LOL! Clamoring for facts but so accepting of a machine's results, a machine that itself can be lied to and beaten, a machine whose results are not 100% because of that fact, a machine whose results are not admissible in court, a machine that does not clear him of innocence or guilt. Before you guys go the facts route that I see you oh so quickly go to why don't you try sticking to them yourselves. That's all I have been saying over this entire incident, let's wait for the facts and neither side whether you are for or against what has happened can prove 100% what exactly happened. It irritates the hell out of me that so many of you are so quick to go with claim that "we need facts" but go against it at the same time so blatantly. Damn hypocrites.
Slow down there.... I'm pretty sure it takes either specialized training or sociopathy to beat a lied detector so, while not admitted in court, there is a high degree of reliability or else why would it still be used so much? What facts have I not stuck to? CometsWin posits that GZ was on "something" without hesitation... as if it were a fact. I've made no such speculation about GZ or TM. The fact is that the original lead detective had an opinion, an opinion which was over-ruled. I'm pretty sure that GZ has been very consistent with his story and timeline. That is usually a huge slip-up when tales are fabricated.
Or just dumb luck. Like I said, they can be beaten and are not 100%. Basically it is an opinion of a machine. You said that it was one man's opinion and then bring up the lie detector test which is just one machine's opinion, a machine that can and has been beaten in the past so to speak.
I would want to check on the "fact" that luck can beat a lie detector. The lie detector is based on scientific data gathering about small changes in the body (heart-rate et al) caused by the stress of deception. Opinion does come into play when the test administrator interprets the results but my impression is that the deception is pretty easy to detect. I know it's always a dramatic spike in the movies anyway. Doubt it is that easy because lots of times they come back "inconclusive." The opinion of the detective was formed in the heat of the pursuit of solving the case within the first day or so. The opinion of the lie detector test results came weeks later after a carefully crafted set of questions were put before GZ and science was measuring his reactions. I see a HUGE difference there.
I have not seen a shred of evidence or any earnest assertions that Martin was walking around aimlessly around houses. All of the evidence points to him walking to his father's house. That is not aimlessly. If I were walking home and noticed somebody actively following me, I would view that as a threat. At some point, there would likely be an altercation. It would not start as a violent one, but I would be prepared to defend myself against that threat. We will never know what, if anything was said, as the only other party is unavailable to testify. Once a threat is identified, a fight or flight response is evoked. Some people are wired to flee, and others to eliminate the threat. It is simple biology. It all comes down to this...if there is evidence that Martin was engaged in a crime at the time, then what happened is regrettable but excusable. If not, then Zimmerman should not be bailed out by the law of a situation of his own creation. Oh, and no...I would not want a civilian to intervene. I would want him to call the cops. Intervention by a civilian is how people needlessly get hurt or killed.
Lie detectors are notably unrelaible. That is why they are virtually universally not admissible in court.
Well, they are accurate to a point, just not enough so to allow them into evidence, due to the prejudicial effect they would have on a jury. Studies show accuracy rates in the 80%+ range, and the problems tend to be false positives (truth reading as lies) rather than false negatives (lies reading as truth). If a polygraph says Zimmerman was telling the truth, there is a much better than 50/50 chance that he was.
I don't think Refman was arguing that, he just said they are unreliable. Your post pretty much sums that up. Accuracy isn't 100% with both false positives and false negatives being a problem. Gary Ridgway, along with many other criminals, have passed lie detector tests. Much like an HPT, it's better to get 100% confirmation than just assume based off an unreliable machine's results.
Exactly. Taking a passed polygraph exam and using that as proof positive that his version is the unvarnished truth is a bad assumption.
Zimmerman strikes me as the kind of guy who would read about how to beat a lie detector test online. Also, the kind of guy who would molest his cousin.
I think a lot of this is just window dressing...there is a real case and real human beings lives at stake. (One was already lost). The reason this strikes such a chord is clearly there is a large faction of the public who feels safer with the Concealed Carry Crowd doing their thing in the 1-in-8 octillion chance that a Dark Night shooter might come around and shoot up a movie theater they are in. I am one of those who thinks less guns means less killing for everybody....so I am always going to oppose the Zimmer"man"'s of this world. If you want more and more concealed carry...you are gonna get more and more wannabe Batmen and Jokers like this. Maybe one of them saves your life or protects your property some day...but I have my doubts.
Not sure that anyone offered it as proof positive of anything. I offer it as a counter to the vague assertions that everything out of GZ's mouth is a lie. I think the polygraph is more reliable than that assertion because the polygraph has a scientific basis. Yay Science! And the undeniable fact is that polygraphs are in widespread use, so they must have some intrinsic value.
If it was as simple as to google "how to beat a lie detector test", then they would never be used. Perhaps you should research how a lie detector test is administered before making broad assumptions.
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugex...pw.r_qf.&fp=975c2e7cb53224f1&biw=1280&bih=593 Did you know: The consensus view among scientists is that polygraph testing has no scientific basis? The FBI considered the creator of the lie detector test to be a phony and a crackpot? The man who started the CIA's polygraph program thinks that plants can read human thoughts? The foremost polygraph advocate in academia was discredited by a federal judge? A prominent past-president of the American Polygraph Association is a phony Ph.D., and this premier polygraph organization doesn't consider it an ethics problem? The longest polygraph school produces newly minted polygraphers in just 14 weeks -- less than half the time it takes to graduate from a typical barber college? The National Center for Credibility Assessment (the erstwhile DoD Polygraph Institute) suppressed a study suggesting that innocent blacks are more likely to fail the polygraph than innocent whites? The researcher who developed the U.S. Government's polygraph Test for Espionage and Sabotage "thought the whole security screening program should be shut down?" The National Academy of Sciences concluded that "[polygraph testing's] accuracy in distinguishing actual or potential security violators from innocent test takers is insufficient to justify reliance on its use in employee security screening in federal agencies?" Spies Ignatz Theodor Griebl, Karel Frantisek Koecher, Jiri Pasovsky, Larry Wu-tai Chin, Aldrich Hazen Ames, Ana Belen Montes, and Leandro Aragoncillo all passed the polygraph? One of the most prolific serial killers in U.S. history passed the polygraph and killed again? Al-Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents know full well that the lie detector is bogus? You don't have to be a psychopath, go to spy school, or somehow believe your own lies to fool the polygraph? (We'll reveal how it's done.)
My understanding of polygraphs, which is admittedly limited. Is that accuracy can vary widely depending on the skill of the person administering the test and interpreting the results. Without knowing more about who and the conditions that the polygraph was administered to Zimmerman there is no way to determine accuracy especially when even on the best circumstances there is still a large chance of inaccuracy.
TJ there used to be a great deal of respect for you from me alone but with thw words that you have stated on this thread man rep point have fail off big time i thought that you were a lot smarter than you have let on i'm truely sad by your finding of this case.
There is the other possibility...that GZ is telling the truth, but is leaving out critical parts of the story.
