I should have been more clear so I will be now. When you are a police officer and a suspect who admits to shooting a 17 year old who wasn't in the process of committing a crime and you are attempting to determine his guilt/innocence through a voice stress test, is it reasonable that your entire interrogation consists of only 2 questions? That sounds more like a worker who's ready to go home late on a Sunday night than one who wants to do his/her job. The fact that only Yes/No questions generate positive/negative results shows the limitations of the test. Most suspects expose their lies when they go into detail and are asked follow up questions once the interviewers find inconsistencies , not when they are asked yes/no questions. That said, there are a hell of a lot of more questions than 2 the interrogator should have come up with during this test. Serino asked Zimmerman at least 10 questions he had no logical answers for but none of these were asked durin the voice stress test, conducted by a different police officer. Of course, it's pretty obvious the police gave a very minimal effort during this entire investigation (as they often do when minorites are the victims) so that's really not too surprising. They were in check-the-box, cover your butt mode, not find out what happened mode. If the police were doing their jobs effecively, they would have called Trayvon's girlfriend once they looked up his cell phone records and could have found out who he was instead of sending him to the morgue as "John Doe". Etc, etc.
Apparently there are some FBI experts who agree that the questioning in the voice stress test was not very thorough. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation...n-martin-zimmerman-shooting-report/55847436/1
I didn't say I had evidence. Just that I wasn't 100% convinced that he WASN'T up to no good. I must have really struck a nerve with you (probably after humiliating you repeatedly on legal-related topics) and now you're following me around like QdoublaA. Humorous to me
According to the logic of TM supporters, you would be well within your rights to beat QdoubleA down for following you. The law would not be on your side but that's not important to some.
It seems that pointing out the weaknesses in your arguments is getting to you. I didn't realize responding to someones comments in the , *gulp*, Debate and Discussion section counted as following. You have yet to provide that link, you know to the lie detector test you quoted. Please and thank you.
Debating online is the same thing as following in your car, then getting out and pursuing in the middle of the night, great logic bro! Granville why you so smart?
And either situation doesn't give you a right to attack someone. You somehow think you are the enlightened one here but you're really just asking like a jackass.
we all know why everyone here is debating with each other hence the name of the forum was the neighborhood named "follow people who are doing nothing illegal around armed with a gun"?
You have humiliated me on nothing. I just really like calling you out when you post something silly...which is often.
So a stranger is following you in the night, doesn't ever identify himself, and you are supposed to stop and tell him what you are doing? That's the smart thing to do?
and TM has shown he will do illegal things by having illegal drugs in his system the night of the incident
he wasn't the only one that had drugs in his systems and TM's didnt make he a aggressor just mellow but GZ on the other hand will you've read the reports.
unless GZ was paranoid because he was effected by mood altering drugs and had a history of violence. why did GZ have a gun with him?
He was being followed at night by an unknown person. Zimmerman himself said he ran at one point. There were trace amounts of THC in his system, furthermore:
who cares if he had a lighter just like you said GZ had the right to carry a loaded handgun so why can't TM have a lighter GZ didn't see him light anything on fire did he.
