So, to sum up - two "experts" who have never heard Martin's voice claim that it was Martin's voice. And their conclusions also contradict the witness who saw more of the event than any other witness. More.
Actually, one expert said that he could not verify if it was Martin's, because he has no sample of his voice, just that he could verify it wasn't Zimmerman's.
You are making up stuff. They never claimed it was martins voice. They just claim it wasn't fatasses voice, and the science behind it is solid.
Being a minority himself does not absolve him from accusations of racism. That's a silly notion. A lot of minorities are incredibly racist, including hispanic people and black people.
What? Are you serious? How many people were in the confrontation? Hint - 2. If they are certain it wasn't Zimmerman's voice, who's voice could it have been? Hint - Martin
The problem is that don't have a sample of Martin's voice to evaluate. It's possible that having such a sample they would also rule out Martin meaning their the science does not work or that their samples simply are not good enough to use. And you still have the problem that "John" said he saw - not that he thought - but that he saw Zimmerman do the screaming.
Being the little girl that Zimmerman is, I bet he did think his life was in danger. That part of the law is too subjective. I'd rather go back to the post where someone said that Zimmerman, with a gun, should be held to a higher standard than... lets say... someone at the bar, getting into a fight and killing someone. Presumably, he was sober, almost 10 years older (and hopefully wiser) than Martin, and has taken a concealed handgun class that taught him what carrying around a gun means to him and, more importantly, society. There are plenty of situations that you, as an adult, diffuse because you realize what it could mean if it got out of control. Forgetting the racial aspects of this case, Zimmerman was irresponsible from start to finish. He is not trained to police his neighborhood. He should've stopped after he called the police. In a completely different example that I think parallels this very well, if a paramedic arrives at a scene where someone is in critical condition, I'd expect that paramedic to stabilize and transfer that patient to the nearest ER so a doctor can make the right decisions. That paramedic is not trained to give complete and competent care. If he goes beyond his abilities and the patient died, that is gross negligence and he should be held responsible, no matter his best intentions. That paramedic is held to a higher standard because he knows enough to understand where he should draw the line in what he should and shouldn't do. If some civilian tried to save a life and the patient died, I would not hold it against him/her.
Hey, try to pay attention here, they never said they concluded that it was Martins voice, they never even hinted at that. They said it was for sure not Zimmerman. Common sense then tells you whose voice it was. Are you really that dense? Nobody who runs a site dedicated to table top gaming like yours can be that dense.
1. If you survey the thread, it's probably 10:1 in favor of the Martin side. In order to keep a "balanced" discussion, someone has to assert the other point of view. 2. The comment to which I referred was just a couple of pages before... 3. That is difficult evidence for Zimmerman to overcome but I'm sure there are other experts with differing conclusions-- even if it's about what 48% means....
Do you think that any reasonable person would believe that the injuries Zimmerman sustained warranted the use of deadly force against an unarmed person?
I take back what I said earlier about you not responding, you do respond (most of the time in a tempered manner even) to the comments directed at you. I can see where in the interest of debate you want to present the other side but come on dude, you can't tell me you believe the crap the Zimmerman camp is putting out there.
The problem is that in your attempt to undermine the evidence against Zimmerman, you're coming up with some outlandish scenarios. For example, you said that the lack of bruising on Zimmerman and Martin can be explained by the possibility that their fight consisted of hair pulling and ear grabbing instead of punching. I mean seriously....hair pulling and ear grabbing. Really? How can there be experts who reach different conclusions? Its a computer that did the analysis so it doesn't seem like it'd be a highly subjective process.
That was me. I think it is understood that if you are carrying a gun you also except the responsibilities that goes with it. As a result you should be held to hire standerd than someone not carrying a gun. You should be expected not to be so careless as to put yourself in a situation (witnin reason) or create a situation where you may end up having to use your gun on someone. Certainly following Treyvon and calling 911 is within reason but once he started running at Treyvon he carelessly created a very volatile situation. While Zimmerman may never have intended to use his gun and even if it was in self defense, it was his carelessness while carrying a gun that created the situation. It is because of this that I think Zimmerman is guilty of Manslaughter.
So that one witness should be accepted without question, but the other witnesses, and other evidence which contradicts "John's" statements should automatically be discounted?
Isn't that how most states do it? Does the stand your ground la change anything? I know in NJ, someone who's like a 300 lbs 3rd degree black belt has less leeway on manslaughter charges than say a 90 lb woman.
giddy, you can look at the video. It isn't really that grainy. It's pretty clear, and there are clear shots of GZ head. They also have new surveillance camera angles from the police station as well. It's pretty obvious that his head was barely harmed at all.
