Did Trayvon Martin get a fair trial? - Page 4
+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 47
Like Tree19Likes

Thread: Did Trayvon Martin get a fair trial?

  1. #31
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rivergallery View Post
    That because "america" uses the Media to try people. Glad that the jurors saw through or past the mass media hysteria.. where is their outrage re black on black crime! no we only hear them pull race cards when the person is lighter skinned.. and they even leave out the fact he was a minority himself.

    Why did you put "america" in quotes?

    If we used the media to try people there probably wouldn't have been an all white woman jury of people who had never heard of the case before. Who are these people? Liars or total idiots. And thats our jury?

    This is such a BS argument. That this was about a race card. That is what people want to think when the thought of a dead kid doing nothing wrong makes them itch in their own skin. Whatever color it is. OH, GZ was BROWNISH so it wasn't about race.

    okay.

    Its not my husband out hunting down strangers, and it wont be us on trial for murder someday. Someday the jury won't go your way. So keep on chasing people around with guns and see how that works out for you.
    SID081108 likes this.

  2. #32
    Posting Addict Spacers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    My avatar is the tai chi -- a symbol of the eternal cycle of life
    Posts
    16,495

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rivergallery View Post
    There are computer programs that do voice software.. which could have determined whose voice it was.. if that had been an issue.
    It was an issue. Two different experts examined the recorded police phone call (everyone keeps saying it was 911, myself included, but it wasn't, it was made to the NON-emergency line) and they could not determine who it was. That's because there not only wasn't a long enough section of either voice, there also wasn't a similar sample of both voices available to compare to.
    David Letterman is retiring. Such great memories of watching him over the past thirty-two years!

  3. #33
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spacers View Post
    It was an issue. Two different experts examined the recorded police phone call (everyone keeps saying it was 911, myself included, but it wasn't, it was made to the NON-emergency line) and they could not determine who it was. That's because there not only wasn't a long enough section of either voice, there also wasn't a similar sample of both voices available to compare to.
    Voice heard screaming on 911 tape is not Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman, expert says | Fox News

    This is from Foxnews over a year ago.

    The judge ruled that voice analysts couldn't testify.
    SID081108 likes this.

  4. #34
    Posting Addict Rivergallery's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    9,766

    Default

    They couldn't get recordings? If Trayvon had been on trial I bet biscuits that his friends have him on their voicemail somewhere.
    DH-Aug 30th 1997 Josiah - 6/3/02 Isaac 7/31/03

  5. #35
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rivergallery View Post
    They couldn't get recordings? If Trayvon had been on trial I bet biscuits that his friends have him on their voicemail somewhere.
    The problem is matching it to yelling for help. Even with GZ alive, they couldn't say with enough certainty it was him. (Just 48%)

    If TM were on trial, that would mean he would still be alive. It would be much easier to get recordings that would help match the scream with more certainty. What's the saying? I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

  6. #36
    Posting Addict Rivergallery's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    9,766

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ethanwinfield View Post
    The problem is matching it to yelling for help. Even with GZ alive, they couldn't say with enough certainty it was him. (Just 48%)

    If TM were on trial, that would mean he would still be alive. It would be much easier to get recordings that would help match the scream with more certainty. What's the saying? I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
    I gotcha. Thanks for the info on the voice recognition.. if Zimmerman is guilty maybe the technology will catch up and he can be retried. As it might technically be new evidence
    DH-Aug 30th 1997 Josiah - 6/3/02 Isaac 7/31/03

  7. #37
    Posting Addict SID081108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    6,237

    Default

    On the voice recognition, my husband said that even the FBI (who has the best technology available) couldn't match the voice with a high enough probability, which is why the judge wouldn't let it be admissable in the trial. He was afraid it would sway the jurors and the accuracy was not high enough to allow that. I didn't research this to back it up, but he saw it on CNN.

    Quote Originally Posted by mom3girls View Post
    All of the things you are discussing were admitted into evidence by the state though Alissa. The Jury heard all of that and still decided that at the point of the shooting GZ was in fear for his life. If they didnt admit that evidence then I could see thinking he didnt get a fair trial.
    This is exactly the phrase I have an issue with. I watched part of the interview last night on CNN with the juror that has spoken out. She said that the hardest part was trying to understand the law. At one point someone on the jury asked if they should ONLY be considering if GZ feared for his life at that exact moment that he killed Trayvon, or if they should consider the circumstances that led up to it. They determined that under the Stand Your Ground law, they should only consider how he felt in that exact moment, without regard to the moments leading up to it, to determine if he acted in self-defense. I'm sorry, that is just stupid!! So I can instigate anything I want, but if at any moment I decide I got in over my head and I might end up on the wrong side of this fight, I'm free to shoot to kill?? Absolutely ridiculous. Not to mention that's not at all how it was viewed when the judge determined that Marissa Alexander couldn't use it as a defense for firing a shot in her home with an abusive husband telling her he was going to kill her. Florida is just stupid. And that is all.
    Jessica80 likes this.
    CARRIE and DH 7/14/07
    SOPHIA 8/11/08
    LAYLA 3/24/11


  8. #38
    Posting Addict Rivergallery's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    9,766

    Default

    I will have to read about Marissa's case.. I thought it was not her home.
    DH-Aug 30th 1997 Josiah - 6/3/02 Isaac 7/31/03

  9. #39
    Posting Addict Spacers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    My avatar is the tai chi -- a symbol of the eternal cycle of life
    Posts
    16,495

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rivergallery View Post
    I will have to read about Marissa's case.. I thought it was not her home.
    This statement has really been bothering me for a few days and it's not going away for me, and finally I just have to ask:

    Why would it matter? Her abusive ex-husband was coming toward her, in violation of a restraining order, and she fully expected that he would hurt her, or worse, as he had done numerous times in the past. Why should it matter whether it was her own home or not? Does she not have the right to protect herself at a friend's home, or at a neighbor's home, or in the parking lot of a grocery store?
    Rivergallery likes this.
    David Letterman is retiring. Such great memories of watching him over the past thirty-two years!

  10. #40
    Posting Addict Rivergallery's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    9,766

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spacers View Post
    This statement has really been bothering me for a few days and it's not going away for me, and finally I just have to ask:

    Why would it matter? Her abusive ex-husband was coming toward her, in violation of a restraining order, and she fully expected that he would hurt her, or worse, as he had done numerous times in the past. Why should it matter whether it was her own home or not? Does she not have the right to protect herself at a friend's home, or at a neighbor's home, or in the parking lot of a grocery store?
    In my world it wouldn't I think all women should be allowed to pack everywhere.. and all should have a knowledge of firearms. However, I think according to the law where she lived she was comiting a crime before she even withdrew her firearm. Not sure still what it was.. maybe she wasn't supposed to be where she was.
    DH-Aug 30th 1997 Josiah - 6/3/02 Isaac 7/31/03

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions