17 year old kid shot dead by Neighborhood Watch "Captain"

[IndyDave1776]

I don't know much about voice recognition. Can you match screams to a regular speaking voice? Not arguing, just don't know.

I'm now pretty skeptical in general of forensic evidence. I used to think it was all scientific, but some things I've since read tell me that a lot of it is voodoo. There was a guy in Texas who was convicted and executed from forensic arson testimony, then I found out about arson "experts" and found out that there are no standards or even solidly accepted principles.

I've read a bit about carpet fiber analysis as well, and apparently that's not as exact as we've been led to believe.

Again, voice recognition may be pure provable science, I just don't know anything about it.

As to those who say we'll never know what happened, I think we just might. I think when everything comes out we'll have a good idea. As political as this thing is, I think if they had something solid they would have arrested the guy. The state of Florida would like nothing more than to convict this guy, I'd think.

I also think that no matter what happens, Zimmerman is going to face a federal prosecution for civil rights violations. If nothing else they can use it as a stage to attack concealed carry and self defense laws.

Great point! My conclusion would be that the state and/or feds generally have comparatively unlimited funds for the services of 'expert witnesses' where most of us would not, but would rather have a slam-dunk when we and/or the jury simply give up at the appearance of one of these creatures pontificating as if he were an eyewitness rather than as a reader of tea leaves. It just makes life so much easier. After all, the prosecution is in the business of having people convicted and chalking up a score, not in the business of finding truth. Capitulation and/or BSing the jury into accepting such things as holy writ makes the process so much simpler.

 

[griffin]

Neighbor saw bandages on Zimmerman and recognizes his voice as calling for help

Neighbor defends George Zimmerman

 

[Fargo]

After all, the prosecution is in the business of having people convicted and chalking up a score, not in the business of finding truth. Capitulation and/or BSing the jury into accepting such things as holy writ makes the process so much simpler.

What is your basis for this all-encompassing statement?

Joe

 

[IndyDave1776]

What is your basis for this all-encompassing statement?

Joe

Personal observation

 

[griffin]

Listen to this trooper's high-pitched voice under duress. Doesn't sound like his normal voice.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbuuMNa8eHg[/ame]

This wasn't the particular video I was looking for, there are several others and in the one I'm thinking about the LEO's voice was real high pitched. Your voice can easily change under duress.

 

[Fargo]

Personal observation

Of?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Of?

OK, I know you are a lawyer and by extension an establishment person. I am not in the mood to argue and am not going to do so. As with most members of our species, I tend to rely upon that which I can see more so than the self-images of selected participants. When my experiences reach the point that I would prefer to call the police rather than take my own chances with criminals and would feel comfortable being in the same room with a prosecutor provided that I was not deserving of his professional attention, we will probably have sufficient common ground to talk. Until then, the only viable alternative I see is to agree to disagree.

 

[semperfi211]

I also think that no matter what happens, Zimmerman is going to face a federal prosecution for civil rights violations.

Is that what they charged the LA cops with after being found not guilty in California for the Rodney King beating?

 

[griffin]

Listen to this trooper's high-pitched voice under duress. Doesn't sound like his normal voice.

Here's another.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX5kwVc9IOk[/ame]

 

[dross]

Of?

OK, I know you are a lawyer and by extension an establishment person. I am not in the mood to argue and am not going to do so. As with most members of our species, I tend to rely upon that which I can see more so than the self-images of selected participants. When my experiences reach the point that I would prefer to call the police rather than take my own chances with criminals and would feel comfortable being in the same room with a prosecutor provided that I was not deserving of his professional attention, we will probably have sufficient common ground to talk. Until then, the only viable alternative I see is to agree to disagree.

I'm interested, myself. I have a negative view of prosecutors myself, based on things I've read. It appears to me, again from what I've read, that they tend to be more interested in what they can prove, or more accurately, what they can get someone to plea to, than in what is the truth. It appears Fargo has some firsthand experience that may refute that.

I for one, am interested in what he has to say. Maybe it will refute our lay-opinion and we'll come away with a different view, or maybe it will just be lawyers circling the wagons. Either way, I'm interested.

 

[dross]

Is that what they charged the LA cops with after being found not guilty in California for the Rodney King beating?

Yes. No matter how many times I have a lawyer argue with me that it wasn't double jeopardy, I come away still thinking that it is exactly that in terms of what the Constitution is supposed to protect us from, which is two shots at our life and liberty based on examining the same set of facts.

 

[mrjarrell]

Radley Balko has been covering prosecutors and their conduct (or misconduct) for years now. They're interested in only one thing. Making the numbers and jacking up their conviction rates. Looks good to the voters when they run.

Search Results | The Agitator

 

[IndyDave1776]

Dross, I am with you. I really don't like having an opinion of police, prosecutors, and judges that is in the toilet, and I struggle with tarring all with a stroke of one brush, but then I am left with results that tell me that I had better not trust any of them other than a select few examples I know well. One of the more egregious examples I have encountered was learning that a certain individual had been sent to prison. Having read the mail sent him by the prosecutor's office, had I been a disinterested juror, I would have walking him on that alone, and yet, somehow, he is behind bars. Equally bad is that in the county in which I grew up I could probably not stop but greatly diminish (at least until someone else stepped up to the plate) the drug market without running the magazine on my Colt Govt empty. It is pretty evident that the establishment is protecting the primary culprit by virtue of the fact he has walked when there was little question that they had him dead to rights. Of course, there is one local police officer in the county I consider trustworthy, the prosecutor is dumber than owl sh*t, and I have my questions about at least one of the judges. Much good would be done if there were some effective vehicle for taking out the trash. Unfortunately for the upstanding examples, when the image from the curb is a wall of silence, it tends to make all standing behind the wall look guilty.

 

[griffin]

I really don't like having an opinion of police, prosecutors, and judges that is in the toilet, and I struggle with tarring all with a stroke of one brush, but then I am left with results that tell me that I had better not trust any of them

I agree. My hope was that this case was the result of a three week department investigation, not just one cop on the side of the highway. Not to hijack this thread, but here are just a couple of examples of LEOs lying by planting drugs, caught on their own dash cams. I understand people always being wary of police and police reports.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD8UJZD0KZo[/ame] [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYRvxP-BRo[/ame]

There are more examples.

/hijack

Any word on when Angela Corey expects to have anything? She's already on record as saying it will be hard to prosecute Zimmerman for anything.

 

[cobber]

Dross, I am with you.

snip

Unfortunately for the upstanding examples, when the image from the curb is a wall of silence, it tends to make all standing behind the wall look guilty.

Everybody has an anecdote or two about the "system". Depending on the anecdotes you choose, the "system" is either good or bad.

This is the mentality operative in the Trayvon Martin case. Look at this one shooting, and it could look like racial profiling leading to homicide. Whites are using gun laws to murder blacks. Look at crime as a phenomenon in society at large, and you see this is an isolated incident, and the Martin case proves nothing about the US, whatever "truth" emerges about this shooting.

 

[griffin]

Look at crime as a phenomenon in society at large, and you see this is an isolated incident, and the Martin case proves nothing about the US, whatever "truth" emerges about this shooting.

Exactly. This case is atypical.

New Nation News - Black-on-White Crime

Taken from here: http://www.black-and-right.com/

 

[IndyDave1776]

Everybody has an anecdote or two about the "system". Depending on the anecdotes you choose, the "system" is either good or bad.

This is the mentality operative in the Trayvon Martin case. Look at this one shooting, and it could look like racial profiling leading to homicide. Whites are using gun laws to murder blacks. Look at crime as a phenomenon in society at large, and you see this is an isolated incident, and the Martin case proves nothing about the US, whatever "truth" emerges about this shooting.

While this is true, I will maintain that after the dog has bitten me and has bitten some of my friends even worse, you are not going to convince me that the dog is my friend.

 

[cobber]

While this is true, I will maintain that after the dog has bitten me and has bitten some of my friends even worse, you are not going to convince me that the dog is my friend.

How many dogs are we talking about here? Assuming for the sake of argument that these 'bites' were totally unwarranted, that still doesn't prove anything about dogs on the whole.



Even if Zimmerman is a racist killer, that doesn't prove anything about race relations in the US. But to those quick to jump to generalizations, one killing does a social problem make.

 

[Fargo]

I'm interested, myself. I have a negative view of prosecutors myself, based on things I've read. It appears to me, again from what I've read, that they tend to be more interested in what they can prove, or more accurately, what they can get someone to plea to, than in what is the truth. It appears Fargo has some firsthand experience that may refute that.

I for one, am interested in what he has to say. Maybe it will refute our lay-opinion and we'll come away with a different view, or maybe it will just be lawyers circling the wagons. Either way, I'm interested.

In my experience, prosecutors are people, just like any other group of people. There are good ones and there are some that dishonor their profession like Mike Nifong.

However, saying that they are by default after convictions rather than the truth is really a caricature. They are the one's bound under penalty of losing their law license to seek the truth and justice; a requirement absolutely not placed upon defense attorneys. See: Rule 3.8 and commentary:

Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct

[1] A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence. Applicable law may require other measures by the prosecutor and knowing disregard of those obligations or a systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion could constitute a violation of Rule 8.4.

Are there those that abuse their discretion and dishonor their profession? Absolutely. However, in my experience they are by far in the minority.

Also, keep in mind that in Indiana they are elected. You have control over the quality of your prosecutor. The people of any county get exactly the prosecutor they choose. If you want to elect a ethically deficient prosecutor like Carl Brizzi or Mike Nifong, you get exactly what you asked for.

Contrast that to the Indiana prosecutor in this thread who released a memo supporting the rights of citizens to defend themselves and refusing to put them before a grand jury despite the sheriff wanting him to:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...elf_defense/164714-shooting_in_trafalgar.html

I maintain that the most important county official you vote for is the prosecutor. Fundamentally, whether you have a good one or not it up to the people.


Joe

 

[Bunnykid68]

My guess is prosecutors are like cops, most of them are decent enough, but the few bad ones really muck everything up and make it hard to trust them