Register

Welcome to the Political Forum - Debate Politics Forum.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 49
  1. #1
    Banned Knight
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    384

    Obama, Democrats lay low as Martin story shifts

    http://news.yahoo.com/obama-democrat...211626564.html

    Top Democrats — including President Barack Obama’s re-election team — are now keeping their distance from the Trayvon Martin uproar, as each day reveals more facts about the teen’s slaying.

    “As more facts come out, it’s more confusing for folks,” Sharon Gilpin, a Democratic political consultant, told The Daily Caller.

    “There was a pretty intense rush to judgment … [but] it is important to get all your facts before you cement your feet in the sidewalk,” said Gilpin, who has worked on numerous Democratic campaigns and ballot initiatives.

    “As tragic as this death is, there obviously is another side to the story,” former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis told TheDC. “We would all do well to wait for the facts to emerge.”

    At today’s White House press conference, spokesman Jay Carney dismissed the only question about the controversy. He was asked about Obama’s response to Rep. Bobby Rush appearing on the House floor wearing a hoodie. Rush represents an African-American district in Obama’s hometown of Chicago.

    “I haven’t discussed that with him,” Carney said, six days after the president amplified a media firestorm by using a Rose Garden event to announced that “if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.” (RELATED: Full coverage of the Trayvon Martin shooting)

    After Carney dismissed the question, the reporters focused on Obama’s renewed — and routine — demand for higher taxes on oil companies.

    Although the Congressional Black Caucus and numerous African-American activists, including MSNBC’s Al Sharpton and CNN’s Roland Martin, have highlighted the shooting and portrayed Martin as a likely victim of racism, many other Democrats have kept a low profile.

    Rep. Nancy Pelosi, for example, released a Mar. 21 statement that merely applauded a federal investigation into the Florida shooting. The Democrats’ Senate leader, Sen. Harry Reid, used a March 23 statement to focus his comments on the federal investigation as well.

    The White House has kept its distance from the tangled Trayvon Martin dispute since March 23 when the president surprised Washington by using a Rose Garden event to wade into the controversy.

    Besides an excerpt from his Rose Garden remarks, the campaign’s web site was mostly silent on Martin’s death. On Wednesday, that single excerpt showed little sign of traffic — it had collected only seven “likes,” two tweets, and no comments.

    Obama’s campaign officials have mostly stayed away from the dispute as well, and when they do get involved, they have downplayed Obama’s intervention, avoided reference to race, and instead lashed out at GOP leaders.

    “The president took a question the other day in the Rose Garden and he spoke from the heart and empathizing with parents who lost a son,” Stephanie Cutter, Obama’s deputy campaign manager, said in a Mar. 28 CNN interview.

    “I think it is abysmal, despicable, that people like Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are trying to make this a divisive issue,” she said, only five days after the president highlighted the case as an issue that “all parents” should address.

    “Nobody doubts the president’s commitment to bringing this country together,” she said defensively, while demanding that Gingrich and Santorum “should watch their own words.”

    The president’s political adviser, David Plouffe, used the same aggressive approach in comments Mar. 25.

    The GOP leaders’ comments “were really hard to stomach, really, and I guess trying to appeal to people’s worst instincts. … I don’t think there’s very many people in America that would share that reaction,” he said on CNN’s Sunday talk-show.

    Media accounts of leaked police reports over the last few days have upended initial claims about the Feb. 26 shooting.

    The reports and facts show that the shooter was George Zimmerman, a mixed race registered Democrat and a self-fashioned neighborhood watch captain.

    Zimmerman alleged that Martin knocked him to the ground and broke his nose, according to media reports based on leaks from inside the local police department.

    Martin was 17 years old, and was taller and heavier than he is portrayed in the widely published pictures that were taken when he was aged 14. Contrary to the images initially used by the national media, the police report shows he was taller than Zimmerman, while the shooter had a substantial weight advantage over the youth.

    News reports say Martin was quizzed by school officials about possible theft, and was spending time at his father’s house following a suspension for vandalism.

    The rush to take sides in an evolving case has opened some Democratic-aligned advocates — such as Al Sharpton, a MSNBC host and political activist — to criticism from other activists, including several African-American leaders, such as C.L. Bryant, T. Willard Fair and Alveda King.

    “I am stunned that [Al] Sharpton and others want to have it both ways: they say they want to get to the bottom of what happened, and then attack any information about the encounter as a leak and character assassination,” said Davis, a former Democratic representative from an African-American district in Alabama.

    “Both parties have to worry about subgroups” that can skew the public’s view of the party in an election-year that will be decided by independent-votes and economic issues, Gilpin said. “I certainly understand the motivation” of getting the party’s base excited, said Gilpin. Obama has to concentrate on economic issues because African-Americans “are as concerned about the jobs issues as much as anyone else,” she said.

    “There is no upside for anyone to make race an issue,” she added.

    However, the increasingly nuanced and detailed accounts of the killing — which is decried by every significant actor, both Democrat and Republican — also clash with Obama’s initial portrayal of the shooting as a race-related incident.

    “This is a tragedy,” Obama said March 23. “When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids.”

    President Obama’s daughters, Sasha and Malia, are different from Martin in almost every measurable capacity, including their economic and educational privilege. The one area of similarity is their African-American heritage, which Obama emphasized in asserting that Trayvon would “look like” him were he to have a son.

    “I think all of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how does something like this [Martin killing] happen,” Obama said, adding “that means [we] examine the laws and the context for what happened, as well as the specifics of the incident.”

    Davis didn’t fault Obama’s response. “He reacted as an African-American man; he expressed the sentiments that every single black I have encountered felt last week, including those in my family,” said Davis.

    “Whether a president should have indulged those sentiments is a question I will let others judge.”
    I think that Obama should not have commented on the case, I realize he was asked to comment, but I think an appropriate response for a president would be either "no comment" or "I don't have enough information to comment at this time." I've been following this investigation, reading commentary from both sides and I just can't align myself to either side right now. Zimmerman's story seems shaky and probably deceitful, but after news has come out about some of Trayvon's social media commentary about how he was advocating (perhaps jokingly, but who knows?) the shooting of someone, his brother commenting about him "not telling him he swung on the bus driver" or something like that, I can see why people are wondering about how innocent he was. All in all, I think that Zimmerman should be arrested and tried, but because of how circumstantial a lot of the evidence is, I'm not sure that he would be convicted even if charged. I know Zimmerman followed Trayvon, which was against what the police had told him to do, and he probably confronted Trayvon. I've done that before in my neighborhood and other places. On numerous occasions, if someone has said something insulting about me or if there are teenagers being dumb, I've approached and confronted them, but I also don't carry a firearm and partially because of my size, I've never needed to be physically defensive, as people are generally intimidated by my stature. But I can see why Zimmerman might have followed Trayvon, what it boils down to in my opinion is who first initiated physical confrontation, and that's something that can probably not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt--in court,

  2. #2
    Forum Owner Heir to the Throne
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,179
    A couple things to respond to here.

    (1) Regarding Z's (Zimmerman's) guilt or innocence. Recent evidence has come out really making Z look bad. Three of the most recent items include:

    * Z appearing on a police video 40 minutes after the shooting with no blood stains, bandages or any kind of limp

    * Audio analysis by experts (one of whom was previously consulted by police to convict a murderer using audio evidence) who used audio software to say that he is "reasonably sure" that the cry for help was not Z's

    * More details on Z's personal history including him picking up and THROWING a drunken woman, while serving as a security guard for a party, for which he was fired, the woman suffered a twisted ankle and Z was described as acting out of "pure rage"

    In the absence of any new exonerating evidence, that just seals the deal on his guilt for me.

    (2) With regards to the social media stuff, I'm just going to say that maybe that stuff is accurate or not. Maybe "you didn't tell me you swung on the bus driver" is accurate or not. I do not have the information to say any more than that.

    (3) With regards to Obama, there's either one of two ways to look at this:

    (A) Obama really believed that Martin was killed just due to racial profiling and that he does not believe that Martin at any point was the aggressor. The Obama view is this: Martin was walking home with his Skittles, he was followed by a racial profiling vigilante, he was pinned down (based on the 911 tape where Trayvan calling for help is heard) and then executed. So Obama believed this was a race-based killing, and thus he stated a truism: any black person from a Harvard University Professor to the black ex-con can be shot down like a dog at ANY time based on race-based suspicion alone. To that extent, Obama was merely stating that it affects him too and he empathizes with Martin's parents on a shared level of being at risk due to skin color.

    (B) Obama appeased the black vote 8 months before the election.


    I lean towards A. Personally, I do not begrudge Obama for doing that. It can be debated tactically whether this was appropriate or not, but at the end of the day the substance of the issue is that racial discrimination against blacks is real and the President sympathized with the victims, not the bad guys. Is there something wrong somehow with him being in a certain position where that's inappropriate? Maybe, maybe not. However the substance of it is not something immoral, only perhaps somewhat inappropriate.


    WEB
    Read the Forum Rules

    "When I entered Republican politics during an earlier period of malaise, in the late seventies and early eighties, the movement got most of the big questions -- crime, inflation, the Cold War -- right. This time, the party is getting the big questions disastrously wrong."

    "In the aftershock of 2008, large numbers of Americans feel exploited and abused. Rather than workable solutions, my party is offering low taxes for the currently rich and high spending for the currently old, to be followed by who-knows-what and who-the-hell-cares. This isn't conservatism; it's a going-out-of-business sale for the baby-boom generation."


    - David Frum, former speech writer for George W. Bush

    "This is just ridiculous. I never thought as an economist I would have to spend so much time doing political analysis."

    - Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial

  3. #3
    Banned Knight
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    384
    Quote Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois View Post
    (2) With regards to the social media stuff, I'm just going to say that maybe that stuff is accurate or not. Maybe "you didn't tell me you swung on the bus driver" is accurate or not. I do not have the information to say any more than that.
    I looked for the social media stuff I was talking about, here's a link which reports on stuff that a lot of mainstream media did not report on. I'm not defending Zimmerman, nor am I trying to demonize Martin, but this is stuff that was found in archives of Trayvon's social media.:

    http://z6mag.com/featured/was-trayvo...ed-166980.html

  4. #4
    Banned Knight
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    384
    Also, regarding Zimmerman's appearance in the police footage, I know he would have been treated on scene for his injuries and I'm pretty sure the police report filed confirms this. The EMTs would have wiped down any abrasions or cuts in order to be able to clearly see them, which could explain why there's not any blood on his face or the back of his head. He's also wearing a reddish color jacket, it would be difficult to tell if there was blood there. Here's a link to a little bit higher definition footage of him at the station, where you can see what appears to be a gash or wound to the back of his head, which is consistent with the story that his head may have been shoved, pushed or slammed against the pavement. It doesn't necessarily prove self-defense, like the host of the video clearly states, but it shows that he might have been telling the truth about suffering injuries in the physical altercation:

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...ns-head-wound/

    Also, the police footage, when viewed without the obstruction of news banners shows that his nose could possibly be fractured. It's just too hard to tell 100 percent, because of the grainy footage, but looking at the video I posted a link to below in fullscreen with the pauses, it seems to be swelled up a bit. I can't say for sure. I have known people who have suffered broken noses that didn't bleed, in fact a friend of mine once broke his nose while in the middle of a boxing match and didn't even realize it was broken until after the match was over:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=chuqIPqwsHs
    Last edited by Locke9-05; 04-01-2012 at 06:47 AM.

  5. #5
    Forum Owner Heir to the Throne
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,179
    Few things to mention here:

    (1) I noticed at least two errors on the first link you posted and I don't think I've even made it halfway through. One of the claims in the list says that Martin was walking at 3:00 AM in the morning. Completely false. The incident occurred at approximately 7:15 PM.

    (2) On the Myspace profile that's supposed to belong to Martin it says:

    Body type: 5' 8"
    Ethnicity: Native American
    19 years old


    This is false.

    Martin was 6' 3", black and 17 years old.

    The one detail that does appear accurate is that Martin did go to school in Dade County.

    With regards to the police video, Zimmerman is wearing a grey shirt and I see no blood on it, nor did I see any marks on his face. I think even some doctors said that he didn't look like he was in the fight he described.



    I don't deny that his nose is or is not broken. His face just doesn't look like the result of what his father described: a one minute beating to his face. His father made it sound like he was facing imminent death due to a severe beating. He made it sound like Martin beat the hell out of Zimmerman and the only thing that was standing between Zimmerman and death was his gun. The video tape belies that. Zimmerman is completely fluid in the tape, just moving around without any stiffness, pain, visible marks on his face, or bandages.

    I'm going to read some more of that first link now.
    Read the Forum Rules

    "When I entered Republican politics during an earlier period of malaise, in the late seventies and early eighties, the movement got most of the big questions -- crime, inflation, the Cold War -- right. This time, the party is getting the big questions disastrously wrong."

    "In the aftershock of 2008, large numbers of Americans feel exploited and abused. Rather than workable solutions, my party is offering low taxes for the currently rich and high spending for the currently old, to be followed by who-knows-what and who-the-hell-cares. This isn't conservatism; it's a going-out-of-business sale for the baby-boom generation."


    - David Frum, former speech writer for George W. Bush

    "This is just ridiculous. I never thought as an economist I would have to spend so much time doing political analysis."

    - Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial

  6. #6
    Forum Owner Heir to the Throne
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,179
    I believe that the MySpace and Twitter accounts are valid. I say that because the Hollister shirt matches the one that Travyon is seen wearing throughout the news media. Also, the name that is tattooed on his wrist appears to match the very unusual name of Trayvon's mother; Sybrina, I believe.

    So for the sake of argument, I will acknowledge Trayvon as "No Limit Nigga" on those websites.

    So then here comes the strongest argument for people saying: hold on, Z might not be guilty of manslaughter or murder:

    Z approaches Martin and Martin says: why are you following me?
    Z says: what are you doing here?

    This enrages Martin who just punches Z in the face, causing him to fall on his back.
    Martin climbs on top of Z and starts slamming his head into the ground and punching him in the face.

    At some point Z gains the upper hand at which point, Martin is helpless as he cries out "help! help!"
    Z, no longer in danger for his life or great bodily harm, shoots Martin
    Z has committed murder in the second degree

    Now the key one might think is: did Z really have Martin in a position where Martin was in no danger to Z. I would say that generally people don't yell "help! help!" while they are beating the hell out of someone. The audio analyst who has been used to convict a different murderer said those cries were not from Z, so they must have been from Martin. Also, given the desperation in those cries, it sounds like Martin was physically under the control of Z. Also, given that Z weighs 100 pounds more than Martin and is physically fit (as shown by the video tape, his employment as a security guard and the fact that he literally picked a woman up and threw her while employed as a security guard) shows that he had the ability to physically dominate Martin and pin him down, thus negating the physical threat from Martin and thus making the killing of Martin an execution.

    Even in the worst case scenario for judging Martin, it appears that Z executed him. It appears that the killing was an execution, not self-defense. One can make an argument about how maybe a guy who punches someone else in the face and beats the shit out of them deserves to be shot, but legally I think it has to be conceded that with Z physically pinning him down, the killing was not necessary, and was therefore murder.


    WEB
    Read the Forum Rules

    "When I entered Republican politics during an earlier period of malaise, in the late seventies and early eighties, the movement got most of the big questions -- crime, inflation, the Cold War -- right. This time, the party is getting the big questions disastrously wrong."

    "In the aftershock of 2008, large numbers of Americans feel exploited and abused. Rather than workable solutions, my party is offering low taxes for the currently rich and high spending for the currently old, to be followed by who-knows-what and who-the-hell-cares. This isn't conservatism; it's a going-out-of-business sale for the baby-boom generation."


    - David Frum, former speech writer for George W. Bush

    "This is just ridiculous. I never thought as an economist I would have to spend so much time doing political analysis."

    - Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial

  7. #7
    Banned Knight
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    384
    Quote Originally Posted by W.E.B. Du Bois View Post
    I believe that the MySpace and Twitter accounts are valid. I say that because the Hollister shirt matches the one that Travyon is seen wearing throughout the news media. Also, the name that is tattooed on his wrist appears to match the very unusual name of Trayvon's mother; Sybrina, I believe.

    So for the sake of argument, I will acknowledge Trayvon as "No Limit Nigga" on those websites.

    So then here comes the strongest argument for people saying: hold on, Z might not be guilty of manslaughter or murder:

    Z approaches Martin and Martin says: why are you following me?
    Z says: what are you doing here?

    This enrages Martin who just punches Z in the face, causing him to fall on his back.
    Martin climbs on top of Z and starts slamming his head into the ground and punching him in the face.

    At some point Z gains the upper hand at which point, Martin is helpless as he cries out "help! help!"
    Z, no longer in danger for his life or great bodily harm, shoots Martin
    Z has committed murder in the second degree

    Now the key one might think is: did Z really have Martin in a position where Martin was in no danger to Z. I would say that generally people don't yell "help! help!" while they are beating the hell out of someone. The audio analyst who has been used to convict a different murderer said those cries were not from Z, so they must have been from Martin. Also, given the desperation in those cries, it sounds like Martin was physically under the control of Z. Also, given that Z weighs 100 pounds more than Martin and is physically fit (as shown by the video tape, his employment as a security guard and the fact that he literally picked a woman up and threw her while employed as a security guard) shows that he had the ability to physically dominate Martin and pin him down, thus negating the physical threat from Martin and thus making the killing of Martin an execution.

    Even in the worst case scenario for judging Martin, it appears that Z executed him. It appears that the killing was an execution, not self-defense. One can make an argument about how maybe a guy who punches someone else in the face and beats the shit out of them deserves to be shot, but legally I think it has to be conceded that with Z physically pinning him down, the killing was not necessary, and was therefore murder.


    WEB
    I can't disagree. I would also tend to think that by gaining the upper hand and just showing the gun to whoever may or may not have assaulted you would generally get things under control in such a situation. Also, like you said, if Martin was crying for help, Zimmerman clearly did have the upper hand and could have done things a lot differently. Based on those arguments of yours, I'm inclined to agree that Zimmerman is guilty of an unjustified homicide--murder.

  8. #8
    Forum Owner Heir to the Throne
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke9-05 View Post
    I can't disagree. I would also tend to think that by gaining the upper hand and just showing the gun to whoever may or may not have assaulted you would generally get things under control in such a situation. Also, like you said, if Martin was crying for help, Zimmerman clearly did have the upper hand and could have done things a lot differently. Based on those arguments of yours, I'm inclined to agree that Zimmerman is guilty of an unjustified homicide--murder.
    Yeah, I guess we'll see how the case continues to unfold. A lot of new information came out last week, I guess we'll see what else comes out. This could be the start of a long process, as the state and the feds are just trying to get enough of a case together to bring him to court and arrest him. I've heard it might take a few weeks for that to happen. We shall see.
    Read the Forum Rules

    "When I entered Republican politics during an earlier period of malaise, in the late seventies and early eighties, the movement got most of the big questions -- crime, inflation, the Cold War -- right. This time, the party is getting the big questions disastrously wrong."

    "In the aftershock of 2008, large numbers of Americans feel exploited and abused. Rather than workable solutions, my party is offering low taxes for the currently rich and high spending for the currently old, to be followed by who-knows-what and who-the-hell-cares. This isn't conservatism; it's a going-out-of-business sale for the baby-boom generation."


    - David Frum, former speech writer for George W. Bush

    "This is just ridiculous. I never thought as an economist I would have to spend so much time doing political analysis."

    - Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial

  9. #9
    Banned Knight
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    384
    This is kind of interesting:

    http://news.yahoo.com/public-opinion...063506171.html

    As news develops about the investigation into the Feb. 26 Trayvon Martin shooting in Sanford, Fla., nationwide support for the arrest of George Zimmerman, the shooter, is softening. That’s the message from a pair of polls — one conducted March 25-26 and the other March 27-28.

    The earlier poll, from CNN, found that 73 percent of Americans were in favor of police arresting Zimmerman, the self-appointed neighborhood watch leader who killed Martin after what he has said was an altercation initiated by the unarmed teen.

    But just two days later, a national poll from Wilson Perkins Allen (WPA) Opinion Research determined that just 48 percent of Americans said police should arrest Zimmerman — a decrease of 25 percent.

    The two polls shared the same distribution of political partisans, each sampling 30 percent Democrats and 25 percent Republicans. The remaining 45 percent either identified themselves as independents or declined to answer the question.

    In the WPA poll, 39 percent said they believe Trayvon Martin was “minding his own business” when he was attacked. Just 18 percent said they thought “Zimmerman was attacked” by the teen.

    And in a separate question, 74 percent of those polled said they believe racial profiling “is a problem in America today.”

    Yet less than half, during the Tuesday-Wednesday polling, said Zimmerman should be arrested.

    The margins of error for the CNN and WPA polls were 3.0 and 3.4 percentage points, respectively.

  10. #10
    Banned Knight
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    384
    I've been thinking about this case more and more and as the information keeps coming out, I'm not entirely sure I think George Zimmerman should be charged or convicted of a crime. One reason I say this is a personal experience I had the other day.

    I was walking my dog in my neighborhood, I would call it a pretty nice neighborhood, it's not gated or anything, but it's nice. I saw a caucasian male about 5'9" maybe 6 feet tall walking down the sidewalk, but unlike your standard walker or jogger, he was taking his time, and was basically stopping in front of every house, looking at them up and down and writing things on a pad of paper. Initially I guessed that it was probably just some kind of census or city/state research project, but at the same time, I figured "better safe than sorry." I approached the man and asked him what he was doing. He confirmed my suspicion by telling me he was conducting research for a city/state (government) funded project. I could have taken him at his word, but I wanted to be absolutely sure, so I asked him if he would mind if I saw his city/state identification card. He said it was no problem and showed me his ID. It turned out to be nothing, but in my mind, I thought about the Trayvon Martin case. I was thinking, what if this guy was just walking through--or worse, actually casing houses--and took major offense at my asking what he was doing or asking him for his ID? What if he became enraged and slugged me in the face, caught me off guard, knocked me onto my back and started battering my head against the pavement or dirt? I don't actually carry a gun or even a knife, but if I did, and that happened, I would almost definitely use it to put a quick end to the assault. Not even as some kind of vendetta or "you attacked me so I get to kill you" thing, it would be primarily because if someone was able to take me off guard like that and inflict physical damage and get the upper hand in a fight like that, I would feel desperate to protect myself, it would be the fight or flight instinct kicking in with adrenaline.

    I know that experts came out of the woodwork and said they "don't think" it was George Zimmerman's voice crying for help, but now articles are saying that there's no way to be sure. Here's one of the articles:

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/justic...ing/index.html

    "There's a huge chance that this is not Zimmerman's voice," said Primeau, a longtime audio engineer who is listed as an expert in recorded evidence by the American College of Forensic Examiners International.

    "After 28 years of doing this, I would put my reputation on the line and say this is not George Zimmerman screaming."

    What witnesses say

    Owen, a forensic audio analyst and chairman emeritus of the American Board of Recorded Evidence, also said he does not believe the screams came from Zimmerman.

    He cited software that is widely used in Europe and has become recently accepted in the United States that examines characteristics like pitch and the space between spoken words to analyze voices.

    Using it, he found a 48% likelihood the voice is Zimmerman's. At least 60% is necessary to feel confident two samples are from the same source, he told CNN on Monday -- meaning it's unlikely it was Zimmerman who can be heard yelling.

    The experts, both of whom said they have testified in cases involving audio analysis, stressed they cannot say who was screaming.

    But CNN and HLN legal analysts Beth Karas and Sonny Hostin raised questions about what the public should consider regarding the conclusions reached.

    Hostin said several questions and variables must be considered, including the fact the tests did not analyze similar speech. That is, the analysis was based on screams heard from a distance in a 911 call, compared with a direct phone conversation Zimmerman had with a 911 operator.

    "Ideally, you want (Zimmerman or Martin's) voice saying the same exact thing, screaming 'Help!' in order to analyze it," she said.

    Would these tests be admissible in court and considered evidence?

    "It really depends on the individual judge," Hostin said. "In Florida, they are going to conduct a Frye test, the legal test, which asks if the science is generally accepted in the community."

    Karas questioned whether the test stood up to the voice-comparison standards of the American Board of Recorded Evidence.

    The standards indicate that, when analyzing speech, there should be a minimum of at least 10 words to be compared with each other in order to say you can have a "possible elimination" conclusion. But in this case, the cries for help don't have nearly that number of words.
    Perhaps Zimmerman never really had the upper hand until the shot was fired.

    http://gma.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-...-abc-news.html

    In addition, an eyewitness, 13-year-old Austin Brown, told police he saw a man fitting Zimmerman's description lying on the grass moaning and crying for help just seconds before he heard the gunshot that killed Martin.
    People think that Zimmerman used a racial slur in the phone call, but CNN enhanced the audio twice now, and since hearing that (which I initially thought was a racial slur and bode badly for Zimmerman), it doesn't actually sound like that:

    http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/0...ed/?hpt=ac_mid

    With the audio enhanced, it doesn't sound like he used a racial slur at all, it sounded like one of two things to me, it sounded like "fucking punks" or "fucking cold." In the enhanced version of the call, I couldn't hear the "oo" sound of the accused racial slur "coons."

    I think Zimmerman might honestly have been justified. I'm a large person, and I have a lot of muscle mass, but if I was attacked by someone of Martin's size, it's more than possible that they could take me off guard, get me on the ground and give me quite a beating. And if Zimmerman's story about Martin reaching for his gun is accurate, and the same applied to me, I would be immediately fearful for my life as well. I would pull the trigger on my assailant before they could do so to me. And to be honest, if I were attacked and if events unfolded like the story Zimmerman gave police, unlike Zimmerman (according to his friend in the interview), I would not feel bad about it. I might be traumatized by the entire incident, but if anyone--regardless of what they looked like--attacked me physically and reached for a weapon I carried for self defense as if to use it on me, I would turn it on them and pull the trigger in a heartbeat. And I can't honestly say I would feel bad about ending the life of my attacker--in that hypothetical.
    Last edited by Locke9-05; 04-06-2012 at 12:35 AM.

 

 

Posting Permissions

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