Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice - Page 131

RandFan · 5th April 2012, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

Highlighting mine.

Oops! I assume you mean phone?

No. Seriously, I pictured GZ as some fumbling goof who dropped his gun. It was later after hearing the link I posted that I imagined him dropping his phone. People do drop guns from time to time. But I should add that my perception of GZ was unfair.

sgtbaker · 5th April 2012, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

It sure sounds like "phones" to me. Listen to this link. Voice range equalized up, repeats three times with the third iteration slowed to 75% of speed, pitch preserved. Still, don't know why GZ would lie if he really did say "punks". Assuming all that, we ought to have a little humility given how hard voice analysis is.

ETA: Listened again, having primed myself to hear "punks" I'm a little closer to that possibility.

It's so funny, isn't it? I heard the sound of the phone moving around and I imagined he was holding the phone between his shoulder and his ear, the phone slipped, and he said, "*********** phones!" I had the whole situation pictured in my head and was so sure that's what he said. Now listening for punks, I hear punks.

RandFan · 5th April 2012, 04:45 PM

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

It's so funny, isn't it? I heard the sound of the phone moving around and I imagined he was holding the phone between his shoulder and his ear, the phone slipped, and he said, "*********** phones!" I had the whole situation pictured in my head and was so sure that's what he said. Now listening for punks, I hear punks.

Yep, even us vaunted "skeptics" are subject to mistakes.

sgtbaker · 5th April 2012, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Yep, even us vaunted "skeptics" are subject to mistakes.

You, maybe, but we haven't had a double blind test to prove that speech identification works. It still could be phones...

RandFan · 5th April 2012, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

You, maybe, but we haven't had a double blind test to prove that speech identification works. It still could be phones...

Point taken but please note that I think I was the first to call for double blind tests.

Originally Posted by RandFan

31st March 2012, 08:29 PM
It would be great to do a double blind test of the technology.

My point about excluding GZ was that it's not necessary to exclude Martin to be able to exclude GZ.

sgtbaker · 5th April 2012, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Point taken but please note that I think I was the first to call for double blind tests.

My point about excluding GZ was that it's not necessary to exclude Martin to be able to exclude GZ.

I wasn't trying to stir anything up, I swear. I was just pretending that I couldn't admit I was wrong about the word.

RandFan · 5th April 2012, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

I wasn't trying to stir anything up, I swear. I was just pretending that I couldn't admit I was wrong about the word.

dude, don't do that when I've got a chip on my shoulder.

RandFan · 5th April 2012, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

dude, don't do that when I've got a chip on my shoulder.

Oh, and by "dude" I don't mean guy. Hell. I should just go back to bed.

sgtbaker · 5th April 2012, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Oh, and by "dude" I don't mean guy. Hell. I should just go back to bed.

I promise not to mess with you anymore, tonight.

KatieG · 5th April 2012, 05:54 PM

Just saw an interview with Robert Zimmerman, GZ's father. Was local news so not sure what network. He was shielded by shadows and gave the same story GZ gave. TM confronted him, started the fight and GZ shot in self defense. Yelling for help for at least 40 seconds. No one would help him and GZ feared for his life.

Ok, I just checked some original stories and the police first claimed the reason they couldn't arrest GZ was because of the SYG laws. Now it's self defense? Are they the same thing? I'm confused at this point.

triforcharity · 5th April 2012, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Cylinder

He was shooting a Kel Tec PF-9 9mm, so to have a spent round in the chamber would be highly unusual. I don't know if this model is prone to stovepipes.

I would find that highly unusual with any model from Kel Tec. They are not known for that at all.

triforcharity · 5th April 2012, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

You, maybe, but we haven't had a double blind test to prove that speech identification works. It still could be phones...

Double blind, isn't that when you take someone and blindfold them twice, and see if they can still do a task???

(Context :

Originally Posted by flabio

I've found someone who is willing to put me through the blindfold test, and should have YT vids up in the next couple of days. The fella who's agreed to test me also has no faith in my ability to dowse what so ever, not unlike everyone here. This should be good, do stay tuned...

You're welcome......

Dan O. · 5th April 2012, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by KatieG

Ok, I just checked some original stories and the police first claimed the reason they couldn't arrest GZ was because of the SYG laws. Now it's self defense? Are they the same thing? I'm confused at this point.

I believe "Stand Your Ground" is the nickname given to Chapter 776 of the Florida statutes which includes both the bits about SYG and justifyable use of force.

Skeptic Ginger · 5th April 2012, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

Sorry if this was already posted, but Z told his lawyers that the unknown word he whispered is "punks".

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/05/justic...ing/?hpt=hp_t1

Of all the things GZ has said that I don't believe, this one is actually believable.

crimresearch · 5th April 2012, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by KatieG

Just saw an interview with Robert Zimmerman, GZ's father. Was local news so not sure what network. He was shielded by shadows and gave the same story GZ gave. TM confronted him, started the fight and GZ shot in self defense. Yelling for help for at least 40 seconds. No one would help him and GZ feared for his life.

Ok, I just checked some original stories and the police first claimed the reason they couldn't arrest GZ was because of the SYG laws. Now it's self defense? Are they the same thing? I'm confused at this point.

The media has claimed a lot of things about what the police and various people have said, in many cases it seems like they simply stick whatever 'controversial' term they want in there, instead of doing research, and fact checking, and limiting themselves to the facts.

Imagine that.

Skeptic Ginger · 5th April 2012, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by curi0us

That MMA cut is kind of famous and it was definitely treated.

Some EMT's and Police do use celox (combat) gauze. Gainesville Florida PD was an early adopter.
http://www.celoxmedical.com/docs/pre...%20article.pdf
http://www.celoxmedical.com/prods_firstaid.htm

I see. Well I wonder if when the police use something like this they document it? You'd think so. But it does allow the possibility GZ's cut was deeper than the video suggests. I stand corrected.

There should be plenty of evidence of this cut. We obviously don't have access to all the evidence that might exist.

sgtbaker · 5th April 2012, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Double blind, isn't that when you take someone and blindfold them twice, and see if they can still do a task???

(Context :

You're welcome......

If he can't do the task blindfolded, what kind of so call expert is he?

crimresearch · 5th April 2012, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

I would find that highly unusual with any model from Kel Tec. They are not known for that at all.

Kel Tec is known for being cheap and small.

But my gun guy friend echoes what you say about them being jam resistant.

It isn't impossible to get them to leave a spent cartridge in the weapon though. Not likely, but this seemed to be a night when a lot of things were going wrong.

Roadtoad · 5th April 2012, 08:49 PM

I swear, I'm about to scream.

131 pages, and few facts beyond what was known from the start, at least as far as I can tell.

Andrew Wiggin · 5th April 2012, 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

It was discussed elsewhere in this thread. It would indicate a struggle for the weapon, with someone holding onto the slide.

Personal anecdote; When I was young and dumb and just learning to shoot, I thought to try holding the slide and see what happened. I got a hell of a cut on my hand as the weapon cycled anyway. More than thirty years later, I can still see the scar. I've seen 'grab the slide' as advice in self defense forums but I think it's highly dubious that it'll prevent the weapon from cycling. The forces involved are more than sufficient to ignore fragile things like skin.

('grab the hammer', another bit of advice I've heard for fighting a man with a revolver sounds more plausible. )

KatieG · 5th April 2012, 10:41 PM

Originally Posted by Roadtoad

I swear, I'm about to scream.

131 pages, and few facts beyond what was known from the start, at least as far as I can tell.

Agreed, Roadtoad! I've gone back through this thread to try to check on things already posted and it is an adventure. Right now I only know these things to be true:

Trayvon Martin is dead
He was shot by George Zimmerman.

Everything else appears to have dubious credentials.

Brattus · 6th April 2012, 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by Roadtoad

I swear, I'm about to scream.

131 pages, and few facts beyond what was known from the start, at least as far as I can tell.

I think I can help you out.

If a non white person has a white sounding last name then that is close enough for major media to call them white.

Major media has no problem with doctoring audio or video to spread racial hatred in a effort to create more news they can fill their 24 hour news channels with.

Major media has no problem showing 3 to 5 year old photos of a 17 year old to spread racial hatred in a effort to create more news they can fill their 24 hour news channels with.

A 17 year old carrying a box of Skittles can use their fist to punch you in the face breaking bones.

The President of the United States will comment on ANY subject with no knowledge of facts regarding that subject on what ever side he or his people believe is the popular view.

If you see a suspicious person in your neighborhood and call 911 to report that person that is a good thing.

If you see a suspicious person in your neighborhood and call 911 and then follow that person around then you should expect to get your ass kicked.

If you see a suspicious person in your neighborhood and you call 911 and then follow that person around and that person comes toward you and ask if you have a problem you run away. You do not stand there and say no I don't when you obviously do or else you wouldn't be following the person around.

Information Analyst · 6th April 2012, 01:29 AM

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

I have no desire to argue it, anymore, because it's starting to feel like walking in the wrong direction on those conveyor belts at the airport. Agree or disagree, my only response will only be to let you know that I read what you had to say.

I was simply saying that Zimmerman may eventually come out with an absolute 100% true account of what happened, and corroborating evidence come to light it to the satisfaction of lots of people, including myself, but there will still be those who will refuse to believe that it wasn't "worse" than whatever that "true" version is.

Moss · 6th April 2012, 01:37 AM

Now that Brattus has axiomatically declared what are now facts we are absolutely wiser. Thanks, we totally know more now!

Mumbles · 6th April 2012, 01:55 AM

Originally Posted by Roadtoad

I swear, I'm about to scream.

131 pages, and few facts beyond what was known from the start, at least as far as I can tell.

That's true of most forums on this. The police have, wisely, decided to shut up about it, and so all we have left are various pieces of evidence that we've seen before, and hearsay from the families.

But I'll say this much. If someone trailed me in a car, pursued me on foot, and didn't explain themselves before they got into striking distance, I would punch them in the throat. And obviously, a person saying "Hey, sir, you dropped your wallet!" while holding my wallet in front of them, would get the benefit of the doubt - cases like that are irrelevant. But even with the believable stories that Zimmerman's apologists have put forth, I'd regard him as guilty of manslaughter, at the very least.

Mumbles · 6th April 2012, 02:06 AM

Originally Posted by Brattus

I think I can help you out.

If a non white person has a white sounding last name then that is close enough for major media to call them white.

Zimmerman is, for all intents and purposes, white. Sorry, but "Hispanic" is not a racial group. There are white people who are Hispanic, like Zimmerman. There are black people who are Hispanic, such as me.

Quote:

Major media has no problem with doctoring audio or video to spread racial hatred in a effort to create more news they can fill their 24 hour news channels with.

Huh? MSNBC edited one video, and they've apologized for it. The only media group willing to unapologetically edit video and audio is Fox News, which is defending Zimmerman.

Quote:

Major media has no problem showing 3 to 5 year old photos of a 17 year old to spread racial hatred in a effort to create more news they can fill their 24 hour news channels with.

And they also have no problem showing 3-5 year old photos of the assailant.

Really, this is the weakest claim possible. The media is showing photos that Martin's family chose to give to them. Zimmerman's family has released no photos, so they have nothing but official photos to go with.

Quote:

A 17 year old carrying a box of Skittles can use their fist to punch you in the face breaking bones.

If you decide to chase them around, yes, absolutely. And everyone in the US should have the same right. Zimmerman's actions, even according to his defenders, were insanely provocative.

Quote:

The President of the United States will comment on ANY subject with no knowledge of facts regarding that subject on what ever side he or his people believe is the popular view.

This..is just nonsense.

Quote:

If you see a suspicious person in your neighborhood and call 911 to report that person that is a good thing.

If you see a suspicious person in your neighborhood and call 911 and then follow that person around then you should expect to get your ass kicked.

Let's be clear. Yes, if you chase after someone, you should expect to get your ass kicked. If you're chasing a violent criminal, then you've angered a violent person. If you're chasing an innocent person (as was the case her), then you're given them a good reason to think that you're a criminal, who is looking to rob or hurt them.

Quote:

If you see a suspicious person in your neighborhood and you call 911 and then follow that person around and that person comes toward you and ask if you have a problem you run away. You do not stand there and say no I don't when you obviously do or else you wouldn't be following the person around.

The answer is actually simple. Don't stalk people like Zimmerman did.

leftysergeant · 6th April 2012, 02:33 AM

Originally Posted by Brattus

Major media has no problem showing 3 to 5 year old photos of a 17 year old to ~~spread racial hatred in a effort to create more news they can fill their 24 hour news channels with.~~make sure that the right-wing idiot governor and the state Attorney General are paying attention, and not just shrugging it off as another dead thug.

fify

Quote:

A 17 year old carrying a box of Skittles can use their fist to punch you in the face breaking bones.

When you assume the power to confront the kid just for your own amusement, you need your damned nose (and maybe a few other body parts) broken.

Quote:

The President of the United States will comment on ANY subject with no knowledge of facts regarding that subject on what ever side he or his people believe is the popular view.

I just figured he wanted to let those dweebs in Florida know that they were not going to get away with a less-than thorough investigation.

Quote:

If you see a suspicious person in your neighborhood and call 911 to report that person that is a good thing.

Problem is that the poppinjay was basing his opinon that Martin was dangerous on the advice of his ear crickets.

nadsat · 6th April 2012, 02:59 AM

Originally Posted by Mumbles

-snip-

If you decide to chase them around, yes, absolutely. And everyone in the US should have the same right. Zimmerman's actions, even according to his defenders, were insanely provocative.

-snip-

Let's be clear. Yes, if you chase after someone, you should expect to get your ass kicked. If you're chasing a violent criminal, then you've angered a violent person. If you're chasing an innocent person (as was the case her), then you're given them a good reason to think that you're a criminal, who is looking to rob or hurt them.

According to Zim and 911 call, he didn't actually chased him.

Trayvon ran toward the cut through, then turned right to the sidewalk where F is on. Zim leaves his truck and ran toward E, mistakenly thinking Trayvon headed in that direction when he said: "He’s heading towards the back entrance." at 2:20 in the 911 call. At E is when the 911 operator says "we don't need you to do that." Zim says "Okay" and starts to head back to his truck and Trayvon doubled back to meet Zim at the T. Confrontation and altercation ensued. And they ended up closer to F. Here is a picture of Trayvon's dad looking at F and you can also see the T.

Also, the innocent part remain to be seen. I'll just leave it at that until more info are released..

OnlyTellsTruths · 6th April 2012, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by nadsat

<snip>

At E is when the 911 operator says "we don't need you to do that." Zim says "Okay" and starts to head back to his truck and Trayvon doubled back to meet Zim at the T.

<snip>

Seriously??

nadsat · 6th April 2012, 03:44 AM

I know it's hard to imagine when you have in your head "innocent and scared Trayvon." It's not too hard to imagine if you have in your head "6'3 football player Trayvon" seeing a smaller person trailing him and decides to get tough and confront him. This corroborates Zim's story of Trayvon approaching him from the "left rear." Trayvon could have easily ran home.

Note, I'm not accepting this as truth. It's just the most plausible scenario with the available evidence.

Mumbles · 6th April 2012, 03:47 AM

Originally Posted by nadsat

According to Zim and 911 call, he didn't actually chased him.

And by "didn't", you must mean "did", since Zimmerman claims to have chased after Martin in his 911 tape.

Quote:

http://i43.tinypic.com/2qi4k6u.jpg

Trayvon ran toward the cut through, then turned right to the sidewalk where F is on. Zim leaves his truck and ran toward E, mistakenly thinking Trayvon headed in that direction when he said: "He’s heading towards the back entrance." at 2:20 in the 911 call. At E is when the 911 operator says "we don't need you to do that." Zim says "Okay" and starts to head back to his truck and Trayvon doubled back to meet Zim at the T. Confrontation and altercation ensued. And they ended up closer to F. Here is a picture of Trayvon's dad looking at F and you can also see the T.

That makes no sense, given the map that you provided. It's far more likely that Zimmerman pursued Martin into the walkway between the two rows of townhouses. If Zimmeramm had functioning eyes, he would have seen Martin duck between the townhouses. He may have followed, or he may have run to another enterance in order to cut Martin off from the south enterance. But the idea that he was headed back to his truck, given where the fight occured, is laughable.

SomedayGirl · 6th April 2012, 05:26 AM

Have we talked about this yet, I don't recall seeing it:

http://cnninsession.files.wordpress....olicreport.pdf

There seem to be two different versions of the police report. The first page on this PDF is numbered at the bottom 1 of 5 and has a printed date of 2/28. The other four pages are absent. I'm not too concerned about that.

Then there is a second report with pages numbered 1 of 3, 2 of 3, 3 of 3. Those were also printed on 2/28. Officer Smith's report, the one that most closely correlates with Zimmerman's account, is not on that version.

Finally, there is a third version that is four pages, printed on 3/6, and Smith's statement appears at the end.

I thought perhaps the second report was simply an incomplete version with Smith's report left off but the page layouts before that don't match either.

I'm certainly not accusing Sanford police of anything, they've handled this whole thing so well. <end eyeroll> But it does strike me as interesting that the first version printed was two days after the incident and that clearly some editing took place between then and 3/6. The kind of editing seems especially intriguing.

Dancing David · 6th April 2012, 05:45 AM

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

Sorry if this was already posted, but Z told his lawyers that the unknown word he whispered is "punks".

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/05/justic...ing/?hpt=hp_t1

Not surprising , just as likely as what I heard, 'coats'!

Dancing David · 6th April 2012, 05:50 AM

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

If he can't do the task blindfolded, what kind of so call expert is he?

The real test is the duct tape of his headphones.

WildCat · 6th April 2012, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by SomedayGirl

Have we talked about this yet, I don't recall seeing it:

http://cnninsession.files.wordpress....olicreport.pdf

There seem to be two different versions of the police report. The first page on this PDF is numbered at the bottom 1 of 5 and has a printed date of 2/28. The other four pages are absent. I'm not too concerned about that.

Then there is a second report with pages numbered 1 of 3, 2 of 3, 3 of 3. Those were also printed on 2/28. Officer Smith's report, the one that most closely correlates with Zimmerman's account, is not on that version.

Finally, there is a third version that is four pages, printed on 3/6, and Smith's statement appears at the end.

I thought perhaps the second report was simply an incomplete version with Smith's report left off but the page layouts before that don't match either.

I'm certainly not accusing Sanford police of anything, they've handled this whole thing so well. <end eyeroll> But it does strike me as interesting that the first version printed was two days after the incident and that clearly some editing took place between then and 3/6. The kind of editing seems especially intriguing.

They're both labeled "partial report". Neither is complete.

RandFan · 6th April 2012, 06:01 AM

Originally Posted by Dancing David

The real test is the duct tape of his headphones.

I don't see any duct tape.

Dancing David · 6th April 2012, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by KatieG

Agreed, Roadtoad! I've gone back through this thread to try to check on things already posted and it is an adventure. Right now I only know these things to be true:

Trayvon Martin is dead
He was shot by George Zimmerman.

Everything else appears to have dubious credentials.

Wow, you are brave, I have read (or skim read) every post in this thread. But I have done so as the thread evolved.

I see the main issue as this:

-the evidence has been dribbled and spun out, dribbled by the sources and then spun out by everyone else.

I was upset because a 17 yo engaged in daily activities is dead. ( I would be upset if it happened to any one, but I have a 17yo son, so that is a hook) When we go on trips we give our son considerable latitude to explore on his own, like in Newport OR, or Cape Perpetua OR.

Now especially if we were staying in Gainesville FL, where my father lives, I can see us letting him go to the store to get tea and a snack.

So I think it is going to come down to what happens, if you are following someone and a fight breaks out. Who has the culpability.

And this one will be a mess, we only have GZ's testimony. We have the testimony of TM's girlfriend. And then all the unknown forensics that will be revealed at the trial (if there is one).

Now I also have had personal experience in being followed and approached by strangers I find questionable. It usually involves me yelling "NO GET THE HELL AWAY FROM ME" in a very loud voice, getting safe and calling the police.

My own personal feeling is that GZ had every legal right to follow Trayvon, however I am not sure what the legal ramifications are of him approaching TM and questioning him. Especially since we will never know the actual details of that encounter. I do question how it happened that in the process of questioning someone else, a fight ensued.

I again would have been yelling my fool head off.

triforcharity · 6th April 2012, 06:26 AM

Originally Posted by SomedayGirl

Have we talked about this yet, I don't recall seeing it:

http://cnninsession.files.wordpress....olicreport.pdf

There seem to be two different versions of the police report. The first page on this PDF is numbered at the bottom 1 of 5 and has a printed date of 2/28. The other four pages are absent. I'm not too concerned about that.

Then there is a second report with pages numbered 1 of 3, 2 of 3, 3 of 3. Those were also printed on 2/28. Officer Smith's report, the one that most closely correlates with Zimmerman's account, is not on that version.

Finally, there is a third version that is four pages, printed on 3/6, and Smith's statement appears at the end.

I thought perhaps the second report was simply an incomplete version with Smith's report left off but the page layouts before that don't match either.

I'm certainly not accusing Sanford police of anything, they've handled this whole thing so well. <end eyeroll> But it does strike me as interesting that the first version printed was two days after the incident and that clearly some editing took place between then and 3/6. The kind of editing seems especially intriguing.

Here's the original from the SPD.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigati...l%20Report.pdf

Maybe the first one there was printed with different font type, or size, or whatever, but they both seem to me to say the same thing. I didn't notice anything in the text that was different, just the layout.

SomedayGirl · 6th April 2012, 06:31 AM

Absolutely, Wild Cat. I simply found it interesting that Smith's report didn't make it into the partial report until at least 3 days after the incident. Perhaps that is typical, a delay of some number of days before a responding officer enters his report on events. Seems like a bad idea to have that kind of lag and that you'd want to enter details as soon as possible to have the most accurate and complete account, memory being what it is. And in this case the optics of that delay aren't great, even if it is routine, given the content of that particular officer's report.

SomedayGirl · 6th April 2012, 06:36 AM

That's not the original report, triforcharity. Perhaps I should say it's not the earliest version of the report. That is the one from 3/6. And the font size looks the same to me - there are more witnesses listed on the 3/6 report as well, which I think accounts for the changes in pagination.

5th April 2012, 04:14 PM	#5201
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,263	Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths Highlighting mine. Oops! I assume you mean phone? No. Seriously, I pictured GZ as some fumbling goof who dropped his gun. It was later after hearing the link I posted that I imagined him dropping his phone. People do drop guns from time to time. But I should add that my perception of GZ was unfair.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

5th April 2012, 04:42 PM	#5202
sgtbaker Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,550	Originally Posted by RandFan It sure sounds like "phones" to me. Listen to this link. Voice range equalized up, repeats three times with the third iteration slowed to 75% of speed, pitch preserved. Still, don't know why GZ would lie if he really did say "punks". Assuming all that, we ought to have a little humility given how hard voice analysis is. ETA: Listened again, having primed myself to hear "punks" I'm a little closer to that possibility. It's so funny, isn't it? I heard the sound of the phone moving around and I imagined he was holding the phone between his shoulder and his ear, the phone slipped, and he said, "*********** phones!" I had the whole situation pictured in my head and was so sure that's what he said. Now listening for punks, I hear punks.
sgtbaker Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,550

5th April 2012, 04:45 PM	#5203
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,263	Originally Posted by sgtbaker It's so funny, isn't it? I heard the sound of the phone moving around and I imagined he was holding the phone between his shoulder and his ear, the phone slipped, and he said, "*********** phones!" I had the whole situation pictured in my head and was so sure that's what he said. Now listening for punks, I hear punks. Yep, even us vaunted "skeptics" are subject to mistakes.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

5th April 2012, 04:55 PM	#5204
sgtbaker Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,550	Originally Posted by RandFan Yep, even us vaunted "skeptics" are subject to mistakes. You, maybe, but we haven't had a double blind test to prove that speech identification works. It still could be phones...
sgtbaker Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,550

5th April 2012, 05:04 PM	#5205
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,263	Originally Posted by sgtbaker You, maybe, but we haven't had a double blind test to prove that speech identification works. It still could be phones... Point taken but please note that I think I was the first to call for double blind tests. Originally Posted by RandFan 31st March 2012, 08:29 PM It would be great to do a double blind test of the technology. My point about excluding GZ was that it's not necessary to exclude Martin to be able to exclude GZ.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

5th April 2012, 05:08 PM	#5206
sgtbaker Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,550	Originally Posted by RandFan Point taken but please note that I think I was the first to call for double blind tests. My point about excluding GZ was that it's not necessary to exclude Martin to be able to exclude GZ. I wasn't trying to stir anything up, I swear. I was just pretending that I couldn't admit I was wrong about the word.
sgtbaker Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,550

5th April 2012, 05:10 PM	#5207
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,263	Originally Posted by sgtbaker I wasn't trying to stir anything up, I swear. I was just pretending that I couldn't admit I was wrong about the word. dude, don't do that when I've got a chip on my shoulder.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

5th April 2012, 05:11 PM	#5208
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,263	Originally Posted by RandFan dude, don't do that when I've got a chip on my shoulder. Oh, and by "dude" I don't mean guy. Hell. I should just go back to bed.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

5th April 2012, 05:19 PM	#5209
sgtbaker Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,550	Originally Posted by RandFan Oh, and by "dude" I don't mean guy. Hell. I should just go back to bed. I promise not to mess with you anymore, tonight.
sgtbaker Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,550

5th April 2012, 05:54 PM	#5210
KatieG Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: at the end of the Oregon Trail Posts: 1,278	Just saw an interview with Robert Zimmerman, GZ's father. Was local news so not sure what network. He was shielded by shadows and gave the same story GZ gave. TM confronted him, started the fight and GZ shot in self defense. Yelling for help for at least 40 seconds. No one would help him and GZ feared for his life. Ok, I just checked some original stories and the police first claimed the reason they couldn't arrest GZ was because of the SYG laws. Now it's self defense? Are they the same thing? I'm confused at this point.

5th April 2012, 06:00 PM	#5211
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,198	Originally Posted by Cylinder He was shooting a Kel Tec PF-9 9mm, so to have a spent round in the chamber would be highly unusual. I don't know if this model is prone to stovepipes. I would find that highly unusual with any model from Kel Tec. They are not known for that at all.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

5th April 2012, 06:09 PM	#5212
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,198	Originally Posted by sgtbaker You, maybe, but we haven't had a double blind test to prove that speech identification works. It still could be phones... Double blind, isn't that when you take someone and blindfold them twice, and see if they can still do a task??? (Context : Originally Posted by flabio I've found someone who is willing to put me through the blindfold test, and should have YT vids up in the next couple of days. The fella who's agreed to test me also has no faith in my ability to dowse what so ever, not unlike everyone here. This should be good, do stay tuned... You're welcome......
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

5th April 2012, 06:40 PM	#5213
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,749	Originally Posted by KatieG Ok, I just checked some original stories and the police first claimed the reason they couldn't arrest GZ was because of the SYG laws. Now it's self defense? Are they the same thing? I'm confused at this point. I believe "Stand Your Ground" is the nickname given to Chapter 776 of the Florida statutes which includes both the bits about SYG and justifyable use of force.
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,749	__________________ Permanent solution to national fiscal problems: Collect UNDIEs from dead rich people. (link)

5th April 2012, 06:44 PM	#5214
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,583	Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths Sorry if this was already posted, but Z told his lawyers that the unknown word he whispered is "punks". http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/05/justic...ing/?hpt=hp_t1 Of all the things GZ has said that I don't believe, this one is actually believable.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

5th April 2012, 06:48 PM	#5215
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by KatieG Just saw an interview with Robert Zimmerman, GZ's father. Was local news so not sure what network. He was shielded by shadows and gave the same story GZ gave. TM confronted him, started the fight and GZ shot in self defense. Yelling for help for at least 40 seconds. No one would help him and GZ feared for his life. Ok, I just checked some original stories and the police first claimed the reason they couldn't arrest GZ was because of the SYG laws. Now it's self defense? Are they the same thing? I'm confused at this point. The media has claimed a lot of things about what the police and various people have said, in many cases it seems like they simply stick whatever 'controversial' term they want in there, instead of doing research, and fact checking, and limiting themselves to the facts. Imagine that.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

5th April 2012, 06:50 PM	#5216
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,583	Originally Posted by curi0us That MMA cut is kind of famous and it was definitely treated. Some EMT's and Police do use celox (combat) gauze. Gainesville Florida PD was an early adopter. http://www.celoxmedical.com/docs/pre...%20article.pdf http://www.celoxmedical.com/prods_firstaid.htm I see. Well I wonder if when the police use something like this they document it? You'd think so. But it does allow the possibility GZ's cut was deeper than the video suggests. I stand corrected. There should be plenty of evidence of this cut. We obviously don't have access to all the evidence that might exist.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

5th April 2012, 07:08 PM	#5217
sgtbaker Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,550	Originally Posted by triforcharity Double blind, isn't that when you take someone and blindfold them twice, and see if they can still do a task??? (Context : You're welcome...... If he can't do the task blindfolded, what kind of so call expert is he?
sgtbaker Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,550

5th April 2012, 07:29 PM	#5218
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by triforcharity I would find that highly unusual with any model from Kel Tec. They are not known for that at all. Kel Tec is known for being cheap and small. But my gun guy friend echoes what you say about them being jam resistant. It isn't impossible to get them to leave a spent cartridge in the weapon though. Not likely, but this seemed to be a night when a lot of things were going wrong.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Last edited by crimresearch; 5th April 2012 at 07:34 PM.

5th April 2012, 08:49 PM	#5219
Roadtoad Bufo Caminus Inedibilis Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Gone. Posts: 15,738	I swear, I'm about to scream. 131 pages, and few facts beyond what was known from the start, at least as far as I can tell.

5th April 2012, 08:56 PM	#5220
Andrew Wiggin Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: A small planet named for its dirt. You'll find it filed under 'mostly harmless' Posts: 2,914	Originally Posted by leftysergeant It was discussed elsewhere in this thread. It would indicate a struggle for the weapon, with someone holding onto the slide. Personal anecdote; When I was young and dumb and just learning to shoot, I thought to try holding the slide and see what happened. I got a hell of a cut on my hand as the weapon cycled anyway. More than thirty years later, I can still see the scar. I've seen 'grab the slide' as advice in self defense forums but I think it's highly dubious that it'll prevent the weapon from cycling. The forces involved are more than sufficient to ignore fragile things like skin. ('grab the hammer', another bit of advice I've heard for fighting a man with a revolver sounds more plausible. )
	__________________ "Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world." - Arthur Schopenhauer "New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells

5th April 2012, 10:41 PM	#5221
KatieG Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: at the end of the Oregon Trail Posts: 1,278	Originally Posted by Roadtoad I swear, I'm about to scream. 131 pages, and few facts beyond what was known from the start, at least as far as I can tell. Agreed, Roadtoad! I've gone back through this thread to try to check on things already posted and it is an adventure. Right now I only know these things to be true: Trayvon Martin is dead He was shot by George Zimmerman. Everything else appears to have dubious credentials.

6th April 2012, 01:17 AM	#5222
Brattus Graduate Poster Join Date: May 2007 Location: The bowels of death and despair Posts: 1,223	Originally Posted by Roadtoad I swear, I'm about to scream. 131 pages, and few facts beyond what was known from the start, at least as far as I can tell. I think I can help you out. If a non white person has a white sounding last name then that is close enough for major media to call them white. Major media has no problem with doctoring audio or video to spread racial hatred in a effort to create more news they can fill their 24 hour news channels with. Major media has no problem showing 3 to 5 year old photos of a 17 year old to spread racial hatred in a effort to create more news they can fill their 24 hour news channels with. A 17 year old carrying a box of Skittles can use their fist to punch you in the face breaking bones. The President of the United States will comment on ANY subject with no knowledge of facts regarding that subject on what ever side he or his people believe is the popular view. If you see a suspicious person in your neighborhood and call 911 to report that person that is a good thing. If you see a suspicious person in your neighborhood and call 911 and then follow that person around then you should expect to get your ass kicked. If you see a suspicious person in your neighborhood and you call 911 and then follow that person around and that person comes toward you and ask if you have a problem you run away. You do not stand there and say no I don't when you obviously do or else you wouldn't be following the person around.
	__________________ Whatever Brattus types is correct. - Brattus Anyone who quotes themselves is way cool - Brattus

6th April 2012, 01:29 AM	#5223
Information Analyst Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: London, UK Posts: 1,071	Originally Posted by sgtbaker I have no desire to argue it, anymore, because it's starting to feel like walking in the wrong direction on those conveyor belts at the airport. Agree or disagree, my only response will only be to let you know that I read what you had to say. I was simply saying that Zimmerman may eventually come out with an absolute 100% true account of what happened, and corroborating evidence come to light it to the satisfaction of lots of people, including myself, but there will still be those who will refuse to believe that it wasn't "worse" than whatever that "true" version is.
	Last edited by Information Analyst; 6th April 2012 at 01:31 AM.

6th April 2012, 01:37 AM	#5224
Moss Dramatocrat Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Heiligsblechle country Posts: 3,229	Now that Brattus has axiomatically declared what are now facts we are absolutely wiser. Thanks, we totally know more now!

6th April 2012, 01:55 AM	#5225
Mumbles Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 621	Originally Posted by Roadtoad I swear, I'm about to scream. 131 pages, and few facts beyond what was known from the start, at least as far as I can tell. That's true of most forums on this. The police have, wisely, decided to shut up about it, and so all we have left are various pieces of evidence that we've seen before, and hearsay from the families. But I'll say this much. If someone trailed me in a car, pursued me on foot, and didn't explain themselves before they got into striking distance, I would punch them in the throat. And obviously, a person saying "Hey, sir, you dropped your wallet!" while holding my wallet in front of them, would get the benefit of the doubt - cases like that are irrelevant. But even with the believable stories that Zimmerman's apologists have put forth, I'd regard him as guilty of manslaughter, at the very least.
Mumbles Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 621	Last edited by Mumbles; 6th April 2012 at 02:27 AM.

6th April 2012, 02:06 AM	#5226
Mumbles Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 621	Originally Posted by Brattus I think I can help you out. If a non white person has a white sounding last name then that is close enough for major media to call them white. Zimmerman is, for all intents and purposes, white. Sorry, but "Hispanic" is not a racial group. There are white people who are Hispanic, like Zimmerman. There are black people who are Hispanic, such as me. Quote: Major media has no problem with doctoring audio or video to spread racial hatred in a effort to create more news they can fill their 24 hour news channels with. Huh? MSNBC edited one video, and they've apologized for it. The only media group willing to unapologetically edit video and audio is Fox News, which is defending Zimmerman. Quote: Major media has no problem showing 3 to 5 year old photos of a 17 year old to spread racial hatred in a effort to create more news they can fill their 24 hour news channels with. And they also have no problem showing 3-5 year old photos of the assailant. Really, this is the weakest claim possible. The media is showing photos that Martin's family chose to give to them. Zimmerman's family has released no photos, so they have nothing but official photos to go with. Quote: A 17 year old carrying a box of Skittles can use their fist to punch you in the face breaking bones. If you decide to chase them around, yes, absolutely. And everyone in the US should have the same right. Zimmerman's actions, even according to his defenders, were insanely provocative. Quote: The President of the United States will comment on ANY subject with no knowledge of facts regarding that subject on what ever side he or his people believe is the popular view. This..is just nonsense. Quote: If you see a suspicious person in your neighborhood and call 911 to report that person that is a good thing. If you see a suspicious person in your neighborhood and call 911 and then follow that person around then you should expect to get your ass kicked. Let's be clear. Yes, if you chase after someone, you should expect to get your ass kicked. If you're chasing a violent criminal, then you've angered a violent person. If you're chasing an innocent person (as was the case her), then you're given them a good reason to think that you're a criminal, who is looking to rob or hurt them. Quote: If you see a suspicious person in your neighborhood and you call 911 and then follow that person around and that person comes toward you and ask if you have a problem you run away. You do not stand there and say no I don't when you obviously do or else you wouldn't be following the person around. The answer is actually simple. Don't stalk people like Zimmerman did.
Mumbles Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 621	Last edited by Mumbles; 6th April 2012 at 02:31 AM.

6th April 2012, 02:33 AM	#5227
leftysergeant Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Spanaway WA Posts: 18,613	Originally Posted by Brattus Major media has no problem showing 3 to 5 year old photos of a 17 year old to ~~spread racial hatred in a effort to create more news they can fill their 24 hour news channels with.~~make sure that the right-wing idiot governor and the state Attorney General are paying attention, and not just shrugging it off as another dead thug. fify Quote: A 17 year old carrying a box of Skittles can use their fist to punch you in the face breaking bones. When you assume the power to confront the kid just for your own amusement, you need your damned nose (and maybe a few other body parts) broken. Quote: The President of the United States will comment on ANY subject with no knowledge of facts regarding that subject on what ever side he or his people believe is the popular view. I just figured he wanted to let those dweebs in Florida know that they were not going to get away with a less-than thorough investigation. Quote: If you see a suspicious person in your neighborhood and call 911 to report that person that is a good thing. Problem is that the poppinjay was basing his opinon that Martin was dangerous on the advice of his ear crickets.
	__________________ No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat. Last edited by leftysergeant; 6th April 2012 at 02:34 AM.

6th April 2012, 02:59 AM	#5228
nadsat Thinker Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 130	Originally Posted by Mumbles -snip- If you decide to chase them around, yes, absolutely. And everyone in the US should have the same right. Zimmerman's actions, even according to his defenders, were insanely provocative. -snip- Let's be clear. Yes, if you chase after someone, you should expect to get your ass kicked. If you're chasing a violent criminal, then you've angered a violent person. If you're chasing an innocent person (as was the case her), then you're given them a good reason to think that you're a criminal, who is looking to rob or hurt them. According to Zim and 911 call, he didn't actually chased him. Trayvon ran toward the cut through, then turned right to the sidewalk where F is on. Zim leaves his truck and ran toward E, mistakenly thinking Trayvon headed in that direction when he said: "He’s heading towards the back entrance." at 2:20 in the 911 call. At E is when the 911 operator says "we don't need you to do that." Zim says "Okay" and starts to head back to his truck and Trayvon doubled back to meet Zim at the T. Confrontation and altercation ensued. And they ended up closer to F. Here is a picture of Trayvon's dad looking at F and you can also see the T. Also, the innocent part remain to be seen. I'll just leave it at that until more info are released..
nadsat Thinker Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 130	Last edited by nadsat; 6th April 2012 at 03:09 AM.

6th April 2012, 03:24 AM	#5229
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,790	Originally Posted by nadsat <snip> At E is when the 911 operator says "we don't need you to do that." Zim says "Okay" and starts to head back to his truck and Trayvon doubled back to meet Zim at the T. <snip> Seriously??
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,790	__________________ ________________________

6th April 2012, 03:44 AM	#5230
nadsat Thinker Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 130	I know it's hard to imagine when you have in your head "innocent and scared Trayvon." It's not too hard to imagine if you have in your head "6'3 football player Trayvon" seeing a smaller person trailing him and decides to get tough and confront him. This corroborates Zim's story of Trayvon approaching him from the "left rear." Trayvon could have easily ran home. Note, I'm not accepting this as truth. It's just the most plausible scenario with the available evidence.
nadsat Thinker Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 130

6th April 2012, 03:47 AM	#5231
Mumbles Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 621	Originally Posted by nadsat According to Zim and 911 call, he didn't actually chased him. And by "didn't", you must mean "did", since Zimmerman claims to have chased after Martin in his 911 tape. Quote: http://i43.tinypic.com/2qi4k6u.jpg Trayvon ran toward the cut through, then turned right to the sidewalk where F is on. Zim leaves his truck and ran toward E, mistakenly thinking Trayvon headed in that direction when he said: "He’s heading towards the back entrance." at 2:20 in the 911 call. At E is when the 911 operator says "we don't need you to do that." Zim says "Okay" and starts to head back to his truck and Trayvon doubled back to meet Zim at the T. Confrontation and altercation ensued. And they ended up closer to F. Here is a picture of Trayvon's dad looking at F and you can also see the T. That makes no sense, given the map that you provided. It's far more likely that Zimmerman pursued Martin into the walkway between the two rows of townhouses. If Zimmeramm had functioning eyes, he would have seen Martin duck between the townhouses. He may have followed, or he may have run to another enterance in order to cut Martin off from the south enterance. But the idea that he was headed back to his truck, given where the fight occured, is laughable.
Mumbles Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 621	Last edited by Mumbles; 6th April 2012 at 05:12 AM.

6th April 2012, 05:26 AM	#5232
SomedayGirl Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 264	Have we talked about this yet, I don't recall seeing it: http://cnninsession.files.wordpress....olicreport.pdf There seem to be two different versions of the police report. The first page on this PDF is numbered at the bottom 1 of 5 and has a printed date of 2/28. The other four pages are absent. I'm not too concerned about that. Then there is a second report with pages numbered 1 of 3, 2 of 3, 3 of 3. Those were also printed on 2/28. Officer Smith's report, the one that most closely correlates with Zimmerman's account, is not on that version. Finally, there is a third version that is four pages, printed on 3/6, and Smith's statement appears at the end. I thought perhaps the second report was simply an incomplete version with Smith's report left off but the page layouts before that don't match either. I'm certainly not accusing Sanford police of anything, they've handled this whole thing so well. <end eyeroll> But it does strike me as interesting that the first version printed was two days after the incident and that clearly some editing took place between then and 3/6. The kind of editing seems especially intriguing.
	Last edited by SomedayGirl; 6th April 2012 at 05:33 AM. Reason: There's a difference between to and too. Also clarity.

6th April 2012, 05:45 AM	#5233
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,716	Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths Sorry if this was already posted, but Z told his lawyers that the unknown word he whispered is "punks". http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/05/justic...ing/?hpt=hp_t1 Not surprising , just as likely as what I heard, 'coats'!
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

6th April 2012, 05:50 AM	#5234
Dancing David Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Central Illinois Posts: 34,716	Originally Posted by sgtbaker If he can't do the task blindfolded, what kind of so call expert is he? The real test is the duct tape of his headphones.
	__________________ Hell, dynamiting fish in a barrel is more challenging. - Ladewig I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager

6th April 2012, 05:51 AM	#5235
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 49,063	Originally Posted by SomedayGirl Have we talked about this yet, I don't recall seeing it: http://cnninsession.files.wordpress....olicreport.pdf There seem to be two different versions of the police report. The first page on this PDF is numbered at the bottom 1 of 5 and has a printed date of 2/28. The other four pages are absent. I'm not too concerned about that. Then there is a second report with pages numbered 1 of 3, 2 of 3, 3 of 3. Those were also printed on 2/28. Officer Smith's report, the one that most closely correlates with Zimmerman's account, is not on that version. Finally, there is a third version that is four pages, printed on 3/6, and Smith's statement appears at the end. I thought perhaps the second report was simply an incomplete version with Smith's report left off but the page layouts before that don't match either. I'm certainly not accusing Sanford police of anything, they've handled this whole thing so well. <end eyeroll> But it does strike me as interesting that the first version printed was two days after the incident and that clearly some editing took place between then and 3/6. The kind of editing seems especially intriguing. They're both labeled "partial report". Neither is complete.