Witness: Martin Attacked Zimmerman (2)

[dolphinocean]

Thank you for letting me know.
lol
I didn't even realize what I had done there until just now when I read your above post.
:3oops:
I am sorry to you both for confusing your statements.
I was wrong there. Please except my apology.

Good job, Excon.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

If the DA had something, I think they would be prosecuting. You don't take everything to court, unless you think a crime has been committed and have sufficient evidence to prove a case. What do you think WE know? I think this is really all about what YOU feel.

To be fair new evidence has come to light since the investigation was ended.

If the SA had access to all of what has come out, he may have decided differently.

 

[haymarket]

To be fair new evidence has come to light since the investigation was ended.

If the DA had access to all of what has come out, he may have decided differently.

And it is NOT too late for him to still prosecute.

 

[Gladiator]

If the DA had something, I think they would be prosecuting. You don't take everything to court, unless you think a crime has been committed and have sufficient evidence to prove a case. What do you think WE know? I think this is really all about what YOU feel.

So maybe a lesson I can learn from the tragedy of Trayvon's death, is that if I am in a fist fight, and I appear to have the upper hand, with my opponent cornered, and in a moment of exhuberation, I say something like, "Now you are going to die," to my opponent, that such a comment might cause an escalation from an ordinary fist fight, into a fight to the death, justifying deadly force. Is it possible that my opponent, or someone acting on his behalf, might feel justified in using deadly force against me, based upon my words and actions?

If Trayvon made some comment regarding Zimmerman's imminent death, while Travon had Zimmerman pinned down on the grass or sidewalk, then it would not seem likely that Trayvon was just trying to scare Zimmerman, so he would run away. Was it physically possible for Zimmerman to run away, when Trayvon may have spoken in anger, about "Death", to Zimmerman? If a threat of killing is made, and the agressor gives the opponent a way to retreat, or run away, then there might be some idea that the word "Die" was just intended as an expression of anger, with the intention of scaring the opponent to give up and walk, or run, in retreat.

Did Trayvon intend to engage Zimmerman in a fight to the death? Was Trayvon just expressing his feeling of anger, but not really intending to follow through, as a fight to the death? What did Zimmerman feel his chances were of getting off a shot, aiming at a non-life-threatening target area, and still be assured that Trayvon would not use that time required for a non-lethal shot, to get control of the pistol?


//

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Thank you for letting me know.
lol
I didn't even realize what I had done there until just now when I read your above post.
:3oops:
I am sorry to you both for confusing your statements.
I was wrong there. Please except my apology.

It's okay. I've done the exact same thing before and will probably do it again one day. No worries.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

So maybe a lesson I can learn from the tragedy of Trayvon's death, is that if I am in a fist fight, and I appear to have the upper hand, with my opponent cornered, and in a moment of exhuberation, I say something like, "Now you are going to die," to my opponent, that such a comment might cause an escalation from an ordinary fist fight, into a fight to the death, justifying deadly force. Is it possible that my opponent, or someone acting on his behalf, might feel justified in using deadly force against me, based upon my words and actions?

If Trayvon made some comment regarding Zimmerman's imminent death, while Travon had Zimmerman pinned down on the grass or sidewalk, then it would not seem likely that Trayvon was just trying to scare Zimmerman, so he would run away. Was it physically possible for Zimmerman to run away, when Trayvon may have spoken in anger, about "Death", to Zimmerman? If a threat of killing is made, and the agressor gives the opponent a way to retreat, or run away, then there might be some idea that the word "Die" was just intended as an expression of anger, with the intention of scaring the opponent to give up and walk, or run, in retreat.

Did Trayvon intend to engage Zimmerman in a fight to the death? Was Trayvon just expressing his feeling of anger, but not really intending to follow through, as a fight to the death? What did Zimmerman feel his chances were of getting off a shot, aiming at a non-life-threatening target area, and still be assured that Trayvon would not use that time required for a non-lethal shot, to get control of the pistol?

You're leaving out the assertion that Martin went for Zimmerman's gun. That has to be in there too to make the statement useful.

If you look at Z's story you can see that it has precisely all the elements needed to establish a solid self-defense claim.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

more about voice biometrics from SANS


http://www.sans.org/reading_room/whitepapers/authentication/exploration-voice-biometrics_1436

 

[Simon W. Moon]

http://www.sans.org/reading_room/whitepapers/authentication/exploration-voice-biometrics_1436

"
In 1941, Bell Telephone Laboratories began work on early spectrograms.11 The variation in voices, the very thing which makes voice authentication possible, made it difficult for
researchers to create automated ways of analyzing voices.
In these early days, the research was driven by the potential to use voice technology to track enemy movement via radio traffic. The idea was to identify a
specific voice, note the location of the transmission, and then try to identify the same voice at a later point in time in a new location to determine troop
movements. At that point, the technology was not advanced enough to support this use case, and efforts were frustrating. As time went on, applications in law
enforcement began to drive the research.
As spectrograph technology improved, enhanced automated analysis began to emerge. Today there is an array of commercial software available that
utilizes automated analysis successfully to accomplish voice authentication.


Banking
Reducing crime at Automated Teller Machines is an ongoing struggle.
Banks have started using biometrics to authenticate users before allowing ATM transactions. Users generally must provide a pin number and a voice sample to
be allowed access.
Royal Canadian Bank is using voice authentication to allow access to telephone banking.

US Social Security Administration
The United States Social Security Administration is using voice authentication to allow employers to report W-2 wages online. Used in
combination with a pin number, the voice authentication provides system security and user convenience.

Law Enforcement
In Louisiana, criminals are kept on a short leash with voice biometrics.
This inexpensive approach allows law enforcement to check in with offenders at random times of the day. The offender must answer the phone and speak a
phrase that is used for authentication. This system guarantees that they are where they are supposed to be!
Voice authentication has also been used in criminal cases, such as rape and murder cases, to verify the identity of an individual in a recorded
conversation.
There is a terrorism application also. Voice authentication is frequently used to validate the identity of terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden on
recorded conversations. Hopefully these clues will one day assist in his capture.
"

 

[Excon]

Fooled? You are thinking about lie detectors, voice print analysis is not a lie detector. It's a computer program

And it can be fooled.

This specific information will have no effect.

They already have two witnesses that confirm it was Zimmerman.
There is no reason to doubt the witness that said it was Zimmerman who was calling out for help. None.
The statement is corroborated, therefore they have no need to request a forensic analysis.

Honestly you would think someone would realize by now why this specific information isn't going to be used.
It isn't an analysis of the original recordings.


Now if, charges are brought against Zimmerman and they want to say it wasn't him calling for help they are going to have to have an analysis of the originals done, which can easily be defended. Zimmerman only has to provide samples of him yelling for it to be determined that it was him.

The convict Zimmerman side sure is grasping.
A video doesn't show his injuries, and that becomes the definitive evidence that he wasn't harmed and therefore lied. That's pathetic.
That video doesn't matter because there will be Medical reports examined.
Now they want to lay claim to some unofficial analysis of the screams that can't even be used all the while ignoring the eye-witness because it doesn't fit with their preconceived biased position.
It isn't just reaching, but over reaching.

 

[Excon]

Saying it again and again to deflect from the argument isn’t a logical debate point.

lol
There was no deflection.
Pointing out that what you brought up as having no pertinence to the incident at hand is not a deflection.

This part of the fight is so clear that any person viewing this video just once would know who was the one who was say, “ I was asleep, Sir” at least twice.

And you are wrong. You are assuming it is him talking, when it was actually the other guy.
The two individuals both have very different voices. The pitch and timbre are both different.
The taller of the two, the one that was sleeping, sounds as if he has a wad of bubble gum in his mouth, while the one who was on the phone is much more clear.
It was the one who was sleeping who was saying that, not the one who was on the phone.
Maybe you need to see a longer one so the callers voice has more time to sink in for comparison.

The video is here for replay but yet you still want to glaringly twist the fact intentionally. That is a willful lie.

Sorry, but you are wrong again. Although I know you are wrong, I don't call you are liar because you are not purposely holding something out to be true that you know is untrue. If you were, that would be lying.
And in all honestly, that is how you should be viewing the other person, as if they believe what they are saying instead of assuming they are lying.

the burly guy was saying he was asleep while the officers were trying to get him to sit down. The voice is the same voice as the wannabe tough guy on the phone at the beginning of the video. The slim guy was lying still on the floor. His diaphragm wasn’t even moving as like in talking and nobody was asking him questions.

lol That is not his voice. No matter how much you want it to be, it isn't. He doesn't sound like that at all.
You can see it is the guy who was sleeping talking towards the end, barely making out his mouth moving, and you want to make a point of not seeing a diaphragm move? lol
lol The guy who was on the phone? You can't see his diaphragm move either, or his mouth. Now what?

This is a very simple matter. It was not the guy's voice who was on the phone.

But you have gone overboard. Calling me a liar when I am not lying and then taking this difference into another topic.
You are clearly wrong on all points.





　

So trying to provide correct info to help out deserved to be punched and kicked while you are laying on the ground?

I don’t know what planet you live. Where I live I hear people give out impromptu correction all the time whether on the streets or in the bus when they hear someone provided an unintended error of direction to another. I did that all the time and never ever got myself into a fight except for "thank you".

Did you even bother to read what I said?
Do you not understand that there is a different set of rules to live by in a custodial setting then on the outside.
Do you not get that? Do you not understand that not abiding by those rules can get a person killed?
He was wrong for not minding his own business and was even more wrong because he corrected the guy.

You have no concern about what other posters on Youtube are saying because you know you are lying since the fact is out here to be seen. That's the truth.

lol The truth. lol You have already shown everybody you are wrong and now you are trying to lay claim to the truth. Hysterical.
No. I have no concern for them being wrong there because it doesn't matter here.
If I was there arguing it, it would matter. But I am not. I am here so them being wrong there doesn't matter.


Now if you would like to continue this discussion then start a new topic, and I will gladly participate. But it doesn't belong in this one.
So lets move on. Shall we?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

And it can be fooled.

Cite for this statement and please give us the details of the limits of it's accuracy. Could Zimmerman have decided to fool it? Could Martin? Once one of these guys made that decision to "fool it," what would they have to do?

This specific information will have no effect.

But it could be replicated by expert witnesses and THAT specific information could have an effect.

They already have two witnesses that confirm it was Zimmerman.
There is no reason to doubt the witness that said it was Zimmerman who was calling out for help. None.

Plenty of people have witnessed the recordings, not just two. There're multiple witnesses to the recordings who have offered conflicting reports.

The statement is corroborated, therefore they have no need to request a forensic analysis.

I am not sure where you're getting this.

Honestly you would think someone would realize by now why this specific information isn't going to be used.
It isn't an analysis of the original recordings.
Now they want to lay claim to some unofficial analysis of the screams that can't even be used all the while ignoring the eye-witness because it doesn't fit with their preconceived biased position.

Why is it that you think that this cannot be replicated by the appropriate expert witnesses?

 

[What if...?]

http://www.sans.org/reading_room/whitepapers/authentication/exploration-voice-biometrics_1436

"
In 1941, Bell Telephone Laboratories began work on early spectrograms.11 The variation in voices, the very thing which makes voice authentication possible, made it difficult for
researchers to create automated ways of analyzing voices.
In these early days, the research was driven by the potential to use voice technology to track enemy movement via radio traffic. The idea was to identify a
specific voice, note the location of the transmission, and then try to identify the same voice at a later point in time in a new location to determine troop
movements. At that point, the technology was not advanced enough to support this use case, and efforts were frustrating. As time went on, applications in law
enforcement began to drive the research.
As spectrograph technology improved, enhanced automated analysis began to emerge. Today there is an array of commercial software available that
utilizes automated analysis successfully to accomplish voice authentication.


Banking
Reducing crime at Automated Teller Machines is an ongoing struggle.
Banks have started using biometrics to authenticate users before allowing ATM transactions. Users generally must provide a pin number and a voice sample to
be allowed access.
Royal Canadian Bank is using voice authentication to allow access to telephone banking.

US Social Security Administration
The United States Social Security Administration is using voice authentication to allow employers to report W-2 wages online. Used in
combination with a pin number, the voice authentication provides system security and user convenience.

Law Enforcement
In Louisiana, criminals are kept on a short leash with voice biometrics.
This inexpensive approach allows law enforcement to check in with offenders at random times of the day. The offender must answer the phone and speak a
phrase that is used for authentication. This system guarantees that they are where they are supposed to be!
Voice authentication has also been used in criminal cases, such as rape and murder cases, to verify the identity of an individual in a recorded
conversation.
There is a terrorism application also. Voice authentication is frequently used to validate the identity of terrorists such as Osama Bin Laden on
recorded conversations. Hopefully these clues will one day assist in his capture.
"

Thanks for this, I couldn't get the link to open.

The research I did on this was in the vein of identifying a user for security purposes.

Mkst of these systems are "two pronged" asking questions based on the initial "set up" process. This prevents the recording of the persons voice and using it to bypass voice sechrity as we've apl seen in the movies.

But in my research I learned a bit about how the underlying technology works.

In this case we have screams in the background of a.call. From what I understand, even screams can be determined to have NOT come from an individual. They can tell which "notes" an individual is capable of based on the "baseline" voice.

That said, the amount of "cleanup" necessary to isolate the sounds in question can reduce accuracy.

Unless and until a sample of Martins voice can be compared, its really still up in the air. (Afaik)

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Unless and until a sample of Martins voice can be compared, its really still up in the air. (Afaik)

There're generally two ways of using identifying data, one to confirm ID and to rule out ID.
Martin's voice would be needed to show that it IS martin's voice. But, a recording of Martin's voice wouldn't be necessary to show that it's NOT Zimmerman's voice.

 

[What if...?]

There're generally two ways of using identifying data, one to confirm ID and to rule out ID.
Martin's voice would be needed to show that it IS martin's voice. But, a recording of Martin's voice wouldn't be necessary to show that it's NOT Zimmerman's voice.

Right.

My point is that from my understanding, the more "cleaning up" the source requires the less "accuracy" is possible. So if a sample of Martins voice is run through the same comparison it may confirm or refute the analysis of Zims voice.

I'm certainly no expert on the topic.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I think it would be best to show that it did match one voice and did not match one voice with a discussion of probable accuracy/error.

That's the kind of thing I would like if I were sitting in the jury and making this kind of a decision about these peoples lives.

 

[Gladiator]

You're leaving out the assertion that Martin went for Zimmerman's gun. That has to be in there too to make the statement useful.

If you look at Z's story you can see that it has precisely all the elements needed to establish a solid self-defense claim.

I guess the background issue is that police in Southern States have a history of too often being slow to find justice for African-Americans.


In Trayvon Martin’s shooting, echoes of my brother’s death - The Washington Post


//

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I guess the background issue is that police in Southern States have a history of too often being slow to find justice for African-Americans.


In Trayvon Martin’s shooting, echoes of my brother’s death - The Washington Post


//

Chief Bill Lee was hired not that long ago to replace a Chief and to deal with a perception that there was some sort of racial issue with the community and the police.

So you're right it didnt happen in a vacuum

 

[d0gbreath]

Those that can be beat up by 17 y/o boys should not be in enforcement roles. This kind of screams why Zimmerman didn't make the cut for the Police Department.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Chief Bill Lee was hired not that long ago to replace a Chief and to deal with a perception that there was some sort of racial issue with the community and the police.

So you're right it didnt happen in a vacuum

Sanford new police chief: Sanford's new police Chief Bill Lee Jr. to focus on community policing - Orlando Sentinel

Sanford's new chief to focus on community policing
"The police department is going through some pretty tough times."

(George Skene/Orlando Sentinel)
June 11, 2011|By Rene Stutzman, Orlando Sentinel
SANFORD — When Bill Lee Jr. last month took over as chief of police in Sanford, he inherited a department beset with problems: hard-core urban crime in poor neighborhoods; hostility from many in the black community; fallout from a December scandal involving the son of a department lieutenant; and budget cuts.

A: I was born and raised in Sanford. My father retired from the Fire Department after 34 years of service. … The Police Department is going through some pretty tough times, [including] its relationship with the community. It was pretty tumultuous. Sometimes it's easy to talk about doing things, but sometimes it's the right thing to do, to step up to the plate — not just talk about it — step up to the plate and see if you can help.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Those that can be beat up by 17 y/o boys should not be in enforcement roles. This kind of screams why Zimmerman didn't make the cut for the Police Department.

I am pondering what it means if it's true that Martin didn't have bruises from being in a fight. I mean the ones from being hit. Did Z just turtle up and start yelling for help?

It's easier to guess what it means if Martin didn't have ones from hitting someone.

 

[Caine]

I guess the background issue is that police in Southern States have a history of too often being slow to find justice for African-Americans.


In Trayvon Martin’s shooting, echoes of my brother’s death - The Washington Post


//

Justice is often NEVER found for many people, black white or in between.

I think TV shows like CSI, etc, etc are to blame for people's perception that the perpetrator of a crime is always caught or the police aren't doing their jobs right.

 

[Caine]

I am pondering what it means if it's true that Martin didn't have bruises from being in a fight. I mean the ones from being hit. Did Z just turtle up and start yelling for help?

It's easier to guess what it means if Martin didn't have ones from hitting someone.

I've punched people without signs of having punched them.... *shrug* That doesn't mean much to me.

 

[joko104]

So maybe a lesson I can learn from the tragedy of Trayvon's death, is that if I am in a fist fight, and I appear to have the upper hand, with my opponent cornered, and in a moment of exhuberation, I say something like, "Now you are going to die," to my opponent, that such a comment might cause an escalation from an ordinary fist fight, into a fight to the death, justifying deadly force. Is it possible that my opponent, or someone acting on his behalf, might feel justified in using deadly force against me, based upon my words and actions?

If Trayvon made some comment regarding Zimmerman's imminent death, while Travon had Zimmerman pinned down on the grass or sidewalk, then it would not seem likely that Trayvon was just trying to scare Zimmerman, so he would run away. Was it physically possible for Zimmerman to run away, when Trayvon may have spoken in anger, about "Death", to Zimmerman? If a threat of killing is made, and the agressor gives the opponent a way to retreat, or run away, then there might be some idea that the word "Die" was just intended as an expression of anger, with the intention of scaring the opponent to give up and walk, or run, in retreat.

Did Trayvon intend to engage Zimmerman in a fight to the death? Was Trayvon just expressing his feeling of anger, but not really intending to follow through, as a fight to the death? What did Zimmerman feel his chances were of getting off a shot, aiming at a non-life-threatening target area, and still be assured that Trayvon would not use that time required for a non-lethal shot, to get control of the pistol?


//

If a person has beaten you to the ground and is still beating you that you can't stop - and that person shouts "now you are going to die?"

Yes, I think a reasonable person would take that statement as a threat if imminent or ongoing serious bodily harm and may use deadly force. Nor would it take that much either.

 

[American]

To be fair new evidence has come to light since the investigation was ended.

If the SA had access to all of what has come out, he may have decided differently.

Oh really, murder has no statute of limitation.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Oh really, murder has no statute of limitation.

True.
I'm not sure what you're point is.
:shrug: