Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

[Saraya]

@Honesty

Now, on the other hand, I don’t get that lack of seriousness from Saraya et al. posts’, in fact, I think he and others are as serious as heart attack.

Often others feel the need to use additional context to express the tone of their words. That’s on them, it’s their bad habit to cover up an inability to properly express themselves; or they fear that others will misunderstand.
I do not suffer either problem.
If you however are unable to treat comments with a grain of salt, then that is on you.

And I don’t have a penis, so you’ll need to come at me with a different racial stereotype - but thanks for making our case about your unchecked race baiting.

You’ve still yet to connect the dots on how gullible white people are more likely to see Zimmerman is guilty, and yet clued in black people are privy to the truth.

[Honesty]

@Saraya

And I don’t have a penis, so you’ll need to come at me with a different racial stereotype

My apologies. I’ve read your posts and because I’ve never heard a female publically espousing such views, I mistakenly thought you were male.

@Saraya

but thanks for making our case about your unchecked race baiting.

You must be kidding. This message board is an entire race-bait. Every month there’s a thread on how we’re stupid, how we’re violent, how biologically inferior black people are. You, the peanut gallery, and even the moderators on this forum don’t even bat an eyelash. It’s no different than those teachers that stand by and let kids get bullied. I post because I’m sick and tired of coming to the message board and seeing my people cast in a bad light. When I see ignorance against blacks on this message board, I will fight it, believe that, because it’s has become excruciatingly evident that no one else here will.

@Saraya

You’ve still yet to connect the dots on how gullible white people are more likely to see Zimmerman is guilty, and yet clued in black people are privy to the truth.

:smack:

• Honesty

[Magiver]

@Honesty

If you think I’m dancing for your approval, then you’re going to be disappointed. <shrug> I provided a link to the book, provided a host of cites, and if that’s still not good enough, then it ain’t going to be good enough, but I’m not playing the same old, tired game of goal-posting that’s become part and parcel of this message board.

You haven’t provided any cite that backs up what you said. You just listed cites without commentary. You have yet to provide any argument as to how your gut feeling trumps evidence.

[Steophan]

@Honesty

It’s a quite a shame you think that way because I don’t consider it racist at all, I consider it an honest appraisal of my experience with no malice or ill-will intended. I supposed this a snake devouring its tail moment where it clear that we will never understand each other on this issue.

You don’t consider a statement that makes a negative generalisation based on skin colour to be racist? Whether it’s honest, or offered in a non-malicious way, is irrelevant. If I honestly felt that black people committed too much crime because they were unable to control themselves, and so white people should chain them up for their own good, would that not be racist in your eyes?

Finally, I’d like to point out that when I did write about the whites and autism. I said it was racist a few posts after and apologized. The difference between you and me is that I have the confidence and honesty in my viewpoint that I can say I made a mistake or admit I messed up. Hell, just see my previous post about Blink to Human Action regarding Paul Ekman. Or ask Bricker about the email I sent to him. You guys, on the other hand, cannot. You cling to always being right, never wrong, and surely, never, ever racist. Your shit doesn’t stink, so yes, when I said “white people can’t bullshit”, it was poorly phrased, but from my perspective and even in this thread, the adage has become almost proverbial.

You clearly haven’t read my posts if you think I won’t admit it when I’m wrong. Just a few days ago, you called me out for using an incorrect definition of “criminal record”, so I checked and found I was indeed wrong, and posted to say so.

More relevant to this thread, me and at least one other poster - Magiver - changed our minds on Zimmerman’s guilt. I assumed he was guilty, probably of manslaughter, based on the initial news reports and my (flawed, as it turned out) understanding of the relevant laws. As I did learn about Florida law, and as the evidence in the case was revealed, my view changed significantly.

Contrarily, I’ve not seen you modify your view, or for that matter show the evidence it’s based on. Saying it’s your experience is fine, as far as it goes, but it’s negated the moment someone has different experience. Posting a multitude of cites that appear to have nothing to do with the topic, and refusing to answer questions about how those cites relate to the topic, is not fine.

[hmarvin]

[Magiver]

@hmarvin

http://i.imgur.com/y8dDQoP.png

as a general rule you should provide a snippet of what you’re citing and then comment on it so people know what they’re clicking on and why.

[Shodan]

I concur, but it appears to be the results of another voice analysis concluding that Martin was not the one screaming. But without the ability to read the whole document, it is hard to decide how much weight to give it.

Regards,
Shodan

[hmarvin]

@Shodan

I concur, but it appears to be the results of another voice analysis concluding that Martin was not the one screaming. But without the ability to read the whole document, it is hard to decide how much weight to give it.

Regards,
Shodan

The point I should have started is that they now have Trayvon’s voice samples for comparison, not necessarily the conclusions expressed, since expert opinions will vary.

[hmarvin]

Limine Calling Witnesses | PDF

This one could be really bizarre, if the rumor turns out to be true the person referred to is DD, the one time star witness.

[Magiver]

@hmarvin

State Motion Non-Witness Predjudice Avoidance | PDF

This one could be really bizarre, if the rumor turns out to be true the person referred to is DD, the one time star witness.

the Prosecution just said their case went south and the Defense can’t point it out. As long as the witnesses in question can be sworn in that is not a problem.

[Human_Action]

@Honesty

I don’t have a copy of the book on my nightstand, so the name escaped me, but I knew it was from the wrong. If you had so from the beginning, I wouldn’t have blown you off. I apologize, my bad. So now that we have that out the way, what’s fraudulent about Paul Ekman? I’m looking at his vita, and it’s quite impressive - University of Chicago, New York University, Adelphi University, and a host of NIH grants and over 100 publications on Pubmed. So what’s pseudoscience about Paul Ekman. In comparison, could you also offer your own credentials in this field as well.

Thanks.

• Honesty

That’s understandable, I should have been more thorough and mentioned that Ekman was from Blink.

I had some extra time on my hands, so I fetched my copy of Blink. The below is what I suspect you must have been thinking of, because it’s the only thing close to “white people, on average, can’t smell bullshit”, and as you’ll see, it isn’t close at all. This is from page 239 of the paperback:

Paul Ekman has developed a number of simple tests of people’s mind-reading abilities; in one, he plays a short clip of a dozen or so people claiming to have done something that they either have or haven’t actually done, and the test taker’s task is to figure out who is lying. The tests are surprisingly difficult. Most people come out right at the level of chance. But who does well? People who have practiced. Stroke victims who have lost the ability to speak, for example, are virtuosos, because their infirmity has forced them to become far more sensitive to the information written on people’s faces. People who have had highly abusive childhoods also do well; like stroke victims, they’ve had to practice the difficult art of reading minds, in their care the minds of alcoholic or violent parents. Ekman actually runs seminars for law-enforcement agencies in which he teaches people how to improve their mind-reading skills. With even half an hour of practice, he says, people can become adept at picking up microexpressions. “I have a training tape, and people love it,” Ekman says. “They start it, and they can’t see any of these expressions. Thirty-five minutes later, they can see them all. What that says is that this is an accessible skill.”

Bolding mine.

As mentioned above, Ekman claims to be able to teach others to detect lies, which he does for a profit. His incentives are rather obvious. Can he actually do so? This point is controversial. This Nature article covers it well, including Ekman’s contribution to the TSA’s SPOT program.

Yet a growing number of researchers are dubious — not just about the projects themselves, but about the science on which they are based. “Simply put, people (including professional lie-catchers with extensive experience of assessing veracity) would achieve similar hit rates if they flipped a coin,” noted a 2007 report1 from a committee of credibility-assessment experts who reviewed research on portal screening.

“No scientific evidence exists to support the detection or inference of future behaviour, including intent,” declares a 2008 report prepared by the JASON defence advisory group. And the TSA had no business deploying SPOT across the nation’s airports “without first validating the scientific basis for identifying suspicious passengers in an airport environment”, stated a two-year review of the programme released on 20 May by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of the US Congress.

Most credibility-assessment researchers agree that humans are demonstrably poor at face-to-face lie detection. SPOT traces its intellectual roots to the small group of researchers who disagree — perhaps the most notable being Paul Ekman, now an emeritus professor of psychology at the University of California Medical School in San Francisco. In the 1970s, Ekman co-developed the ‘facial action coding system’ for analysing human facial expressions, and has since turned it into a methodology for teaching people how to link those expressions to a variety of hidden emotions, including an intent to deceive. He puts particular emphasis on ‘microfacial’ expressions such as a tensing of the lips or the raising of the brow — movements that might last just a fraction of a second, but which might represent attempts to hide a subject’s true feelings. Ekman claims that a properly trained observer using these facial cues alone can detect deception with 70% accuracy — and can raise that figure to almost 100% accuracy by also taking into account gestures and body movements. Ekman says he has taught about one thousand TSA screeners and continues to consult on the programme.

Ekman’s work has brought him cultural acclaim, ranging from a profile in bestselling book Blink — by Malcolm Gladwell, a staff writer for The New Yorker magazine — to a fictionalized TV show based on his work, called Lie to Me. But scientists have generally given him a chillier reception. His critics argue that most of his peer-reviewed studies on microexpressions were published decades ago, and much of his more recent writing on the subject has not been peer reviewed. Ekman maintains that this publishing strategy is deliberate — that he no longer publishes all of the details of his work in the peer-reviewed literature because, he says, those papers are closely followed by scientists in countries such as Syria, Iran and China, which the United States views as a potential threat.

The data that Ekman has made available have not persuaded Charles Honts, a psychologist at Boise State University in Idaho who is an expert in the polygraph or ‘lie detector’. Although he was trained on Ekman’s coding system in the 1980s, Honts says, he has been unable to replicate Ekman’s results on facial coding. David Raskin, a professor emeritus of psychology at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, says he has had similar problems replicating Ekman’s findings. “I have yet to see a comprehensive evaluation” of Ekman’s work, he says.

Ekman counters that a big part of the replication problem is that polygraph experts, such as Honts and Raskin, don’t follow the right protocol. “One of the things I teach is never ask a question that can be answered yes or no,” Ekman says. “In a polygraph, that’s the way you must ask questions.” Raskin and Honts disagree with Ekman’s criticism, saying that Ekman himself provided the materials and training in the facial-coding technique.

So, where does this leave us? Ekman never said that socioeconomic status, let alone race, made on better at detecting exception, if he is correct that detecting deception is a skill that can be acquired, which is far from clear.

[Shodan]

@hmarvin

State Motion Non-Witness Predjudice Avoidance | PDF

This one could be really bizarre, if the rumor turns out to be true the person referred to is DD, the one time star witness.

I read the document a couple of times. IANAL. Is it saying that the prosecution does not want the defense to point out that the prosecution could have called Dee Dee as a witness, but didn’t? Is that the rumor you mean?

The point I should have started is that they now have Trayvon’s voice samples for comparison, not necessarily the conclusions expressed, since expert opinions will vary.

Thanks for the explanation. ISTM that the voice evidence is a wash, unless someone can establish with some reasonable degree of certainty who was screaming. Unless and until we get more than “Dueling Experts”, I will consider that it was Zimmerman screaming, based on his own testimony, that of others who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, and the indications of Zimmerman’s injuries that Martin threw the first punch and was winning the fight.

Regards,
Shodan

[hmarvin]

http://gzlegalcase.com/discovery_3.html

 Here's the latest evidence dump by the defense.

[hmarvin]

Martin wanted to purchase a .380 revolver, his mother had kicked him out of the house, he had come to Sanford by bus, not with his father, talked about fighting, etc. From earlier evidence, he was actually staying at a motel room, or at least he was registered there, so you have to wonder what he was even doing at the townhouse complex. At any rate, the Martins and Crump are apparently out and out liars. Considering that George Zimmerman knew the first available police cruiser would arrive at an unspecified time, during or after the phone conversation, it’s difficult to see any case at all.

[Steophan]

@hmarvin

Martin wanted to purchase a .380 revolver, his mother had kicked him out of the house, he had come to Sanford by bus, not with his father, talked about fighting, etc. From earlier evidence, he was actually staying at a motel room, or at least he was registered there, so you have to wonder what he was even doing at the townhouse complex. At any rate, the Martins and Crump are apparently out and out liars. Considering that George Zimmerman knew the first available police cruiser would arrive at an unspecified time, during or after the phone conversation, it’s difficult to see any case at all.

Any chance you can link to and/or quote the parts that say this? Simply claiming it isn’t particularly helpful.

[Shodan]

I don’t think it is news why Martin came to live with his father and his father’s girlfriend - he had been expelled and his mother figured she couldn’t handle him and wanted his father to have a try. Maybe he was staying at a hotel because his father or his father’s girlfriend didn’t want him around either.

I can’t go thru the links - is there anything there to confirm or disprove the Martins’ story of Trayvon going off to the store to get some Skittles and watermelon juice?

Regards,
Shodan

[hmarvin]

@Steophan

Any chance you can link to and/or quote the parts that say this? Simply claiming it isn’t particularly helpful.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-trial-trayvon-20130523,0,939183.story

[hmarvin]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-trial-photos-20130522,0,5366897.story

[you_with_the_face]

Trayvon wrote about fighting in a text message sent Nov. 22, 2011.

His unnamed opponent, he wrote, “got mo hits cause in da 1st round he had me on da ground an I couldn’t do ntn.”

So Martin was texting about getting his ass kicked by someone else. In a manner bizarrely similar to Zimmerman’s story, no less. Okay. Lol.

His use of the “1st round” suggests this was consensual fight. Not an assault. Zimmerman only wishes he could lay claim to a similar history, but he can’t. The fights on his record got him in trouble with the law.

That the defense is grasping at these straws (Gold teeth, seriously?! And the kid had an interest in guns? Well, Zimmerman had an interest in guns too, as evident by him carrying one and using it on someone! WTF?) is a clear sign of desperation. Their only hope is to contaminate the jury pool with slanderous innuendo. I do not see how O’Mara and West can sleep at night.

[hmarvin]

Trayvon Martin Text Messages (Part 2) | PDF