Trayvon Martin Case

[12thMan]

@Joe, I wish it weren't of national importance. I wish Zimmerman would have listened to the dispatcher and never left his vehicle. I wish Trayvon Martin would have listened to his girlfriend and run like she told him to, but none of that happened.

I can't make the point any clearer than I already have why this isn't the same as black on black crime. We're dealing with two completely different context's and different set of circumstances surrounding this particular crime.

But hypothetically speaking I'm not personally aware of any black on black shooting incidents, where the aggressor was freed within hours of killing an unarmed teen and allowed to roam the streets for more than a month, do you?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

@Joe, I wish it weren't of national importance. I wish Zimmerman would have listened to the dispatcher and never left his vehicle. I wish Trayvon Martin would have listened to his girlfriend and run like she told him to, but none of that happened.

I wish the same.

Originally Posted by 12thMan

@I can't make the point any clearer than I already have why this isn't the same as black on black crime. We're dealing with two completely different context's and different set of circumstances surrounding this particular crime.

Different contexts and surrounding circumstances which, at their core, are driven solely by the presumed race of the shooter and actual race of the victim. To be clear, I was not trying to make this a direct comparison to black on black crime. Whether this was a black shooting a white, a black shooting a hispanic, a white shooting a white, etc., to me - this was not a case of national importance and is only so b/c of the race of the victim and the originally presumed race of the shooter. I find such a motivation for national media coverage incendiary, divisive and wrong.

Originally Posted by 12thMan

But hypothetically speaking I'm not personally aware of any black on black shooting incidents, where the aggressor was freed within hours of killing an unarmed teen and allowed to roam the streets for more than a month, do you?

Fair question. No. I am not. While I firmly believed it has happened (again, regardless of the races involved), I have no examples. While I admit I am about to shift the point a little and feel free to call me up on it, I guess I think it is my sense that "Injustice happens everyday. Why did this injustice rate national coverage?" that rankles me in this matter.

[12thMan]

And so I maintain when you find a case where an armed assailant walked free after pursuing and killing an unarmed teen, let me know.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

And so I maintain when you find a case where an armed assailant walked free after pursuing and killing an unarmed teen, let me know.

You seem to pick and choose your facts. At the time of the attack/killing Zimmerman was by his truck and not pursuing Trayvon as the dispatcher had asked.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

You seem to pick and choose your facts. At the time of the attack/killing Zimmerman was by his truck and not pursuing Trayvon as the dispatcher had asked.

i

Bullshit, I'm not picking and choosing a damn thing. Zimmerman was following Martin his in SUV, de-boarded, and the dispatcher told him to get his dumb ass back in the vehicle. He said, okay. That's what happened.

Had Zimmerman stayed in his SUV from the jump, this thread wouldn't even exist.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

and the dispatcher told him to get his dumb ass back in the vehicle. He said, okay. That's what happened.

He did? You must have read some transcripts I'm not aware of.


911 calls paint picture of chaos after Florida teen is shot – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Had Zimmerman stayed in his SUV from the jump, this thread wouldn't even exist.

Had Martin not walked through a neighborhood that wasn't his own, this thread wouldn't even exist.

Had previous burglaries have not had happened in the neighborhood causing people to be on guard like Zimmerman, this thread wouldn't even exist.


We can play that game all day long on. At the end of the day, Zimmerman was within his right to follow a suspicious person in trying to protect his neighborhood. This doesn't mean he instigated anything, it simply means he's doing what anybody else probably would have after a few burglaries in the neighborhood. Does this give him a right to harass or shoot a person? Not at all. Does this mean Zimmerman DID harass Martin? Not all all. Does this mean that Zimmerman killed Martin in cold blood? Not at all. At the end of the day, we don't know what happened based on the evidence, but we can collaborate some of Zimmerman's story with it though.

[JoeRedskin]

Fair enough.

At the same time - while I look for such a case, I ask why do you believe this case to be of national importance? You say "you wish it wasn't" which presumes you believe it to be so. Again, I ask why - is it just that the shooter initially went free? the underlying racial issues? As I said, injustice occurs everyday - why did the injustice in this case rate such a media furor?

[12thMan]

Your analysis and frustration with the question of "national importance" is grossly misplaced. First, a murder took place. Period. It's definitely newsworthy and it's definitely important. I'm sure we agree there.

The news wasn't that a kid was murdered. That happens everyday. There were unanswered questions that led to more unanswered questions. That's the news. And frankly, to remove the racial underpinnings and coded language of Zimmerman is to ignore a vitally important element that warrants thorough examination. Examination that, in hindsight, seemed to be dismissed with no or very little consideration.

It's important to understand the Sanford community led the effort to raise the issue, not the other way around. It was organic, not contrived or led by a media personality. So the question why it's a national story is really besides the point anyway in my view. I'm more interested in the pursuit of justice and to ensure that we never see this particular crime happen again.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Your analysis and frustration with the question of "national importance" is grossly misplaced. First, a murder took place. Period. It's definitely newsworthy and it's definitely important. I'm sure we agree there.

The news wasn't that a kid was murdered. That happens everyday. There were unanswered questions that led to more unanswered questions. That's the news. And frankly, to remove the racial underpinnings and coded language of Zimmerman is to ignore a vitally important element that warrants thorough examination. Examination that, in hindsight, seemed to be dismissed with no or very little consideration.

It's important to understand the Sanford community led the effort to raise the issue, not the other way around. It was organic, not contrived or led by a media personality. So the question why it's a national story is really besides the point anyway in my view. I'm more interested in the pursuit of justice and to ensure that we never see this particular crime happen again.

Okay. For what it's worth, I accept that explanation and agree with most of it.

My one contention is that, while I agree that the racial issues underpinning the matter may be an element to the case and certainly bear full examination, I find that much of the racisim attributed to Zimmerman to be the result of media constructs (the original reports that Zimmerman was white, the creation of the term "white latino", NBC's editing of the tape) created to manipulate opinion. In doing so, and in my opinion, the underlying tragedy and the rule of law got lost in the national furor over racial issues.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Okay. For what it's worth, I accept that explanation and agree with most of it.

My one contention is that, while I agree that the racial issues underpinning the matter may be an element to the case and certainly bear full examination, I find that much of the racisim attributed to Zimmerman to be the result of media constructs (the original reports that Zimmerman was white, the creation of the term "white latino", NBC's editing of the tape) created to manipulate opinion. In doing so, and in my opinion, the underlying tragedy and the rule of law got lost in the national furor over racial issues.

That's certainly one view point.

But let's be honest here, race is perception in America. The media didn't create that reality and they didn't have to gin it up. We've co-existed with racial tensions for hundreds years and it's always right beneath the surface. Again, to stress a vitally important point, it was the citizens within the Sanford community that felt Trayvon's murder could possibly have been racially motivated. Adding to their collective frustration was the Sanford PD's mishandling of evidence, conflicting police reports, the dismissal of the police chief, George Zimmerman's sudden release, and the confusion around Stand Your Ground. That's a lot for a community, a black community mind you, to digest with not one single answer for a full 30 days.

However you may feel about the media's reporting and coverage, it has largely reflected the festering frustration of the citizens of Sanford, as well as the history of resentment between African-Americans and law enforcement in this country.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

...

Emotion has no place in law.
...

This is a completely false and inhuman assertion.

Good law and good governance come from finding the balance point between the emotional and the rational. I agree with Joe that if you fail to see some use for emotional input to legal questions than that is 'piteous'

[RedskinRat]

JoeRedskin and CRR:

You've yet to explain why emotion needs to be a part of law and justice, you just assert that it should be.

We'll leave it there. If you can't present an argument then we have no discussion, just a disagreement.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

JoeRedskin and CRR:

You've yet to explain why emotion needs to be a part of law and justice, you just assert that it should be.

We'll leave it there. If you can't present an argument then we have no discussion, just a disagreement.

To be fair, you have yet to demonstrate a computer system in existence which could handle the range of human ethos and reach valid conclusions.

Let's take a red light camera, as this is a very simple go-no go situation.

This is an actual example, not sure emotions specifically come into play but for a computer justice system to work, one would think infallibility would be a critical piece, else it goes to a human arbitrator, and we are back where we started:

DC uses red light cameras. Driver is driving straight, and is stopped at a red light. He realizes he is in a turn only lane so he changes back to the straight lane which has a green light, and goes forward. A ticket comes later, which clearly identifies him as switching and proceeding in a legal manner. So he appeals. The judge overturns the ticket.

Now, in a computerized system you have to explain to me,
A) will a human look at the camera picture and validate the claim that the driver executed a legal maneuver?
- or -
B)will the computer system take the redlight system's data as correct and invalidate the appeal?

if A is your answer, than humans and human bias are still involved, because, maybe the line isn't as clear cut, so ultimately you have a data entry clerk determining whose appeal is valid, and whose isn't.

If B is your answer, than ultimately you will see some atrocities simply because bad data in equals bad result sets.

Now if you are saying in a hypothetical computer system that hasn't been built or conceived yet, but that could render decisions without human input, yet still make those fine detail differences between truth and falsehood, fact and fiction, and deliver exact results, then i would say, build it, test it on a small dataset, while having normal jurisprudence continue, and see where the difference lies.

Skinsguy also makes an excellent point about intuitive responses to if someone is lying. Would the computer system use lie detector results? Again it's answer is only as good as the input given. It can neither think, nor "feel", it's way to a truth. And someone would be inputting what it should think of as it's truth, or valid data set and rules.

In this specific case, how would you imagine about the occurrence is fed into the computer system. Simplistically: Did Defendant 1 shoot Victim 1? yes. Computer says guilty. Then you would have to enter in extenuating circumstances. Who decides which circumstances qualify? All the laws would have to be programmed in to make sure that every exception or possible exclusion is covered, and at some point someone, either machine or human will have to make value decisions about whether an exclusion should or should not be accounted for.

Let's take another case. The OJ murder case. The computer is given as fact a glove was used in the murder. The question is proposed - does the glove fit, for the computer it's a yes no answer. No it did not. Computer finds not guilty. heck Defense Attorneys would now have a field day, as any simple fact that goes outside established parameters would have to yield not guilty rulings. Forget that humans may lie, or tell half truths and someone has to sort through that using emotional and gut feelings.

Finally
Just to bring TV back in because I know you RR get that:
Spock would make a great prosecutor, but I wouldn't want him judging me if I happened to circumvent a rule or two to pass a rigged test.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

To be fair, you have yet to demonstrate a computer system in existence which could handle the range of human ethos and reach valid conclusions.

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.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Let's take a red light camera, as this is a very simple go-no go situation.

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

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

DC uses red light cameras. Driver is driving straight, and is stopped at a red light. He realizes he is in a turn only lane so he changes back to the straight lane which has a green light, and goes forward.

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

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

A ticket comes later, which clearly identifies him as switching and proceeding in a legal manner. So he appeals. The judge overturns the ticket.

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

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Now, in a computerized system you have to explain to me,
A) will a human look at the camera picture and validate the claim that the driver executed a legal maneuver?
- or -
B)will the computer system take the redlight system's data as correct and invalidate the appeal?

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

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Now if you are saying in a hypothetical computer system that hasn't been built or conceived yet, but that could render decisions without human input, yet still make those fine detail differences between truth and falsehood, fact and fiction, and deliver exact results, then i would say, build it, test it on a small dataset, while having normal jurisprudence continue, and see where the difference lies.

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

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Skinsguy also makes an excellent point about intuitive responses to if someone is lying. Would the computer system use lie detector results? Again it's answer is only as good as the input given. It can neither think, nor "feel", it's way to a truth. And someone would be inputting what it should think of as it's truth, or valid data set and rules.

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.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

In this specific case, how would you imagine about the occurrence is fed into the computer system. Simplistically: Did Defendant 1 shoot Victim 1? yes. Computer says guilty.

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.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Then you would have to enter in extenuating circumstances. Who decides which circumstances qualify? All the laws would have to be programmed in to make sure that every exception or possible exclusion is covered, and at some point someone, either machine or human will have to make value decisions about whether an exclusion should or should not be accounted for.

Correct. It's called programming.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Let's take another case. The OJ murder case. The computer is given as fact a glove was used in the murder. The question is proposed - does the glove fit, for the computer it's a yes no answer. No it did not. Computer finds not guilty.

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....

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

heck Defense Attorneys would now have a field day, as any simple fact that goes outside established parameters would have to yield not guilty rulings. Forget that humans may lie, or tell half truths and someone has to sort through that using emotional and gut feelings.

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

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Finally
Just to bring TV back in because I know you RR get that:
Spock would make a great prosecutor, but I wouldn't want him judging me if I happened to circumvent a rule or two to pass a rigged test.

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

[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.