Zimmerman Fails Voice Recognition Test

[OtaniKitano]

I have been a gun owner since the age of 12. And on occasion, I have packed a concealed weopon. The first thing I was taught concerning guns, is that when you are carrying one, you are responsible for what happens with that gun. You can defend yourself, but if you initiate the conflict, then use your gun, you are in the wrong.

Now, given the fact that the kid was doing absolutely nothing wrong, that Zimmerman's state of mind is evident from his statements on the calls he made to the police, and his BS story concerning the fight, if charges are not brought, we have a clear miscarriage of justice. No marks in the police video taken 40 minutes after the crime, and now a voice identification that says that Zimmerman's story that he was the one crying for help is just more BS. At this point, I think Zimmerman is guilty of murder one.

I do too. BUt the righties here are really trying to forget that the police dispatcher told Zimmerman to stand down and not follow Martin. What part of that is so hard to get through their thick skulls? Neighborhood Watch groups are supposed to watch and then dial. Not follow with a gun.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman did not follow that instruction. What part of that is so hard to get through your thick skull?

WHAT?????? Bahahahahaaaaaa.....Would you like to corroborate that?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Two 'experts' or the eye witness.... I lean towards believing the eye witness.

The eye-witnesses were all over the place on this, even as it was occurring.

These two were forensic experts ... I'd like to know what the FBI / FDLE experts have to say about this, tho'.

They think its Zimmerman by the only means possible. Witness testimony.

 

[California Girl]

I"m a leftie who grew up in the far west with lockers full of venison and elk in the freezer. Everybody in my family except me hunts.

But I think my epiphany was when I was visiting in Japan in 2000. Our hosts turned the conversation to Columbine, and one turned to me and asked me what the hell was wrong with America, it's obsession with guns and how did Columbine happen. I was at a loss to explain. There are very, very few deaths by gun in Japan. This country is reverting back to the 60's and these "stand your ground" laws are an abomination, as we are seeing.

The foreign population of Japan is 1.6%. They have a very low number of black people or hispanic people. Japan is a notoriously xenophobic country. There is a low crime rate in Japan for the same reasons there is a low crime rate in all white or all asian communities in the US.

LOL!!!! Do you know what the gun laws are in Japan? Better check out some other stats while you're at it and see how the murder rates compare to the U.S. from Britain, France, Italy, Sweden, Spain, Germany....Lots of color in those countries but I doubt you've ever been there to see.

You are a total idiot not to mention racist.

I have been to each of the countries you mention. I suggest you pick one and move there (please avoid Britain and France... I like both those). There are places in my local area that I wouldn't walk through in daylight... yet alone at night. All countries have their issues.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I do too. BUt the righties here are really trying to forget that the police dispatcher told Zimmerman to stand down and not follow Martin. What part of that is so hard to get through their thick skulls? Neighborhood Watch groups are supposed to watch and then dial. Not follow with a gun.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman did not follow that instruction. What part of that is so hard to get through your thick skull?

WHAT?????? Bahahahahaaaaaa.....Would you like to corroborate that?

He says ok and walks to his truck on the 911 call...he then says "I dont know where this kid is"

Martin ends up dead not far from the truck.

He ran and came back and confronted Zman from the ear-witness girlfriend.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Two 'experts' or the eye witness.... I lean towards believing the eye witness.

That's because you're a conservative; science is anathema to conservatives as it dispels their opinions and causes cognitive dissonance.

 

[California Girl]

I do too. BUt the righties here are really trying to forget that the police dispatcher told Zimmerman to stand down and not follow Martin. What part of that is so hard to get through their thick skulls? Neighborhood Watch groups are supposed to watch and then dial. Not follow with a gun.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman did not follow that instruction. What part of that is so hard to get through your thick skull?

WHAT?????? Bahahahahaaaaaa.....Would you like to corroborate that?

Based on Zimmerman's explanation. His lawyer provided his account. That account is that, when told by the dispatcher not to follow, he turned and headed back to his car. His account then has Martin coming up behind him and asking if he had a problem.... to which Zimmerman responded 'no'.... and Martin said 'you do now'... and attacked Zimmerman. If that account is true.... then whatever happened next is self defense.

Is Zimmerman's account true? I don't know.... what I do know is that there are two fucking sides to this incident... and you are clearly not taking account of one side and assuming the other to be 'fact'. That, makes you foolish.

 

[California Girl]

Two 'experts' or the eye witness.... I lean towards believing the eye witness.

That's because you're a conservative; science is anathema to conservatives as it dispels their opinions and causes cognitive dissonance.

You're an idiot. This constant repetitive bullshit about conservatives hating science proves that you are an idiot. Use all the big words you want... you still look like a fucking idiot.

 

[OODA_Loop]

That's because you're a conservative; science is anathema to conservatives as it dispels their opinions and causes cognitive dissonance.

Scientifically proved there is almost a 50/50 chance (48%) it could be either one based incomplete and non-first party gathered data ?

Cognitive dissonance ?

 

[Oldstyle]

Two 'experts' or the eye witness.... I lean towards believing the eye witness.

That's because you're a conservative; science is anathema to conservatives as it dispels their opinions and causes cognitive dissonance.

Big words to make YOUR opinon sound valid, Catcher? Sorry, but in this day and age "scientific experts" that will give you an opinon one way or the other are as easy to find as leaves on the ground come Fall.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In Michigan one can use a firearm if a reasonable person believes he is in imminent danger, fear of grave bodily harm, or sexual assault.

I don't believe in a fair fight.

The decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances.

Be careful if and when you use your weapon. Your comments, made above, seem to suggest "Reasonable" does not fit your profile.

 

[Peach]

That's because you're a conservative; science is anathema to conservatives as it dispels their opinions and causes cognitive dissonance.

Scientifically proved there is almost a 50/50 chance (48%) it could be either one based incomplete and non-first party gathered data ?

Cognitive dissonance ?

17 teen year old attacked: 2nd degree murder when he killed, 28 year old attacks, while claiming self defense, and kills, -0-.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Two 'experts' or the eye witness.... I lean towards believing the eye witness.

That's because you're a conservative; science is anathema to conservatives as it dispels their opinions and causes cognitive dissonance.

Big words to make YOUR opinon sound valid, Catcher? Sorry, but in this day and age "scientific experts" that will give you an opinon one way or the other are as easy to find as leaves on the ground come Fall.

True. Opinion can be purchased by the highest bidder. But that occurs in trial and is not the case in a criminal investigation. Those investigators are the ones to be grilled on the stand when defense council seeks to mitigate the damage to their client.

Given the ancillary issues in the Zimmerman investigation one might presume dollars will flow to Zimmerman's defense, NRA dollars.

"Eye witnesses" are mostly wrong. Given the same circumstance witnessed by half a dozen persons, their statements will never be exactly the same.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Two 'experts' or the eye witness.... I lean towards believing the eye witness.

That's because you're a conservative; science is anathema to conservatives as it dispels their opinions and causes cognitive dissonance.

You're an idiot. This constant repetitive bullshit about conservatives hating science proves that you are an idiot. Use all the big words you want... you still look like a fucking idiot.

What does a "fucking idiot" look like? Is a "fucking idiot" more or less idiotic than a non fucking idiot? I admit to fucking with conservatives, but not without cause and some evidence.

You, for example, choose to believe two "eye witnesses" and dismiss out of hand forensic evidence, inferring the science must be biased. Did it every occur to you that eye witnesses might hold a bias? Of course forensic evidence can be tested, and will be examined by hired 'experts' by the defense; an so too can 'eye witnesses'. They will be interviewed several times by different examiners and their 'stories' recorded.

 

[OODA_Loop]

You, for example, choose to believe two "eye witnesses" and dismiss out of hand forensic evidence, inferring the science must be biased. Did it every occur to you that eye witnesses might hold a bias? Of course forensic evidence can be tested, and will be examined by hired 'experts' by the defense; an so too can 'eye witnesses'. They will be interviewed several times by different examiners and their 'stories' recorded.

Yes the eye witnesses are racist like Zimmerman.

Which forensic evidence ?

 

[Wry Catcher]

You, for example, choose to believe two "eye witnesses" and dismiss out of hand forensic evidence, inferring the science must be biased. Did it every occur to you that eye witnesses might hold a bias? Of course forensic evidence can be tested, and will be examined by hired 'experts' by the defense; an so too can 'eye witnesses'. They will be interviewed several times by different examiners and their 'stories' recorded.

Yes the eye witnesses are racist like Zimmerman. You said that, I didn't

Which forensic evidence ?

Are you kidding?

 

[OODA_Loop]

You, for example, choose to believe two "eye witnesses" and dismiss out of hand forensic evidence, inferring the science must be biased. Did it every occur to you that eye witnesses might hold a bias? Of course forensic evidence can be tested, and will be examined by hired 'experts' by the defense; an so too can 'eye witnesses'. They will be interviewed several times by different examiners and their 'stories' recorded.

Yes the eye witnesses are racist like Zimmerman. You said that, I didn't

Which forensic evidence ?

Are you kidding?

What is the eyewitness bias ?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yes the eye witnesses are racist like Zimmerman. You said that, I didn't

Which forensic evidence ?

Are you kidding?

What is the eyewitness bias ?

I have no opinion beyond that fact that you read with a bias. I stated quite clearly witnesses might have a bias not that they do. I also noted witnesses are not reliable.

As for what forensic evidence, in the OP's link there is this explanation:

"Tom Owen, forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services LLC and chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, told the Sentinel that he used voice identification software to rule out Zimmerman."

 

[California Girl]

That's because you're a conservative; science is anathema to conservatives as it dispels their opinions and causes cognitive dissonance.

You're an idiot. This constant repetitive bullshit about conservatives hating science proves that you are an idiot. Use all the big words you want... you still look like a fucking idiot.

What does a "fucking idiot" look like? Is a "fucking idiot" more or less idiotic than a non fucking idiot? I admit to fucking with conservatives, but not without cause and some evidence.

You, for example, choose to believe two "eye witnesses" and dismiss out of hand forensic evidence, inferring the science must be biased. Did it every occur to you that eye witnesses might hold a bias? Of course forensic evidence can be tested, and will be examined by hired 'experts' by the defense; an so too can 'eye witnesses'. They will be interviewed several times by different examiners and their 'stories' recorded.

Having studied (for work) the science behind 'eye witness' testimony, I do have a reasonable understanding of the research. My problem with claiming that eye witness testimony is unreliable is simply this..... yes, it is unreliable... when it comes to identifying an individual.... but that is not what this eye witness testimony is about. Eye witness testimony when it comes to describing a set of events is not unreliable. In this case, there is no question about the identity of those involved. We are clear on that. Zimmerman does not deny what he did. Where the eye witness testimony is important is to provide an independent version of the sequence of events. That testimony supports Zimmerman's story. That is rational, it has nothing to do with science.... in fact, the research into this kind of testimony shows that it is very reliable... which is why it's important. If you are too fucking stupid to understand the difference between ID eye witness reliability and event eye witness reliability... then you really are too damned dumb to discuss this with.

Yes, it has occurred to me that the witnesses may be biased. Which is why I have constantly maintained that we don't KNOW enough to decide guilt or innocence.... I haven't been trying to 'defend' either side.... I have consistently supported the fucking process... it is hacks like you that want to lynch someone on fucking media reports - many of which have been proved to be fucking bullshit.... but that has not stopped you hacks from repeating it.

I dislike trial by media.... and I prefer a jury of ones peers to an American Idol 'vote guilty or not guilty'.... it appears from your posts that you prefer the latter.

 

[California Girl]

Are you kidding?

What is the eyewitness bias ?

I have no opinion beyond that fact that you read with a bias. I stated quite clearly witnesses might have a bias not that they do. I also noted witnesses are not reliable.

As for what forensic evidence, in the OP's link there is this explanation:

"Tom Owen, forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services LLC and chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, told the Sentinel that he used voice identification software to rule out Zimmerman."

What was his methodology for ruling out Zimmerman?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Are you kidding?

What is the eyewitness bias ?

I have no opinion beyond that fact that you read with a bias. I stated quite clearly witnesses might have a bias not that they do. I also noted witnesses are not reliable.

As for what forensic evidence, in the OP's link there is this explanation:

"Tom Owen, forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services LLC and chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, told the Sentinel that he used voice identification software to rule out Zimmerman."

Ruled out to 48% with insufficient data accumulated.

What might the witness bias that you allude to be ?