George Zimmerman to be charged in Trayvon Martin shooting, official says

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
No, you made up information you could not back up.

No I made a post that stated analysis of the tape was done and had conflicting reports.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
You clearly stated that on expert came out and said it Zimmerman and one said it was Martin. Like others have pointed out to you, unless you can provide a source for that information, it is made up.

And in the post I highlighteed above I stated I made a mistake and confused 2 seperate issues involving the analysis of the tape. I admiited I made a mistake, clarified the 2 issues and explained a 3rd analysis is going to be done at the Special Proescutors Request.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75

I read and comprehended just fine, that is why I comprehend that you are full of bull by saying you 'misspoke'. You made things up and then tried to cover your tracks. We can all see it.

Apparently not since you are only seeing wehat you want to see.. Out of curiosity what is your problem? If you could read and comprehend then your reponse here would not have been needed as I corrected my mistake and moved on.

edit on 12-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

There have been 3 seperate companies contacted to reivew the 911 tapes to determine if it was Zimmerman or Martin. Of the 3, 2 have released their info whith one company supporting the argument it was Zimmerman and the other supporting the argument it was Martin.

1.No you stated there was an expert that stated it was Zimmerman screaming, see above, those are your words. No one has reprorted that but you. Dont try and twist your own words now that you can't back them up.

2. You can keep calling it a mistake, but it wasn't. You clearly stated that an expert has stated that it was Zimmerman then you tried to change that and say it was a friend.

3. Like I stated before you didn't 'correct a mistake'. You made up things with nothing to back them up and in the context you made those remarks there is no way you 'confused' anything. In the second post you reference the analysis to the 'coons' reference...so you knew that you were talking about 2 different sets of analysis. You knew good and well you were talking about the screams and not the 'coons' remark, it is evident when you reference at separate times about separate analysis.

Question my reading and comprehension skills won't change the fact that you made up things to fit a narrative you are trying to paint. I can read and comprehend just fine, maybe you should brush up on keeping the story straight that you are trying push with no evidence.

Originally posted by GhettoRice
EDIT: Disregard, I didn't comprehend what I read

edit on 12-4-2012 by GhettoRice because: (no reason given)

Welcome to the club.. We had jackets made.

this is one of the more fubared investigations and prosecutions I have seen. Apparently the media and certain members are of the mindset of prosecuting this in the prealm of public opinion using 3rd parties as experts.

We need to wait and see what comes from the proceedings in terms of evidence challenges, defense strategy and if its something the judge will allow. We need to see how the prosecution is going to make their case for 2nd murder and what their evidence is to support it.

This is going to be an interesting case to follow.

reply to post by shepseskaf

Originally posted by shepseskaf
Please read my statement on page 22 of this thread as to the significance of the cries for help on the 911 tape.

All you said is

It has already been determined that the person calling out was NOT GZ. So, he lied about this, as well. The cries were followed by a gunshot, then silence.

Which is another way of saying "I think he is guilty so it was not him, im going to ignore anything that conflicts with my worldview". So once again the tape really proves nothing besides somebody was calling for help. Who screams for help to be saved from a dead guy?

Also, the dead young man's correct name was Trayvon.

I went to school for ebonics spelling does not matter

en.wikipedia.org...
As there is no established spelling system for AAVE,[91] depicting it in literature is instead often done through spelling changes to indicate its phonological features,[92] or to contribute to the impression that AAVE is being used (eye dialect).

This is illustrated with the mother who spells her name "Sybrina" in public but when filling out paperwork her name is "Sabrina", you can look up the trademark documents if you don't believe me. Ebonics is a strange language, in Ebonics it is more importiant what you say and not your pronunciation and spelling really means nothing. You knizow wizut im sizayin? So with Sabrina you could just as easily spell it Sabrenah,sabreenaw, or even sabrunoo because that is not the important part.
Please don't try to force your white man's education on me.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
1.No you stated there was an expert that stated it was Zimmerman screaming, see above, those are your words. No one has reprorted that but you. Dont try and twist your own words now that you can't back them up.

And corrected my mistake in the post ive linked other 2, the first one on the preceeding page. The one you failed to read and still are ignoring.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
2. You can keep calling it a mistake, but it wasn't. You clearly stated that an expert has stated that it was Zimmerman then you tried to change that and say it was a friend.

Actually I can, especially when we have various media outlets hiring their own experts to anlayze different parts of different tapes as well as the PA doing their own anlysis through a 3rd company. The issues then become a confusion of facts, which I admitted to by stating I confused the 2 results. Again something you are ignroing.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
3. Like I stated before you didn't 'correct a mistake'.

I made a mistake, acknowldged it, corrected it and moved on. Something you are apparntly incapable of doing.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Question my reading and comprehension skills won't change the fact that you made up things to fit a narrative you are trying to paint. I can read and comprehend just fine, maybe you should brush up on keeping the story straight that you are trying push with no evidence.

Questioning your reading and comprehension skills ar required sine you are making up motives and lobbing accusations you cannot support.

I made a mistake...
I acknowledge I made a mistake...
I corrected my mistake and explained what partSI was confused on...

Yet here you are, calling me a liar and trying to spin your own facts...

move on and act and your age.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by GhettoRice
EDIT: Disregard, I didn't comprehend what I read

edit on 12-4-2012 by GhettoRice because: (no reason given)

Welcome to the club.. We had jackets made.

this is one of the more fubared investigations and prosecutions I have seen. Apparently the media and certain members are of the mindset of prosecuting this in the prealm of public opinion using 3rd parties as experts.

We need to wait and see what comes from the proceedings in terms of evidence challenges, defense strategy and if its something the judge will allow. We need to see how the prosecution is going to make their case for 2nd murder and what their evidence is to support it.

This is going to be an interesting case to follow.

There have been 3 seperate companies contacted to reivew the 911 tapes to determine if it was Zimmerman or Martin. Of the 3, 2 have released their info whith one company supporting the argument it was Zimmerman and the other supporting the argument it was Martin.

Yeah we know you choose to believe made up experts instead of real 3rd party experts. Those are much more reliable than your made up experts. We are all still waiting for the source that is 'supporting the argument it was Zimmerman'...........

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
1.No you stated there was an expert that stated it was Zimmerman screaming, see above, those are your words. No one has reprorted that but you. Dont try and twist your own words now that you can't back them up.

And corrected my mistake in the post ive linked other 2, the first one on the preceeding page. The one you failed to read and still are ignoring.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
2. You can keep calling it a mistake, but it wasn't. You clearly stated that an expert has stated that it was Zimmerman then you tried to change that and say it was a friend.

Actually I can, especially when we have various media outlets hiring their own experts to anlayze different parts of different tapes as well as the PA doing their own anlysis through a 3rd company. The issues then become a confusion of facts, which I admitted to by stating I confused the 2 results. Again something you are ignroing.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
3. Like I stated before you didn't 'correct a mistake'.

I made a mistake, acknowldged it, corrected it and moved on. Something you are apparntly incapable of doing.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Question my reading and comprehension skills won't change the fact that you made up things to fit a narrative you are trying to paint. I can read and comprehend just fine, maybe you should brush up on keeping the story straight that you are trying push with no evidence.

Questioning your reading and comprehension skills ar required sine you are making up motives and lobbing accusations you cannot support.

I made a mistake...
I acknowledge I made a mistake...
I corrected my mistake and explained what partSI was confused on...

Yet here you are, calling me a liar and trying to spin your own facts...

move on and act and your age.

edit on 12-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

1. Correcting your mistake would mean you admit you made up an expert who says they support it is Zimmerman screaming for help

There have been 3 seperate companies contacted to reivew the 911 tapes to determine if it was Zimmerman or Martin. Of the 3, 2 have released their info whith one company supporting the argument it was Zimmerman and the other supporting the argument it was Martin.

I will address the rest of your points when you just come clean, and admit you lied or made up something. You typed those words above these.......defend them. Your 'correction' is not plausible based on your other statements. Im not addressing anything else until you address the issue of the company supporting Zimmerman or admit you made it up. You didn't misspeak, you made that clear in later comments.

Harvard Prof. Alan Dershowitz: Zimmerman Arrest Affidavit ‘Irresponsible And Unethical’
www.mediaite.com...

Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz appeared on MSNBC’s Hardball where fill-in host Michel Smerconish asked him his opinions of the arrest warrant issued and carried out for alleged Trayvon Martin murderer, George Zimmerman. Dershowitz called the affidavit justifying Zimmerman’s arrest “not only thin, it’s irresponsible.” He went on to criticize the decision to charge Zimmerman for second degree murder by special prosecutor Angela Cory as being politically motivated.

You guys can go through this, I can't keep up.

Dershowitz said that the elements that would constitute that crime are non-existent in the affidavit. “It’s not only thin, it’s irresponsible,” said Dershowitz.

Dershowitz went on to strongly criticize Cory’s decision to move forward with the case against Zimmerman. “I think what you have here is an elected public official who made a campaign speech last night for reelection when she gave her presentation and overcharged. This case will not – if the evidence is no stronger than what appears in the probable cause affidavit – this case will result in an acquittal.”

“This affidavit does not even make it to probable cause,” Dershowitz concluded. “everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense. Everything.”

reply to post by Stormdancer777


Yeah Yeah Yeah

And for every Alan Dershowitz - - - there's an opposing opinion.

SELECTIVISM - - - finding someone who agrees with you.

reply to post by Annee


Exactly.

This guy wants to accuse others of having political motive , but he's the one on a POLITICAL TV program.

reply to post by Annee


Agree with me?

I haven't posted one way or another how I believe I can't make that call until I hear all the evidence, you are jumping to conclusions.

He has read the affidavit, I haven't, have you?

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Annee

 

Agree with me?

I haven't posted one way or another how I believe I can't make that call until I hear all the evidence, you are jumping to conclusions.

Sometimes - - what you don't say

SCREAMS!

reply to post by pizzanazi75


Your 3rd party experts are ignoring their own rules in place in order to get an accurate conclusion. 10 words is the base line yet they chose to ignore them...

The Orlando Sentinel hired 2 companies to analyze their tape - Source - Orlando Sentinel - Trayvon Martin shooting: It's not George Zimmerman crying for help on 911 recording, 2 experts say

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.

and

Ed Primeau, a Michigan-based audio engineer and forensics expert, is not a believer in the technology's use in courtroom settings.

He relies instead on audio enhancement and human analysis based on forensic experience. After listening closely to the 911 tape on which the screams are heard, Primeau also has a strong opinion.

"I believe that's Trayvon Martin in the background, without a doubt," Primeau says, stressing that the tone of the voice is a giveaway. "That's a young man screaming."

You have Martins mom stating its him on the tape screaming for help.
you have a friend of Zimmermans stating the voice on the tpae yelling for help is Zimmermans.

You then have CNN doing this -
Did Trayvon Martins shooter use slur in 911 tapes
The result of that analysis is a racial slur was not used.

Then we have the Special Proescutor hiring a company to review tapes -
Florida prosecutor taps experts to review 911 calls in Trayvon Martin shooting

Angela B. Corey, who was appointed by Gov. Rick Scott (R) to investigate the shooting, said the experts will examine two potentially crucial aspects of the eight calls made to 911: a racial epithet Zimmerman might have muttered while talking to a dispatcher minutes before shooting the unarmed 17-year-old on Feb. 26, and the screams in the background of calls that residents made to police during the incident.

i made a mistake and confused the results... I acknowledged my mistake when people asked for links. I admitted I made a mistake, corrected the mistake, and moved forward.

The Justice Department is also doing theirown invesitgation into what was on the tapes for a possible civil rights invesitgation / prosecution.

Source for the following info
In addition there is a witness who is quoted as saying he observed the altercation, that a man in red was on the ground with a guy on top, there was a struggle for the gun, and that the man on the ground was the one yelling for help, which would be zimmerman based on the clothing description he gave.

A man who spoke on the condition of anonymity told ABC News on Tuesday that he saw a man in a red sweater on the ground and that someone was beating him up. Zimmerman was wearing red that night. The eyewitness said: “The guy on the bottom was yelling, ‘Help, help!’ I told him to stop, and I was calling 911.” Another eyewitness, 13-year-old Austin Brown also told ABC that he saw a man on the ground wearing red.

To clarify the confusion over who overruled whom with regards to the prosecution -

On the night of the shooting, the Sanford police department’s lead homicide investigator in the case had recommended that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter, but he was overruled by a state’s attorney, who said there was not enough evidence in light of the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law, according to ABC News.

So as you can see, even the experts involved first hand can make mistakes. Its not hard to do the same when there is this much information just being passed around with no offical confirmations on who is doing what and working for whom.

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

Yeah Yeah Yeah

And for every Alan Dershowitz - - - there's an opposing opinion.

SELECTIVISM - - - finding someone who agrees with you.

What an incredibly stupid comment. Care to go this thread and post all the sources you have used that conflict with the point you are trying to make?

Originally posted by DavidWillts

What an incredibly stupid comment. Care to go this thread and post all the sources you have used that conflict with the point you are trying to make?

Have you noticed I have stopped responding to any of your posts?

Exception here - - guess why.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Annee

 

Agree with me?

I haven't posted one way or another how I believe I can't make that call until I hear all the evidence, you are jumping to conclusions.

Sometimes - - what you don't say

SCREAMS!

I am just posting information Annee, and you would like me to stop.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Harvard Prof. Alan Dershowitz: Zimmerman Arrest Affidavit ‘Irresponsible And Unethical’

I have a very low opinion of Dershowitz's statements. He is all political, and regularly makes bombastic statements, like this one, to keep himself in the media's eye.

If he's against the affidavit, then I'm all for it.

Originally posted by shepseskaf

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Harvard Prof. Alan Dershowitz: Zimmerman Arrest Affidavit ‘Irresponsible And Unethical’

I have a very low opinion of Dershowitz's statements. He is all political, and regularly makes bombastic statements, like this one, to keep himself in the media's eye.

If he's against the affidavit, then I'm all for it.

Have you read it?

reply to post by DavidWillts


The decision to charge 2nd degree murder confused me as well. As I posted before the lead detective was pushing for manslughter and the PA at the time said no. I am curious how she was able to make 2nd murder from a manslaughter push with the evidence at hand.

Only 1 charge, and a lofty one at that..

She has a circumstantial case so trying to make the argument is going to be an uphill battle for her.

To me it looks like this is being done to appease and calm the community and nothing more.

Charge Sheet

Here is the affidavit

www.foxnews.com...

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Originally posted by shepseskaf

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Harvard Prof. Alan Dershowitz: Zimmerman Arrest Affidavit ‘Irresponsible And Unethical’

I have a very low opinion of Dershowitz's statements. He is all political, and regularly makes bombastic statements, like this one, to keep himself in the media's eye.

If he's against the affidavit, then I'm all for it.

Have you read it?

Yes, actually I have. Its a bare bones recitation of some of the case's key points. The document is not meant to comprehensive, and says so. It hardly merits any bombastic statements being made about it's insufficiency.

Let the prosecution present its full case.