Trayvon Martin Case

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Google 'Affectiva', 'iBrain' and dig around on www.eff.org. If you really think I need to demonstrate a computer system etc then you're way behind the curve. A lot of people are.



Let's not, that's a horribly unsophisticated tool. Even CA is getting rid of them.



That's an illegal use of the road. If you're in a 'turn only' lane that's what you should do.



How would a still shot show that? I call BS.

Red light cameras take multiple still shots, the guy was in the lane and changed back to the straight lane legally, hence why the human judge overturned the camera system.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Neither, we won't be wasting time with red light cameras. Your straw man has just been incinerated.

so, you can't validate a red light system, but claim a far more effective system already exists. lovely. let's hold off on the incineration please

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

They already exist, they are already reading what you do on a daily basis.



Lie detector tests are great for Maury. Read up on social engineering, see if you feel the same about your ability (or anyone else for that matter) to read a practiced liar. Check out how women work men in bars.



You're aware that there's a little more information than that, right? By you saying 'simplistically' you set the argument so skewed in your favor as to make argument pointless.



Correct. It's called programming.



You're kidding, right? You're aware that the combination of blood on the glove (shrinkage) and the fact that OJ was allowed to wear rubber gloves (bulk) caused the glove to be too tight? That was an awful piece of prosecuting FAIL. Human error cough-cough....

Ok, but my point is who will determine if the glove fit? A computer, ok, so it takes the hand scans it, takes the size of the glove, does it account for shrinkage, inside outside felt and lining. Who's to say the killer wasn't wearing rubber gloves. Who makes that argument. The point is there is subjectiveness, and at some point legal cases don't fall to simple yes/no thinking, or even logical thinking.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Emotion? Gut feeling? We have brains for 'thinking'.......



OK, but he was part human, he wouldn't qualify as a juror either.

Um, I believe the brain processes emotions as well as thinking, and also equips us to go with our gut. You can't only use a small sliver of what the brain does, and say good enough.