc? You want to outlaw guns?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

• If you look at the firearms murder rate per 100,000 people, District of Columbia comes out top - with 16 firearms murders per 100,000 man,

• DC is also top for firearms robberies per 100,000 people - with 255.98

You want only the criminals to have guns?

Maybe if people like Mr. Zimmerman didn't act retarded with their firearms more peoole would be OK with them.

[JoeChalupa]

At this point I don’t think it matters what the State Attorney or local police do…The Big Dogs are in charge now…In six months or so when the Feds conclude their investigation sparks will fly…At least that’s my un educated opinion…

I concur. No matter which way this goes the reaction won't be pretty. But if rioting occurs it will just feed the frenzy.

[spursncowboys]

Maybe if people like Mr. Zimmerman didn't act retarded with their firearms more peoole would be OK with them.

That's right because you were there...

[Blake]

That's right because you were there...

What's your opinion on how the whole thing went down?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you want to prohibit law abiding citizens to carry guns when most criminals have guns?

I guess you want to make florida, which you don't even live in, like dc? You want to outlaw guns?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

• If you look at the firearms murder rate per 100,000 people, District of Columbia comes out top - with 16 firearms murders per 100,000 man,

• DC is also top for firearms robberies per 100,000 people - with 255.98

You want only the criminals to have guns?

I never said take guns away from people. i am saying taking guns away from people playing cop. If you do not understand the difference then I do not know what to tell you.

I own three guns. I would never take them out on neighborhood patrol. See the difference? And way to link the Guardian.

[boutons_deux]

No grand jury: What does that mean for George Zimmerman?

"The decision should not be considered a factor in the final determination of the case," Corey's office said in a statement Monday. "At this time, the investigation continues and there will be no further comment from this office."

Corey has had three options: to file charges against Mr. Zimmerman, drop the case, or send it before the grand jury. And despite expectations that the jury might convene this week, Corey had indicated earlier that she might not use that option, saying that she has never before used a grand jury to decide on filing charges in a possible homicide case.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0409/No-grand-jury-What-does-that-mean-for-George-Zimmerman?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+feeds%2Fcsm+%28Christian+Scie nce+Monitor+|+All+Stories%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

[CosmicCowboy]

Option 4 is that she can determine that she doesn't have enough at this time to charge him but not drop it either.

[spursncowboys]

I never said take guns away from people. i am saying taking guns away from people playing cop. If you do not understand the difference then I do not know what to tell you.

I own three guns. I would never take them out on neighborhood patrol. See the difference? And way to link the Guardian.

I don't understand the difference. You are saying you are ok with people carrying guns but not people in a security role? wtf.

[cantthinkofanything]

I don't understand the difference. You are saying you are ok with people carrying guns but not people in a security role? wtf.

I think a lot of this could be solved with threat neutralization training. Instead of shooting to kill, which is permanent, gun owners should be trained to shoot certain target areas like the knee or hand (if the attacker is holding a knife). Travon would still be alive if Zimmerman had shot him in the knee. There would still be senseless shootings but at least the person wouldn't be dead.

[boutons_deux]

If Z weren't empowered/emboldened to be carrying a gun, M would be alive.

like most gun fetishists, Z is a dickless bully

[CosmicCowboy]

I think a lot of this could be solved with threat neutralization training. Instead of shooting to kill, which is permanent, gun owners should be trained to shoot certain target areas like the knee or hand (if the attacker is holding a knife). Travon would still be alive if Zimmerman had shot him in the knee. There would still be senseless shootings but at least the person wouldn't be dead.

This violates every principle of firearms training. You only shoot if you are prepared to kill. If you aren't prepared to kill them you don't pull the gun. You can kill someone just as easily by shooting the femoral artery in the leg as shooting them in the heart.

The better answer is to make them do extensive certifications like private security guards if they are going to carry any self defense weapon on neighborhood watch. Private security firms have certification classes for virtually every weapon...guns, tasers, batons, etc.

[cantthinkofanything]

This violates every principle of firearms training. You only shoot if you are prepared to kill. If you aren't prepared to kill them you don't pull the gun. You can kill someone just as easily by shooting the femoral artery in the leg as shooting them in the heart.

The better answer is to make them do extensive certifications like private security guards if they are going to carry any self defense weapon on neighborhood watch. Private security firms have certification classes for virtually every weapon...guns, tasers, batons, etc.

I wasn't talking about shooting the femoral artery. I was only talking about shooting to slow down the thread. Just not killing it. You can also kills someone by hitting them with a brick in the right spot. But that doesn't mean that you have to choose that spot to hit them with the brick.

I agree with the certifications but they need to be combined with specific target training. If you were being attacked but weren't sure of the motive of the attacker, a well placed shot to the knee or foot would slow things down enough for you to gather yourself and take more time to figure out the whole situation.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't understand the difference. You are saying you are ok with people carrying guns but not people in a security role? wtf.

That kid is dead because Zimmerman was playing cop and had no idea wtf he was doing. He tried to detain him got his ass beat and shot him. Leave law enforcement to the professionals granted authority by our elected governments and not to any fuckhead that decides they want to play cop.

[CosmicCowboy]

I wasn't talking about shooting the femoral artery. I was only talking about shooting to slow down the thread. Just not killing it. You can also kills someone by hitting them with a brick in the right spot. But that doesn't mean that you have to choose that spot to hit them with the brick.

I agree with the certifications but they need to be combined with specific target training. If you were being attacked but weren't sure of the motive of the attacker, a well placed shot to the knee or foot would slow things down enough for you to gather yourself and take more time to figure out the whole situation.

You must be an amazing person that in the moment of being attacked (or even laying on your back with your assailant sitting on your chest and your head being pounded into the concrete) you could cooly and calmly select the exact spot on your attackers anatomy to shoot him that would slow him down without really hurting him.

[cantthinkofanything]

You must be an amazing person that in the moment of being attacked (or even laying on your back with your assailant sitting on your chest and your head being pounded into the concrete) you could cooly and calmly select the exact spot on your attackers anatomy to shoot him that would slow him down without really hurting him.

It's just training. Repetition over and over again until it becomes second nature where to shoot and how. It's not so different than learning any of the martial arts. In fact, there are some that include Gun Kata in a serious discussion when talking about martial arts.

In any event, if Zimmerman would have been trained in thread neutralization targeting, we'd get to hear Travon's side of the story as well.

[CosmicCowboy]

That kid is dead because Zimmerman was playing cop and had no idea wtf he was doing. He tried to detain him got his ass beat and shot him. Leave law enforcement to the professionals granted authority by our elected governments and not to any fuckhead that decides they want to play cop.

Oh really? And you were an eyewitness to the events you are describing? You know with absolute certainty that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin?

[CosmicCowboy]

It's just training. Repetition over and over again until it becomes second nature where to shoot and how. It's not so different than learning any of the martial arts. In fact, there are some that include Gun Kata in a serious discussion when talking about martial arts.

In any event, if Zimmerman would have been trained in thread neutralization targeting, we'd get to hear Travon's side of the story as well.

Your argument is really irrelevant, especially with LE. They are never going to change their procedures from shoot to kill.

[cantthinkofanything]

Your argument is really irrelevant, especially with LE. They are never going to change their procedures from shoot to kill.

We're not initially talking about LE. I'm talking about neighborhood watchers. If Zimmerman had gone through the proper training on where to shoot someone without killing them, we'd have Travon's side of the story as well.

[cantthinkofanything]

Furthermore, they should install a program where the caliber of gun you are allowed to use is based on the results of your threat neutralization training. So in this case, since Zimmerman didn't have any training, he would be limited to smaller caliber guns. So those that were highly accurate, could use the higher caliber weapons. So in this case, Travon might still be alive if Zimmerman had shot him with a .22.

[CosmicCowboy]

You still don't seem to get it. If you want to incapacitate them use a freaking taser or pepper spray. You should never pull a gun unless you are prepared to kill them.

[Creepn]

I was reading some comments about this case and I keep seeing how Martin deserves to be killed because he was a "thug" or looked liked one because of his attire, which would be the hoodie. It got me thinking, you know how people of Crookshank's ilk would see a muslim in their garb and automatically think "TERRORIST!"? What if it's the same is with black people and hoodies? A hoodie is normal to me just as with a muslim and their garb so if I see a black guy wearing it, "THUG!" doesn't scream out at me, but obviously a lot of people more than I expected thinks otherwise. I now wonder how many people perceived me as a thug because I wore a hoodie that day or how close I've come to being shot, killed, and/or followed.

[CosmicCowboy]

I was reading some comments about this case and I keep seeing how Martin deserves to be killed because he was a "thug" or looked liked one because of his attire, which would be the hoodie. It got me thinking, you know how people of Crookshank's ilk would see a muslim in their garb and automatically think "TERRORIST!"? What if it's the same is with black people and hoodies? A hoodie is normal to me, if I see a black guy wearing it, "THUG!" doesn't scream out at me, but obviously a lot of people more than I expected thinks otherwise. I now wonder how many people perceived me as a thug because I wore a hoodie that day or how close I've come to being shot, killed, and/or followed.

Nobody said he deserved to die because he was wearing a hoodie.

[cantthinkofanything]

You still don't seem to get it. If you want to incapacitate them use a freaking taser or pepper spray. You should never pull a gun unless you are prepared to kill them.

I don't think you get it really. With a gun, you do have the option of eventually killing the attacker. But you also have the non-lethal option of slowing them down. The idea of the threat neutralization target training would be for a gun toter to shoot at a incapacitating target first. Then assess the situation to determine if deadly force is then needed. With a taser or pepper spray, you take away your final play. It's be like starting out a chess game without a bishop.

[CosmicCowboy]

I don't think you get it really. With a gun, you do have the option of eventually killing the attacker. But you also have the non-lethal option of slowing them down. The idea of the threat neutralization target training would be for a gun toter to shoot at a incapacitating target first. Then assess the situation to determine if deadly force is then needed. With a taser or pepper spray, you take away your final play. It's be like starting out a chess game without a bishop.

WTF?

There is nothing in the rules that says you can't carry both. If the guy is on the ground pissing his pants after getting tased you clearly wouldn't need to shoot him.

[CosmicCowboy]

I don't think you get it really. With a gun, you do have the option of eventually killing the attacker. But you also have the non-lethal option of slowing them down. The idea of the threat neutralization target training would be for a gun toter to shoot at a incapacitating target first. Then assess the situation to determine if deadly force is then needed. With a taser or pepper spray, you take away your final play. It's be like starting out a chess game without a bishop.

BTW, I've seen deer shot in the knee die within 60 seconds.

[Creepn]

Nobody said he deserved to die because he was wearing a hoodie.

Oh no I'm talking about comments on other various sites. I'd read comments like "If it walks like a duck..." or something like "Don't dress like one and you won't get shot". You know, shit like that. They are obviously referring to the hoodie. Then we got Geraldo attributing the hoodie as part of the cause that got him killed.

[cantthinkofanything]

WTF?

There is nothing in the rules that says you can't carry both. If the guy is on the ground pissing his pants after getting tased you clearly wouldn't need to shoot him.

You can't say that without begin in that position. IMO, carrying both could result in a hesitation if you were trying to decide which to grab. That hesitation could mean the difference in life or death. I'm saying, just carry the gun but be amply trained on how to use it to neutralize the threat without killing it first. Had Zimmerman, shot Martin in the knee, he could have taken some time to assess the thread from Martin before 1) waiting for backup or 2) shooting him dead.

[cantthinkofanything]

BTW, I've seen deer shot in the knee die within 60 seconds.

Right, but the person shooting them was not trying to just would them I'm assuming? I'm sure the person pointing the gun at the deer was trying to kill it. So...yeah...not really the same. Not to mention the differences between the anatomy of a deer and a human.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh really? And you were an eyewitness to the events you are describing? You know with absolute certainty that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin?

At the very least he was following him which he was intsructed by real law enforcement officials not to do.

[CosmicCowboy]

Right, but the person shooting them was not trying to just would them I'm assuming? I'm sure the person pointing the gun at the deer was trying to kill it. So...yeah...not really the same. Not to mention the differences between the anatomy of a deer and a human.

LMAO that bullet flying through the air could give a shit about the intention behind it. It's going to hit with a lot of kinetic energy and tear shit up...and bleeding to death is a plausible and even likely result. I can't believe you are actually trying to argue the point that a gun is a superior tool to use than a taser or pepper spray for non-lethal interdiction.

[CosmicCowboy]

At the very least he was following him which he was intsructed by real law enforcement officials not to do.

walking behind someone is not illegal.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LMAO that bullet flying through the air could give a shit about the intention behind it. It's going to hit with a lot of kinetic energy and tear shit up...and bleeding to death is a plausible and even likely result. I can't believe you are actually trying to argue the point that a gun is a superior tool to use than a taser or pepper spray for non-lethal interdiction.

I agree with you. Zimmerman was carrying a weapon whose only reasonable use is to kill with. Had he carried a taser, that boy would still be alive.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

walking behind someone is not illegal.

What do you think precipitated the fight?

[Wild Cobra]

Maybe if people like Mr. Zimmerman didn't act retarded with their firearms more peoole would be OK with them.

So you witnessed the crime?

You're going to testify, right?

[Creepn]

walking behind someone is not illegal.

Of course not or there would be arrests made every second at the local HEB.

[CosmicCowboy]

I agree with you. Zimmerman was carrying a weapon whose only reasonable use is to kill with. Had he carried a taser, that boy would still be alive.

I don't think anyone is arguing that point. Fact still is, he was carrying a gun, he was getting the shit beat out of him, and he shot the guy beating him up.

[cantthinkofanything]

LMAO that bullet flying through the air could give a shit about the intention behind it. It's going to hit with a lot of kinetic energy and tear shit up...and bleeding to death is a plausible and even likely result. I can't believe you are actually trying to argue the point that a gun is a superior tool to use than a taser or pepper spray for non-lethal interdiction.

The knee of a deer is tiny compared to that of a person. And the knee isn't the only viable target with threat neutralization targeting. It could be the shoulder, hand, foot, lower abdomen. Even the buttocks. Also, with my caliber limitation idea, Zimmerman would have never been approved for carrying a deer rifle.

But your comparing hunting deer to a neighborhood watch is very telling about your mentality.

I'm not arguing the gun is the superior tool if you are only talking about non-lethal interdiction. But that it gives you the option of lethal force that you don't have with pepper spray or a taser.

[CosmicCowboy]

What do you think precipitated the fight?

Two dumbasses making wrong assumptions about each other that escalated to a physical confrontation that then elevated to a deadly confrontation.

[cantthinkofanything]

The knee of a deer is tiny compared to that of a person. And the knee isn't the only viable target with threat neutralization targeting. It could be the shoulder, hand, foot, lower abdomen. Even the buttocks. Also, with my caliber limitation idea, Zimmerman would have never been approved for carrying a deer rifle.

But your comparing hunting deer to a neighborhood watch is very telling about your mentality.

I'm not arguing the gun is the superior tool if you are only talking about non-lethal interdiction. But that it gives you the option of lethal force that you don't have with pepper spray or a taser.


Two dumbasses making wrong assumptions about each other that escalated to a physical confrontation that then elevated to a deadly confrontation.

Thanks for making my point.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao

Your point was you think things really work like in the old westerns where the good guy could just shoot the gun out of the bad guys hand or "wing him" for a non lethal stop.

Fucking Roy Rogers...:lmao

[cantthinkofanything]

:lmao

Your point was you think things really work like in the old westerns where the good guy could just shoot the gun out of the bad guys hand or "wing him" for a non lethal stop.

Fucking Roy Rogers...:lmao

Of course not. The guns in the "wild" west were not made for accurate pinpoint targeting. What I'm talking about it Gun Kata. Here's a decent example.

j4sWzT_GexI

[Creepn]

Cosmic, would you call the cops on these guys if you saw them chilling down the street. They aren't on your property, they are just standing there down the street and talking.

https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRBLrNBYG7UG3N8T-OMeaObK387KSghtH4YmAn3FYlD874Gd8Km

[Wild Cobra]

If you are going to shoot someone, you shoot to kill. Period. You don't know what else they might have to come at you with.

[cantthinkofanything]

Cosmic, would you call the cops on these guys if you saw them chilling down the street. They aren't on your property, they are just standing there down the street and talking.

https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRBLrNBYG7UG3N8T-OMeaObK387KSghtH4YmAn3FYlD874Gd8Km

Yes, their underwear is showing.

[CosmicCowboy]

Cosmic, would you call the cops on these guys if you saw them chilling down the street. They aren't on your property, they are just standing there down the street and talking.

https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRBLrNBYG7UG3N8T-OMeaObK387KSghtH4YmAn3FYlD874Gd8Km

I would probably just keep an eye on them but my neighbors might call the cops.

[cantthinkofanything]

If you are going to shoot someone, you shoot to kill. Period. You don't know what else they might have to come at you with.

You need to go back and read my posts from the beginning to catch up. If you use threat neutralization target training, by nature, you are neutralizing the target. Then you can take time to make your next move. Whether it be to call for backup or to use lethal force.

[CosmicCowboy]

It was dark, it was raining, Martin was sitting on Zimmerman's chest beating the shit out of him. I really think you're advocacy of "threat neutralization target training" in this situation is naive.

[cantthinkofanything]

It was dark, it was raining, Martin was sitting on Zimmerman's chest beating the shit out of him. I really think you're advocacy of "threat neutralization target training" in this situation is naive.

And I think that you probably have never fired a pistol.

[Creepn]

I would probably just keep an eye on them but my neighbors might call the cops.

Why? They are just minding their own business and talking. What about that figure propels one to call the cops on them?

[CosmicCowboy]

Why? They are just minding their own business and talking. What about that figure propels one to call the cops on them?

What kind of shit question is this? If they don't live in the neighborhood and they are just "hanging out" then they deserve to be watched at the very least. I would just keep an eye on them. I wouldn't call the cops because I have a long driveway, a dog, and lots of guns. Some of my elderly neighbors might prefer to call the police and let them check them out. It is, after all, one of the police job descriptions. If nothings wrong then the cops won't do anything. No harm, no foul.

[cantthinkofanything]

What kind of shit question is this? If they don't live in the neighborhood and they are just "hanging out" then they deserve to be watched at the very least. I would just keep an eye on them. I wouldn't call the cops because I have a long driveway, a dog, and lots of guns. Some of my elderly neighbors might prefer to call the police and let them check them out. It is, after all, one of the police job descriptions. If nothings wrong then the cops won't do anything. No harm, no foul.

Once the cops come, the odds of "no harm, no foul" go way down. Remember, you said yourself, that law enforcement are trained to kill. So in your scenario, by calling the cops, the probability of someone getting shot are greater than 50%.