17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #16

Status
Not open for further replies.
How is WATER from a hose ABUSIVE?

A chubby kid was being routinely bullied by these kids. Does that bother anyone?

No Katy, it is not abusive - they probably liked it, depending on the time of year. Most kids like being sprayed with a water hose, not to be confused with 'water boarding' which would be abusive, to say the least.

I doubt the water left scars or lead any of the children to take their own lives - more than can be said for the damage of abuse suffered at the hands of bullies.
 
Let's look at it another way. If I told this forum that a little boy next door was routinely being BULLIED by a group of middle school kids on bikes because he was chubby, and he sat home alone all of the time, You would feel angry and sad, most likely. And if I told you that they rode their bikes past my yard to come and bully the poor kid, and that I SPRAYED THEM whenever possible to protect him---would people here say I was a psychotic that needed to be arrested for assault? Be honest.

No I'd say that person was a bigger bully. You don't solve violence with violence. The child has parents. Let them work it out. He seems to always put himself in an authority role, as judge and jury.....and hero to the child being teased. Tell the kids to knock it off or I'll call your Mom but don't spray them with a hose. What if one of them slipped on the wet pavement fell and hit his head, or water got in their eyes and they hit a parked car? He does not think about how his actions could affect others. jmo
 
No Katy, it is not abusive - they probably liked it, depending on the time of year. Most kids like being sprayed with a water hose, not to be confused with 'water boarding' which would be abusive, to say the least.

I doubt the water left scars or lead any of the children to take their own lives - more than can be said for the damage of abuse suffered at the hands of bullies.

Sure kids like it.
But as discipline? Or payback?
That is different then playing in water.
 
I don't think abusive is the word I would have chosen, but I do find it disturbing and inappropriate. The boy didn't indicate that the spraying was used to break up a current altercation, but essentially to punish these kids. Were they the same kids? Had their parents already taken care of the bullying? How often did he spray them? Were they just walking along?

Irrespective of the answers to these questions, I find the notion of some young, childless, guy choosing to punish children after the fact for something that parents and the school system should be (and possibly were) handling strange and inappropriate. Moo

He was apparently, according to the other neighborhood kid, standing up for and supporting the chubby kid. It sounds as though they were friends.

And they were not just walking along, they were riding their bikes in a group. It sounds to me like they were the neighborhood bullies that made fun of the chubby kid all of the time.

And spraying kids on bikes with hose is hardly an assault or an attack. I think LE would laugh if a parent wanted an arrest out of it. imo Especially if the bullied kid explained the story.

If I found out someone sprayed one of my kids with water I would be angry. very angry. But if I then found out it was because they were bullying a fat kid--then I would be even angrier. :furious: And it would be at my kids and not the sprayer.

As I have said---I think GZ should have been arrested on day one. But I also think that some are making him out to be something that he is not. imooo
 
Well, I would HOPE it would hurt their pride and their feelings. If they were riding their bikes on the way to bully and belittle the chubby kid, and GZ sprayed them with water to slow them down,then that is fine with me. It is WATER, not fire or chemicals. It is certainly less harmful then their words and insults against that poor kid they were bullying.

BBM

I don't believe hurting feelings teaches a lesson.
 
Just checking is there some reason my posts are not going thru?

Update: Never mind, it was my computer - lost connection to the web and was only seeing cached pages.
 
But not always for the defendant. Read his thoughts, etc., on the Casey Anthony trial. One would think he was working for the prosecution.


Expert? He's biased, he's a defense attorney!
 
You're just as likely to pull out four more purple jelly beans as you were the first time. And since the first three defied these tremendous odds, you can't really say that the last four would not.

This is similar to saying that because black individuals only make up 13% of the population in the US, it'd be silly to claim they comprise ~50% of convicted murderers. For your statistics with regards to demographic information to mean anything, you'd have to have crime rates based on race to see if crimes committed by a certain race is disproportional to their population size. This isn't actually a random sample you're drawing conclusions on. It's a sample of burglars in the Sanford area. Just because there are more Asians, for instance, in the area doesn't mean it's more likely that the burglars are Asian. You have to look at crime trends in the area, not just raw population data.
BBM

Let me get even more specific. According to the most recent US Census in 2010, the population at large in Sanford, FL was 50,634.

Statistically, of these 50,634 individuals, 30.5% or 15,443 were black.

Statistically, of these 15,443 black individuals, 48% or 7,412 were black males.

Statistically, of these 7,412 black males, 26% or 1,927 were young black males.

Statistically, of the 50,634 individuals that made up the population at large of Sanford, Florida, 3.81% or 1,927 were young, black males.

To imply that crime statistics for a race of people must be considered in a statistical quantitative analysis of an identified core group of individuals, encompasses the very definition of RACIAL PROFILING.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/moneymag/bplive/2010/snapshots/PL1263650.html

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/1263650.html
 
He was apparently, according to the other neighborhood kid, standing up for and supporting the chubby kid. It sounds as though they were friends.

And they were not just walking along, they were riding their bikes in a group. It sounds to me like they were the neighborhood bullies that made fun of the chubby kid all of the time.

And spraying kids on bikes with hose is hardly an assault or an attack. I think LE would laugh if a parent wanted an arrest out of it. imo Especially if the bullied kid explained the story.

If I found out someone sprayed one of my kids with water I would be angry. very angry. But if I then found out it was because they were bullying a fat kid--then I would be even angrier. :furious: And it would be at my kids and not the sprayer.

As I have said---I think GZ should have been arrested on day one. But I also think that some are making him out to be something that he is not. imooo

Guess we will have to agree to totally disagree on this subject.
 
BBM

How do you know?
Did GZ know their history? Did he know if the parents had already handled it?

I find it more helpful to pull these kids aside and mentor them.

You don't fight bullying with bullying!

And that's what happened.

Some here are way too young to remember the riots but that is how police handled the crowds, with fire hoses. But they were LE. GZ is not LE, nor is he their parents. Turning the hose one them is, in fact, an act of bullying itself when verbally telling them to stop is about as far as he should have gone. jmo
 
Every account I have heard or read says basically this:

"According to what the girlfriend has told Mr. Crump, Trayvon asked the man why he was following him, and the man responded by asking what Trayvon was doing there. She said she heard what sounded like the earpiece to Trayvon’s cellphone falling away before the line went dead. There was no answer when she tried calling back."

This particular quote is from the recent most excellent article in The New York Times:
Race, Tragedy and Outrage Collide After a Shot in Florida

I'm thinking GZ may have yanked the ear piece out of TM's ear. JMHO
 
YES, it is not YOUR job to discipline those children. If you were spraying my child I would have you arrested!

I doubt I would be arrested for spraying a water hose towards a group of bullies on a bike.
 
You asked so i will be honest YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IMHO JMHO Bullying does not stop bullying it is wrong especially for and adult to do to a child....IMHO

Exactly and it kind of goes back to the old notion that two wrongs don't make a right. What some may describe as bullying--using the hose-- to counter the original bullying behavior? Pretty sure that's a bad idea. JMO
 
Right, so it's almost at the same exact time. GZ says he went running when at the same time TM is telling the GF I'm not going to run.

I see it as TM had already run by the time he talked to his girlfriend in that last call. There were three incoming calls from her: 6:54, 7:04, and the last one at 7:12 (from the screenshots of TM's phone logs shown during that ABC News segment). According to the screenshot, that call lasted 4 minutes.

I wonder if the call that started at 7:04 was disconnected during the time that TM was first trying to evade GZ - maybe TM disconnected at the time GZ said "He's got his hand in his waistband." That would have been right at 7:10. Then TM came closer to GZ's car, maybe just walking past it but close enough to make GZ nervous. Sixteen seconds later GZ says, "Somethings wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is."

It's fifty seconds after that, a few seconds before 7:12, that GZ says he's running - my timeline has it nearly twenty seconds before 7:12. I think in that minute and a half or so, TM stopped under the clubhouse overhang, put his hoodie up, watched this guy he'd noticed watching him, and decided to jog out of sight, in between the rows of townhouses.

About the time TM got out of GZ's sight would have been when the girlfriend's last call connected. GZ was on the phone with the dispatcher until right about 7:13:40 - the dispatcher made the final entry at 7:13:41.

This is where the various stories diverge. GZ's original story to police, as told to Tracy Martin by the lead detective is that after he got off the phone with the dispatcher, TM came up to his window and asked why GZ was following him. If that had happened before 7:12 the dispatcher would have heard it; after 7:12, the girlfriend would have heard it.

There is no time for that encounter to have happened after the girlfriend's call was disconnected at 7:16 because the 911 calls began at 7:16 with the call that has the screams in the background. That call places the location of whatever was happening between the townhouses, close to the spot where Trayvon's body was when the police arrived at 7:17. During that 911 call, the scream are heard for 44 seconds when the shot is heard.

Whatever slack there is in the timeline after 7:13:40, there does not seem to be a way to reconcile the stories - GZ's recorded call with the Sanford PD dispatcher, the story the lead detective told Tracy Martin the next day as GZ's version, the different versions GZ's family and friends have told (which I really don't think are accurate), and the girlfriend's story.

There are just over two minutes where TM was talking to his girlfriend; and where we don't know where GZ was. GZ said he went to the next street realized where he was and turned around - on one version of his story, not sure which one that was - the one his father told? Concerned Papa tried different scenarios based on measurements and estimated travel time. I'm not sure if I agree with his conclusions - it's all too iffy.

The facts we have now are the recordings of the calls and the logs of the call times. That's what I keep going round and round with, trying to make sense of it.

All the times I have come from those sources and from me listening to the recordings and noting times for various parts of the conversations. My times could be off. The information I have to work with could be wrong.

This is the best information I can put together from what is publicly available. The interpretations are my opinion only.
 
But not always for the defendant. Read his thoughts, etc., on the Casey Anthony trial. One would think he was working for the prosecution.
I have, and I didn't.
 
It could very well cause them to be hurt physically. It could cause the children to slip and fall on the pavement causing broken bones or head trauma. Depending on the force, it could injure an eye. Just a couple of examples..

The garden hose was our favorite pass-time during the summer when I was little. I probably spent every day being blasted for hours to get a break from the smoldering Texas heat. Not once did I get so much as a skinned knee.
 
Zimmerman is not considered a suspect. Why would he talk about it? I'm sure his lawyer has advised him not to talk as well. The SPD's decision is being investigated - I would imagine his attorney has advised him as well. JMO

The point is that the police usually WANT suspects to talk. And talk and talk and talk. Because LE can build entire cases out of inconsistencies in a suspect's talking.

But here, the SPD is giving GZ the same advice as GZ's own attorney.

It makes one wonder what side the cops are on.
 
a necessary part of the analysis for the purposes of determining which of two people is the voice you are hearing. The article discusses how the process works with various methods and Allen discusses how he uses Trawl

In a typical case, Allen takes several phrases of at least 10 words from a wiretap or telephone call and generates a voiceprint with a software program by Speech Technology Center called Trawl. It's a five-year-old program so sophisticated that police use it to analyze phone calls in real time by comparing voices to a database of 10,000 known voices. "The call comes in and scans the voice and says who it is," Allen said

The above procerss does not require cooperation by anyone. But Allen does go on to talk about how he used it in court cases which makes sense as I assume the defendant is claiming that it ISN'T his voice. In this case there are two people and each side is claiming it's one voice or the other and so the ability to "type" the voice and then match it would be less cumbersome as you have eliminated everyone else in the world except for these two people. I know, some will want to claim it's a third person, or someone's cat screaming so I'm talking basic logic here for those who agree it's more likely than not one of the two people involved in the shooting.

Allen makes a transcript of the phrases he's analyzed, then gets the defendant to read it.

"In most cases, defendants try to play with it and disguise their voice," he said. "But no matter how they try, I gotcha...I compare them and line up the similar characteristics in the exact words. At the end of the day, there are seven outcomes, from inconclusive to a high degree of scientific certainty."

Allen uses a program called Trawl:

The program the Sentinel's experts used, Easy Voice Biometrics, is easier to use than Trawl, Allen said.

The science behind these methods:

Acoustic scientists have been using audio forensics since WWII, according to Wired, when, with the aid of the newly invented sound spectrograph, they realized they might be able to identify enemy voices on radio broadcasts. The spectrograph graphed the frequency and amplitude of voice patterns.

The scientists realized the value of that information because, with the possible exception of twins, voiceprints are unique, said forensic-audio examiner Stuart Allen.

"Unless you've had surgery, you can't disguise the characteristics of your vocal cords or mouth structure," he said.

As to the argument that screams don't count or they weren't really saying words etc. It would seem to me that a voice is a voice and the characteristics of that voice as compared to ONE other voice could be easily distinguished as they are talking about the "characteristics of you vocal cords" which I assume would be the same regardless of what the vocal cords were doing...IMO etc

An interesting article about voice recognition technology.

In this article, apparently it's common to get a suspect to say the same words as are in the sample, so that the suspect and sample can be compared word for word.

I'm really still surprised that no one in the media has brought up what appears to be a huge problem here - the "suspected shouter" isn't really saying many words, but rather making sounds.

I have a hard time thinking you could get a clear identification of either of the men just by comparing to usual speaking voice. It will be interesting, if it's ever done, to compare Trayvon's speaking voice to the screams and see if they can get a clear idea. I just don't see how.

http://news.discovery.com/tech/george-zimmerman-voice-recognition-120404.html
 
Because if I walk up to your car, I am intentionally approaching you. I make a conscious decision to go to your car.

If I walk toward you, I am neither approaching you nor am I necessarily doing anything intentional. I may just be walking in the direction I was already headed, and you happen to be parked there watching me.


I don't think it's splitting hairs, but we can agree to disagree?

JMO MOO IMO

Well, I can see your point.
That whole incident bugs me though. In view of the fact that Mr Martin was told by the detective the next day that there was a verbal communication at that time including rolling down the window by GZ. Coupled by the reluctance of LE to release the 911 tapes that proved a different scenario. It just does not pass the smell test.
I guess GZ would have loved to catch Trayvon in a burglary in order to get brownie points with LE, hence he stayed mum.
 
BBM

I don't believe hurting feelings teaches a lesson.

I do. Bullies are prideful and they see themselves as superior. I think knocking them down a peg or two, NON VIOLENTLY, is fine. Imo letting them see how it FEELS to be embarrassed is teaching them a valuable lesson. imoo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
210
Guests online
887
Total visitors
1,097

Forum statistics

Threads
594,469
Messages
18,006,225
Members
229,408
Latest member
Trotski24
Back
Top