StrangeSox Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 Jenks, I can't remember the most recent thread we went back-and-forth on eyewitnesses on, but I thought you might be interested in this Frontline episode on the CSI-ization of courtrooms. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/real-csi/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 11:14 AM) Jenks, I can't remember the most recent thread we went back-and-forth on eyewitnesses on, but I thought you might be interested in this Frontline episode on the CSI-ization of courtrooms. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/real-csi/ Oh, thanks. I'll check this out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 11:14 AM) Jenks, I can't remember the most recent thread we went back-and-forth on eyewitnesses on, but I thought you might be interested in this Frontline episode on the CSI-ization of courtrooms. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/real-csi/ Haven't watched this...but tell me if I get the gist of the show... Modern jurors watch too much f***ing television and think it's real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 11:41 AM) Haven't watched this...but tell me if I get the gist of the show... Modern jurors watch too much f***ing television and think it's real. Modern "forensics" are generally ad hoc, non-scientific methods, especially fingerprint and bite mark analysis. People rely too heavily on this expert testimony and decades-long claims by the FBI and others that fingerprint analysis is "infallible" (they have changed that stance recently). Shows like CSI don't help, but they aren't entirely the cause as over-reliance on pseudo-expert testimony and analysis predates these types of shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 21, 2012 Author Share Posted June 21, 2012 http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archiv...hooting/258808/ He said the dispatcher told him not to follow Mr. Martin so he was returning to his vehicle when "the suspect emerged from the darkness and said 'You got a problem?'" Mr. Zimmerman said he responded, "No," but said that Mr. Matin told him, "You do now." Mr. Zimmerman said that when he tried to use his cellphone to dial 911 again, that Mr. Martin punched him in the face, causing Mr. Zimmerman to fall "backwards onto my back." "The suspect got on top of me," Mr. Zimmerman wrote in the statement. "I yelled, 'Help' several times." Mr. Zimmerman wrote that Mr. Martin had cursed at him while telling him to be quiet before he grabbed Mr. Zimmerman's head and slammed it into the sidewalk several times. "My head felt like it was going to explode," Mr. Zimmerman wrote, adding that he continued to scream for help. Mr. Zimmerman said that as he tried to slide from underneath Mr. Martin that the teenager "covered my mouth and nose and stopped my breathing." Next, Mr. Zimmerman wrote, "I felt the suspect reach for my now exposed firearm and say, 'Your gonna die tonight," while calling him an obscene name. "I unholstered my firearm in fear for my life as he had assured he was going to kill me and fired one shot into his torso." Mr. Zimmerman then wrote that Mr. Martin sat up and said, "You got me." Someone's been watching too many classic westerns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 21, 2012 Author Share Posted June 21, 2012 QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jun 21, 2012 -> 12:28 PM) Martin proceeded to fall face-first into a horse trough. only after doing a front flip off of the awning, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 22, 2012 Author Share Posted June 22, 2012 On the left side of the article, you can listen to the entire recorded interview with Zimmerman from the night of the shooting. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/us/docum...tml?_r=2&hp Martin was shot through the heart and lung at close range, but Zimmerman claims that Martin said "you got me!" and kept talking after he had been shot and that Zimmerman still had to restrain him on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 10:42 AM) On the left side of the article, you can listen to the entire recorded interview with Zimmerman from the night of the shooting. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/us/docum...tml?_r=2&hp Martin was shot through the heart and lung at close range, but Zimmerman claims that Martin said "you got me!" and kept talking after he had been shot and that Zimmerman still had to restrain him on the ground. He may not be lying. Living organisms that live beyond a fatal wound often do and say wonky things when it happens, including seemingly impossible things. Edited June 22, 2012 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 22, 2012 Author Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) His narrative sounds like the plot from a bad western. Also, Martin's lungs collapses from the bullet wound and there was a sizable hole in his heart. I'm not sure how much talking and struggling he was capable of after that bullet entered his chest. Martin, a kid with no violent history, jumps out of the shadows and says "You're gonna die tonight!" When shot in the chest, he sits up and says "you got me!" That isn't really a believable scenario. But this does provide another example of why you shouldn't talk to the police without a lawyer! edit: listening to more of the tapes, Serrino (the detective) really does a professional job questioning Zimmerman. The Sanford PD doesn't deserve the blame for dropping this case in the first place, the local DA does. Edited June 22, 2012 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 02:07 PM) People can be shot in the heart and run a few blocks before collapsing. The question would be whether being shot in the lungs really impacts speaking. Muscles can keep going even if the heart is struggling because there is already some oxygen in those muscles that can continue to be burnt, but my vocal cords cannot work if I cannot push air through my throat. Can't say exactly if it would impact without the exact autopsy reports, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 11:38 AM) Martin, a kid with no violent history, jumps out of the shadows and says "You're gonna die tonight!" When shot in the chest, he sits up and says "you got me!" That isn't really a believable scenario. Except for those Fight Club videos he is in that YouTube keeps removing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 22, 2012 Author Share Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 03:16 PM) Except for those Fight Club videos he is in that YouTube keeps removing. The ones where a black kid, maybe Trayvon maybe not*, is standing around watching an unorganized amateur match? That shows he has a violent past and would believably "jump out of the shadows" and shout "you're gonna die tonight, motherf***er?" *it's not like there wasn't already a bunch of racists mistakenly identifying the wrong Trayvon in order to label him as a thug who deserved it, right?! **almost every website I can find with this video has a whole bunch of incredibly racist comments. awesome. Edited June 22, 2012 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted June 22, 2012 Share Posted June 22, 2012 It doesnt matter, he better be 100% sure that Martin said those things and there isnt a way to prove he didnt. This whole case rests on Zimmerman's credibility, so really no reason to take this risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 04:32 PM) It doesnt matter, he better be 100% sure that Martin said those things and there isnt a way to prove he didnt. This whole case rests on Zimmerman's credibility, so really no reason to take this risk. There was no case at the time he wrote those statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 Then I change my remark to: Why you should always refuse to talk until you speak with a lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 23, 2012 Share Posted June 23, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 09:11 PM) Then I change my remark to: Why you should always refuse to talk until you speak with a lawyer. There ya go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 Second about to be published study finds that passing a stand your ground law is associated with a significant increase in the homicide rate, particularly amongst white males, and they suggest that the increase is unlikely to be driven solely by killings of assailants, but instead substantially by deaths of the people attempting to defend themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 1, 2012 -> 07:51 PM) Second about to be published study finds that passing a stand your ground law is associated with a significant increase in the homicide rate, particularly amongst white males does this mean you support it now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jul 1, 2012 -> 09:51 PM) does this mean you support it now? Are you accusing me of wanting to kill whitey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 07:57 AM) Are you accusing me of wanting to kill whitey? Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 1, 2012 -> 07:51 PM) Second about to be published study finds that passing a stand your ground law is associated with a significant increase in the homicide rate, particularly amongst white males, and they suggest that the increase is unlikely to be driven solely by killings of assailants, but instead substantially by deaths of the people attempting to defend themselves. These studies are worthless. You can't count events that don't happen. Researchers are not performing interviews with would-be killer assailants asking "hey, if he didn't shoot you first, would you have shot him in the midst of your crime?" So this study says 4-7 more people are killed because of SYG laws. How many were saved? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 09:49 AM) These studies are worthless. You can't count events that don't happen. Researchers are not performing interviews with would-be killer assailants asking "hey, if he didn't shoot you first, would you have shot him in the midst of your crime?" So this study says 4-7 more people are killed because of SYG laws. How many were saved? This type of comment continues to show a basic misunderstanding of how you work with data. It means that if 4-7 additional people die per month...then for each life that is saved, another is lost to offset that life. It is done by using comparative data of trends in crime rates,w ithin state lines, within ethnic groups, and across state lines. While you cannot do a double-blind study of it, the fact that different states have different laws, and the fact that the laws change at a specific point in time, gives you a very close approximation of one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 08:54 AM) This type of comment continues to show a basic misunderstanding of how you work with data. It means that if 4-7 additional people die per month...then for each life that is saved, another is lost to offset that life. It is done by using comparative data of trends in crime rates,w ithin state lines, within ethnic groups, and across state lines. While you cannot do a double-blind study of it, the fact that different states have different laws, and the fact that the laws change at a specific point in time, gives you a very close approximation of one. How does it capture how many lives are saved or how many crimes were stopped? That is a statistic that cannot be recorded unless you interview criminals and ask them if they stopped committing a crime because they saw the victim had a gun. At best you'll have a number of dead criminals but that tells half the story. These studies are limited to SYG situations (which as I pointed out before, is varied from state to state and prosecutor to prosecutor, so whether or not case X really fits in this study or not is questionable) ending in death. Not the total picture of the effect of SYG laws and concealed carry and what that does to prevent crime or deter crime from happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 10:06 AM) How does it capture how many lives are saved or how many crimes were stopped? That is a statistic that cannot be recorded unless you interview criminals and ask them if they stopped committing a crime because they saw the victim had a gun. At best you'll have a number of dead criminals but that tells half the story. These studies are limited to SYG situations (which as I pointed out before, is varied from state to state and prosecutor to prosecutor, so whether or not case X really fits in this study or not is questionable) ending in death. Not the total picture of the effect of SYG laws and concealed carry and what that does to prevent crime or deter crime from happening. Your're talking about a statistically significant increase in the total number of deaths recorded by 2 studies and not accounted for by increased deaths of assailants. That means that whatever decrease in deaths there might be associated with actual self defense cases, they are swamped out by an increase in deaths overall from people who unsuccessfully attempt to defend themselves or have accidents. These studies are not limited to SYG situations. They are comparing death rates overall. THat means they're taking into account successful SYG situations and failed ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 2, 2012 -> 09:09 AM) That means that whatever decrease in deaths there might be associated with actual self defense cases, they are swamped out by an increase in deaths overall from people who unsuccessfully attempt to defend themselves or have accidents. As opposed to the people who were killed without trying to protect themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts