Zimmerman says Trayvon circled his SUV, frightened him...

Lil Loca · May 2012

Dirty Sanchez wrote: »

Like i said before somewhere in this thread, i only know about this case cause of the IC and still dont know shit about this.. I do not debate about this either, i basically just said that its crazy how fiat knows so much information, not just about this case but in general.

You said you believed Zimmerman on the first page. How can you say you believe him if you don't know shit about this case?

desertrain10 · May 2012

fiat_money wrote: »

^^This shows Zimmerman assumed Treyvon was a criminal; assuming someone is a criminal is not illegal.

The two women witnesses say they think the voice was from a young man; the only up close eyewitness to the fight/scuffle says Zimmerman was screaming to him for help while being attacked. The "audio experts" say there was a 48% chance that the voice outside in the rain heard in the background during 911 call was Zimmerman's, which is 12% less than the 60% needed for them to "confidently" say it was him; and they have not said which percentage of a match the voice was to Treyvon's. Can you prove that Zimmerman's nose wasn't broken? Where has Zimmerman claimed he never pursued Treyvon? Do you have anything showing which direction Zimmerman was moving after the "pursuit" (which according to the 911 call lasted less than 15 seconds)? Zimmerman had over a minute to walk around for the rest of the 911 call and perhaps even more time afterward; this, coupled with the distance that may have been traveled during the "pursuit" makes a 200 yard displacement from his car is possible.

His story is only mad leaky if you make false assumptions or misrepresent it. As it stands now, the claim that Treyvon "circled" Zimmerman's car is the weakest part of Zimmerman's claim; since he neglected to mention it during the 911 call. However, even that would not make the use of force unlawful. So, for these reasons, and the ones I've posted previously, the "pro-Zimmerman" argument is stronger.

...however this case still hinges on george's word and obviously zimmerman is going say whatever to keep his ass out of prison...so why are you so quick to believe him?...

fiat_money wrote: »

Where have I said the bolded?

Throughout this thread and others; I've used phrases like "Zimmerman's claim", "according to X person", "Y person's account", or "released evidence". I even called the picture that ABC dropped "alleged".

I've yet to assume any of these claims are true.

[/quote]

again the 911 tapes ended when he lost trayvon, what happened beyond that is conjecture ...all we know for fact is that armed with a gun gz followed a suspicious looking person first from car, than on foot and now that person is dead...

no one actually witnessed the last moments of the fatal event...the cries for help is now a moot point....also the supposed broken nose and head wounds imo is a moot point because as of right now we don't know what other injuries trayvon sustained without an official autopsy report...so again really the only thing george had going for him was his word

so ok the pro-zimmer argument= trayvon was the aggressor, zimmerman was standing his ground and trayvon was not therefore he should be absolved of any wrong doing....

however besides gz's account of what happened so far you nor has anyone in support of zimmerman hasn't presented any evidence or facts that could lead one to believe that george should not be held accountable in some shape or form for the death of tm, or more importantly that trayvon wasn't in fact acting in self defense . because the actual FACTS/evidence and lack there of so far favor gz being the aggressor, tm standing his ground, and even the writers of the law have said as much

with all that said if you believe the pro george zimmerman argument is stronger is it not reasonable for me to come to the conclusion that you would have to believe gz's story is somewhat credible? i could understand if your stance was the 'stand your ground' law favors both individuals that night and so it would be hard to convict george and you left it at that, but you have really been going out your way to defend this man at the cost of looking biased

thats all i'm saying *shrugs* but maybe your trolling or w/e. i dunno[/quote]I'll simplify things.

What is known to the public:
1. Zimmerman profiled Treyvon as a criminal over a 911 call.
2. Zimmerman shot and killed Treyvon.

What was witnessed and reported to the public:
1. There was some form of fight/scuffle between Zimmerman and Treyvon.
2. Zimmerman was yelling to a witness at some point while being attacked.
3. Zimmerman had some form of visible injury after the shooting.

What is unknown to the public:
1. Who confronted who.
2. Who started the fight.
3. Some other information of unknown relevance.

Based on this, the only thing that can disprove Zimmerman's claim of lawful use of force is what is presently unknown to the public.

However, under Florida self-defense law, even if Zimmerman confronted Treyvon and started the fight, that alone would not disprove the claim of lawful use of force:

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

For this reason, the "pro-Zimmerman" argument is stronger.[/quote]

@fiat

let me simplify things..

we know there was a fight and the public still doesn't know all the injuries trayvon sustained because he could have been battered and bruised as well so again gz injuries are a moot point until the autopsy report is revealed.... any reasonable person could see that

and so what if zimmerman yelled to a witness, all it does is corroborates is that there was a fight and at that moment in time trayvon may have had the upper hand. no one actually witness the final moments of the fatal confrontation...or who even attacked who

all he has to stand on is that he supposedly feared for his life and therefore he was justified in killing trayvon...and really one could easily argue that trayvon also felt his life was in danger and was actually 'standing his ground' more so than gz since gz had been following him for what 5-10 minutes

so really the "pro-zimmerman" argument is weak unless you take zimmerman's word as truth

sTaY_TrUe · May 2012

Yall really in here goin at it over this shit huh. Common sense and the "facts" that have been released leave no doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of a hate crime. I just hope justice is served in court of law. These bullshit laws in Florida scare me though but I think enough evidence will be provided in court.

fiat_money · May 2012

desertrain10 wrote: »

@fiat

let me simplify things..

we know there was a fight and the public still doesn't know all the injuries trayvon sustained because he could have been battered and bruised as well so again gz injuries are a moot point until the autopsy report is revealed.... any reasonable person could see that

and so what if zimmerman yelled to a witness, all it does is corroborates is that there was a fight and at that moment in time trayvon may have had the upper hand. no one actually witness the final moments of the fatal confrontation...or who even attacked who

all he has to stand on is that he supposedly feared for his life and therefore he was justified in killing trayvon...and really one could easily argue that trayvon also felt his life was in danger and was actually 'standing his ground' more so than gz since gz had been following him for what 5-10 minutes

so really the "pro-zimmerman" argument is weak unless you take zimmerman's word as truth

Conveniently, the underlined is exactly what I was referring to; having to use something not presently known to the public to disprove Zimmerman's claim of self-defense.

And it's not that you have to believe his word for the "pro-Zimmerman" argument to be strong; but that you have to disprove his word for the "pro-Zimmerman" argument to be weak.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
[...]
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27.

The only claim Zimmerman had to make is that he used force out of fear of severe injury or death, and the burden shifted to disproving that claim. What is known to the public and what was witnessed and reported to the public support this claim; they would've also supported Treyvon's claim if he were able to kill Zimmerman instead.

FieldTripsToTheHood · May 2012

sTaY_TrUe wrote: »

Yall really in here goin at it over this shit huh. Common sense and the "facts" that have been released leave no doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of a hate crime. I just hope justice is served in court of law. These bullshit laws in Florida scare me though but I think enough evidence will be provided in court.

this dude coming in playing the same old record.

Drgoo0285 · May 2012

fiat_money wrote: »

Drgoo0285 wrote: »

fiat_money wrote: »

Drgoo0285 wrote: »

fiat_money wrote: »

ghost tho wrote: »

fiat_money wrote: »

Jamaica wrote: »

@fiat_money two points

Here's a quote explaining the methodology:

The software spits out values on each element of speech, including pitch, energy distributions, word length (the time it takes to say a word), coupling (the nasal characteristics of the speaker), intonation and emphasis on certain sounds or words.

The bolded doesn't really apply here, since the screaming voice was not speaking in sentences or saying anything much more than "help". This leaves pitch, energy distributions, and coupling. It's already known that they used a sample of Zimmerman's voice that was at a different pitch than his voice would be at while screaming. So this basically leaves energy distributions and coupling which were the most applicable to this situation. Using this, they got a 48% match, which is 12% lower than the 60% at which they'd say it's likely that the voices are from the same person. Additionally, both samples were poor over-the-phone samples, and one was outside in the rain, during the background of a 911 call. Plus, there's no data on the effectiveness of comparing a screaming voice with a speaking voice to begin with; meaning the 60% figure might not even apply.
\

I am not sure about the effective data of screaming vs speaking,... but the voice samples are more than enough to analyze . It would be very easy to just filter out the sounds of static and rain using mid level beat making software.

milehightoker · May 2012

VIBE wrote: »

Okay, is it against the law for a neighborhood watchman to carry a weapon?

Hoodies are used in crimes, they're used to cover up the head/face so you aren't easily identifiable. Someone wearing a hoodie doesn't make them automatically a criminal but it gives off suspicion because people do use them in crimes.

I swear I heard that there were break ins in recent months in Zimmermans neighborhood. If so, his could be the reason why he was highly suspicious. Also could be the reason why he said, "these assholes always get away" and "fuckin' punks".

I'm Hispanic/Caucasian, I consider myself white because I don't speak Spanish, I don't celebrate their celebrations etc... I've always made fun of white trash and beaners, am I a racist to myself?

No, that just makes you a clown.

fiat_money · May 2012

Drgoo0285 wrote: »

I am not sure about the effective data of screaming vs speaking,... but the voice samples are more than enough to analyze . It would be very easy to just filter out the sounds of static and rain using mid level beat making software.

Filtering things out still won't improve the quality of the sample.

edwardnigma · May 2012

Once again what in the fuck are you trying to defend?

Zimmerman apologized for killing the boy infront of the world and the family...he said he didn't know the boy was unarmed?

What is your point? Aside from playing the game of Devils Advocate?

You guys are arguing pointless things. Just beating around the bush.

Black people need to avoid the judicial system on this one, this needs to be handled in the streets with ruthlessness and

cunning not in the courts of bigotry, wickedness, and manipulation.

This is becoming what it always does, a Black vs white thing, and white people will treat the court system like a basketball

game but one they can win. They are our natural enemy so going by their system is a guaranteed loss.

They no longer dont see it as a little boy who got murdered they just look at it as a chance to get one over

on the Black community or how they say it in private "those fucking niggers and thugs"

Cabana_Da_Don · May 2012

In the end of the day...He killed a teenager with a gun.There´s no way around it.

heyslick · May 2012

edwardnigma wrote: »

Once again what in the fuck are you trying to defend?

Zimmerman apologized for killing the boy infront of the world and the family...he said he didn't know the boy was unarmed?

What is your point? Aside from playing the game of Devils Advocate?

You guys are arguing pointless things. Just beating around the bush.

Black people need to avoid the judicial system on this one, this needs to be handled in the streets with ruthlessness and

cunning not in the courts of bigotry, wickedness, and manipulation.

This is becoming what it always does, a Black vs white thing, and white people will treat the court system like a basketball

game but one they can win. They are our natural enemy so going by their system is a guaranteed loss.

They no longer dont see it as a little boy who got murdered they just look at it as a chance to get one over

on the Black community or how they say it in private "those fucking niggers and thugs"

Thanks! for being forthright. BTW in the court of public opinion you have just validated the emotions of so many non-black folks fears....keep up the good work.

FieldTripsToTheHood · May 2012

Where are you with the threads about black killing blacks ON A DAILY BASIS....for "turf" owned by white men?

VIBE · May 2012

milehightoker wrote: »

VIBE wrote: »

Okay, is it against the law for a neighborhood watchman to carry a weapon?

Hoodies are used in crimes, they're used to cover up the head/face so you aren't easily identifiable. Someone wearing a hoodie doesn't make them automatically a criminal but it gives off suspicion because people do use them in crimes.

I swear I heard that there were break ins in recent months in Zimmermans neighborhood. If so, his could be the reason why he was highly suspicious. Also could be the reason why he said, "these assholes always get away" and "fuckin' punks".

I'm Hispanic/Caucasian, I consider myself white because I don't speak Spanish, I don't celebrate their celebrations etc... I've always made fun of white trash and beaners, am I a racist to myself?

No, that just makes you a clown.

LOL

And LOL @ anyone thinking they're schooling Fiat, "let me simplify it for you..." lol smh

AllHipHop.com

Forums

Zimmerman says Trayvon circled his SUV, frightened him...

Replies