Heat = Stand up guys? Trayvon Martin

[BR0D1E86]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/ ... UK20120403

Is it illegal for the police to use the cellphone? Common sense says they could just call a number or 2(unless it was locked) to call someone and ask who's number this was UNLESS they have to get a warrant to do that.

They need to get a warrant. It's still someone's property, and in any elements of a crime turn up without a warrant they're inadmissible.

There are exceptions, but none of them apply here.

[mopper8]

This response is based on ignorance of the law. The entire point of the American jurisprudence of self-defense is that you're allowed to use deadly force to defend yourself if you reasonably believe the other person is going to cause you great bodily harm.

ONLY if you didn't provoke the altercation in the first place...which has always been the central question in this case. We know there was an altercation, the question is who provoked it. If Zimmerman provoked it, then he can't raise the claim of self-defense and is guilty of the very least of voluntary manslaughter.

Just add that in most (all?) jurisdictions, you lose the right of self-defense the moment the other party clearly withdraws from the conflict. If the voice yelling for help on the 911 calls is Trayvon, a jury could reasonably draw the inference that he had withdrawn from the conflict & that withdrawal was clear, prior to Zimmerman shooting him, and as such Zimmerman had lost his right to exercise deadly force.

So there are multiple ways Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter/murder even if there was a conflict, and even if he got seriously injured in that conflict. You can't go around picking fights, then claiming self-defense when you whip out your Glock or whatever. And once a fight is over, you don't get to engage in retaliatory killing and call it self-defense.

[GetBuLLish]

The biggest piece of evidence left is the audio of someone screaming for help. If the prosecutor can't convince the jury that it's Martin screaming, then I don't see how there's any chance they can get a 2nd degree murder charge, unless there's some big piece of evidence we haven't seen yet.

[BIGGIEsmalls 23]

The biggest piece of evidence left is the audio of someone screaming for help. If the prosecutor can't convince the jury that it's Martin screaming, then I don't see how there's any chance they can get a 2nd degree murder charge, unless there's some big piece of evidence we haven't seen yet.

I don't know if you missed this info from 3 weeks ago, but this issue will probably go the way of the prosecution team. Here it is below:

The kid was screaming for help. Experts have ruled out Zimmerman's voice.

I copied this post below from another thread:

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 ... -certainty

Tom Owen, forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services LLC and chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, used voice identification software to rule out Zimmerman. Another expert contacted by the Sentinel, utilizing different techniques, came to the same conclusion.

Owen says the audio from Zimmerman's call is much better quality than the 911 call in the Davalloo case. Voice identification experts judge the quality based on a signal-to-noise ratio; in other words, comparing the usable audio in a clip to the environmental noises that make a match difficult.

And the call on which the screams are heard is better quality than is necessary, Owen says.

"In our world, that's the home run," he says.

[dice]

not sure expert testimony saying it's NOT zimmerman screaming for help is gonna be good enough. although it'd go a long way in a jury trial i think. this is going to a jury?

[BIGGIEsmalls 23]

not sure expert testimony saying it's NOT zimmerman screaming for help is gonna be good enough. although it'd go a long way in a jury trial i think. this is going to a jury?

If Zimmerman is indeed ruled out, the kid's voice is the only one left.

[dice]

not sure expert testimony saying it's NOT zimmerman screaming for help is gonna be good enough. although it'd go a long way in a jury trial i think. this is going to a jury?

If Zimmerman is indeed ruled out, the kid's voice is the only one left.

logically, not legally

[Magilla_Gorilla]

not sure expert testimony saying it's NOT zimmerman screaming for help is gonna be good enough. although it'd go a long way in a jury trial i think. this is going to a jury?

If Zimmerman is indeed ruled out, the kid's voice is the only one left.

Doesn't work that way - and this guys work has already been debunked.

[BIGGIEsmalls 23]

not sure expert testimony saying it's NOT zimmerman screaming for help is gonna be good enough. although it'd go a long way in a jury trial i think. this is going to a jury?

If Zimmerman is indeed ruled out, the kid's voice is the only one left.

Doesn't work that way - and this guys work has already been debunked.

Who debunked him......and which expert was debunked?

Two separate experts conducted tests using different technology. They both ruled out Zimmerman.

[mopper8]

not sure expert testimony saying it's NOT zimmerman screaming for help is gonna be good enough. although it'd go a long way in a jury trial i think. this is going to a jury?

If Zimmerman is indeed ruled out, the kid's voice is the only one left.

logically, not legally

Jury would totally be allowed to draw that inference, definitely not out of bounds. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is not the same as "beyond a shadow of a doubt." The standard of review for an appellate court to overturn the jury on a fact determination like that is clear error, i.e. no reasonable jury could come to the same conclusion as the actual jury did. I have a hard time believing an appellate court would find such a jury finding (that the voice was Trayvon's) as clearly in error.

My understanding is that Florida's law is not very well-developed in this area, and so this case will probably end up in the Supreme Court to decide as a matter of a law what rises to the level of "provoke"-ing a conflict for the purposes of self-defense, what type of behavior is necessary in order to withdraw from a conflict, etc. I don't get why people are talking about the Stand Your Ground law, this is a clear case of provocation, even in the absence of a SYG law, by Zimmerman's account he didn't have an available means of escape because he was pinned on the ground. Even in the most stringent jurisdictions, if Zimmerman's account was true, he would be justified in exercising deadly force. Thing is, there's lots of reason to doubt his account, and a jury would be well within its right to draw all sorts of negative inferences if they deem his story to simply not be credible

[BigWillie]

I don't know if you missed this info from 3 weeks ago, but this issue will probably go the way of the prosecution team.

Not exactly.

While I am sure the prosecution will have their own 'experts' on this, the defense will assuredly call their own 'experts' to the stand who will say it is George Zimmerman who was screaming. It could be a case of the prosecutions 'expert' being more convincing, but it won't be simply for the fact the defense team just rolls over on this issue. In alot of cases, this stuff isn't even a factor unless someone just absolutely bombs on the stand.

With Trayvon's own parents not able to identify their childs voice, it will help cast even more doubt about this subject. Trayvon's mother identified the voice as her child, but his father told investigators the voice was not Trayvon's. Later Trayvon's father changed his story, and said the voice was his son, but that was not his original statement to investigators.

Even more, this Owen character cannot even be a witness himself under the circumstances in Florida. Tom Owen's techniques are a relative unknown in the forensics field, and have not been tried and tested. Until he releases more information about his techniques, namely the algorithm which he uses, nothing he really says is even close to admissible in a courtroom.

Florida statue for any 'expert' to be a witness ..

http://www.daubertontheweb.com/florida_overview.htm

(1) “the trial judge must determine whether such expert testimony will assist the jury in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue;” (2) “the trial judge must decide whether the expert's testimony is based on a scientific principle or discovery that is `sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.' Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir.1923)”; (3) the trial judge must “determine whether a particular witness is qualified as an expert to present opinion testimony on the subject in issue;” and, (4) “the judge may then allow the expert to render an opinion on the subject of his or her expertise, and it is then up to the jury to determine the credibility of the expert's opinion, which it may either accept or reject.”

This Owen guy only recently introduced his software into the field, even putting it on sale at the beginning of March.

http://www.easyvoicebiometrics.com/inde ... biometrics

Kinda weird how this new forensics software hits the market that no one knows about, and then suddenly this guy has it plastered everywhere in the media.

[QBF]

This response is based on ignorance of the law. The entire point of the American jurisprudence of self-defense is that you're allowed to use deadly force to defend yourself if you reasonably believe the other person is going to cause you great bodily harm.

ONLY if you didn't provoke the altercation in the first place...which has always been the central question in this case. We know there was an altercation, the question is who provoked it. If Zimmerman provoked it, then he can't raise the claim of self-defense and is guilty of the very least of voluntary manslaughter.

This is wrong, too.

Provoking an altercation is not the question. The question is who escalates the confrontation and turns the confrontation violent. If you tell someone they're ugly, or tell them you don't want them in your neighborhood, and they attack you, they are the aggressor.

Also, even if you initiate a violent confrontation, there are occassions when the laws of self-defense still apply. (See Florida Statute 776.041.)

[QBF]

Just add that in most (all?) jurisdictions, you lose the right of self-defense the moment the other party clearly withdraws from the conflict. If the voice yelling for help on the 911 calls is Trayvon, a jury could reasonably draw the inference that he had withdrawn from the conflict & that withdrawal was clear, prior to Zimmerman shooting him, and as such Zimmerman had lost his right to exercise deadly force.

So there are multiple ways Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter/murder even if there was a conflict, and even if he got seriously injured in that conflict. You can't go around picking fights, then claiming self-defense when you whip out your Glock or whatever. And once a fight is over, you don't get to engage in retaliatory killing and call it self-defense.

Given what we know, it is highly unlikely that this was Martin's voice. It was the voice of a man being pummelled, not a man asking someone not to shoot.

[QBF]

Aside from the screaming, the deciding factor may be the results of the autopsy. We now know that Zimmerman did have significant blows to the back of his head. This proves Martin's violence, and the multiple wounds may even be sufficient to prove that Martin was on top of him.

Meanwhile, if Martin's body was unscathed aside from the gunshot, or if there were only "defenseive" wounds, then the idea that Zimmerman was ever the physical aggressor will be almost impossible to prove to a reasonable jury.

When I saw the police station video, like any reasonable person, I doubted Zimmerman's story. I also discounted the "enhanced" shots of Zimmerman's head because they came from a right-wing website. However, seeing those photos of Zimmerman's head from the scene clearly confirms Zimmerman's story - anybody can see that - and I hope that all reasonable people (especially the judge and jury in this case), will be open to the evidence as well.

[BIGGIEsmalls 23]

I don't know if you missed this info from 3 weeks ago, but this issue will probably go the way of the prosecution team.

Not exactly.

While I am sure the prosecution will have their own 'experts' on this, the defense will assuredly call their own 'experts' to the stand who will say it is George Zimmerman who was screaming. It could be a case of the prosecutions 'expert' being more convincing, but it won't be simply for the fact the defense team just rolls over on this issue. In alot of cases, this stuff isn't even a factor unless someone just absolutely bombs on the stand.

I agree with you. This is typical for any trial, which is why I used the word "probably" in my post above.

With Trayvon's own parents not able to identify their childs voice, it will help cast even more doubt about this subject. Trayvon's mother identified the voice as her child, but his father told investigators the voice was not Trayvon's. Later Trayvon's father changed his story, and said the voice was his son, but that was not his original statement to investigators.

Link please?

Even more, this Owen character cannot even be a witness himself under the circumstances in Florida. Tom Owen's techniques are a relative unknown in the forensics field, and have not been tried and tested. Until he releases more information about his techniques, namely the algorithm which he uses, nothing he really says is even close to admissible in a courtroom.

Florida statue for any 'expert' to be a witness ..

http://www.daubertontheweb.com/florida_overview.htm

(1) “the trial judge must determine whether such expert testimony will assist the jury in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue;” (2) “the trial judge must decide whether the expert's testimony is based on a scientific principle or discovery that is `sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.' Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C. Cir.1923)”; (3) the trial judge must “determine whether a particular witness is qualified as an expert to present opinion testimony on the subject in issue;” and, (4) “the judge may then allow the expert to render an opinion on the subject of his or her expertise, and it is then up to the jury to determine the credibility of the expert's opinion, which it may either accept or reject.”

This Owen guy only recently introduced his software into the field, even putting it on sale at the beginning of March.

http://www.easyvoicebiometrics.com/inde ... biometrics

Kinda weird how this new forensics software hits the market that no one knows about, and then suddenly this guy has it plastered everywhere in the media.

The Supreme Court Judge below disagrees.

"The Court was quite impressed by Mr. Owen. This court finds him to be an expert but I believe he's a little bit better than that. He's an absolute authority."

Judge StackHouse
Supreme Court, State of NY

Supreme Court Judges appear to believe that he's highly qualified. Both of the experts that were used by the "Orlando Sentinel" have been experts for decades & are highly regarded in their field. Their work & testimony has been used in the legal community for decades, as well.