You should stop talking to me in this very condescending, annoying way. I answered his question just fine.
The distorted percentage seems to be FOX, deliberately downplaying.
The article said 15% for Fox. That works out to 9 minutes an hour. That seems like quite a lot. The article says that they have a different slant from MSNBC and CNN.
Frankly I’ve never been a big fan of TV news. It seems like a painfully slow way to get information and with newspapers you don’t have to read all the articles, just the ones that interest me.
for consideration
Yeah, it’s in there… somewhere…
This article seems to only have one sentence about using voice biometrics for forensic application.
Right now, I’m interested in the second expert mentioned in the article. Ed Primeau says:
I’m wondering how much certainty can be attached to his statement that he can identify whether he is hearing a 17 year old man or a 28 year old man based on the tone in his voice?
It seems like what you want is for Zimmerman to be arrested and spend a night in jail. That this would satisfy your sense of justice and that is all that you feel needs to be meted out to Zimmerman for this killing. Your constant calls for a arrest even when it could possibly risk a conviction seems to make that clear. Or am I wrong?
If so, *answer the question. * **Quit dodging the question and answer it. **Do you want Zimmerman just arrested or do you want him convicted?
Sure. But again, what do you want probable cause for in this case? Probable cause would be generally needed for a arrest without a indictment. But does not a indictment solve the problem?
Trayvon Martin Shooting: Voice Experts Claim Teen’s Cries, Not Zimmerman’s, Can Be Heard On 911 Call
“I took all of the screams and put those together, and cut out everything else,” Owen says.
The software compared that audio to Zimmerman’s voice. It returned a 48 percent match. Owen said to reach a positive match with audio of this quality, he’d expect higher than 90 percent.
“As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it’s not Zimmerman,” Owen says, stressing that he cannot confirm the voice as Trayvon’s, because he didn’t have a sample of the teen’s voice to compare
Nope. It’s a either or.
A. Do you want him arrested ? ( by this I mean arrested* now*, before a indictment)
**
OR**
B. Do you want him convicted?
Pick* one.* A or B. No choice C. No waffling.
We concede that it is possible that a arrest now might not jeopardize a conviction. But Bricker sez it might. So, by picking A it *might *jeopardize B.
Of course you won’t pick. You can’t pick B, since that would make your constant calls for a arrest NOW seem like you didn’t know the law, that you just wanted “insta-justice”. (which of course is correct. Neither you nor you with the face know what youre talking about legalistically speaking. And of course if you pick A, then it’s clear you don’t want real justice, just something to placate you and the mob. And in both cases that it’s possible that “the Man” has actually been doing the correct thing in this case.
Mind you, I concede blunders in the Sanford PD handling, but mostly in the leaks & PR.
She wants justice to prevail. If he shot that boy unlawfully, justice means securing a conviction. If he didn’t commit a crime, she wants a jury to review the evidence for and against him and acquit him. Justice, that’s what she wants.
You can’t get a trial without making an arrest first, so of course she wants him to be arrested. The bigger issue is that she doesn’t want his guilt or innocence to be determined by a bureaucrat. She also doesn’t want a bureaucrat’s preconceived opinion about the ease of conviction to affect the rigorousness of a crime investigation.
What is so hard to understand about any of this?
Whoa there. You’re asking for A: arrest or B: conviction. How about C: a fair trial.
A. Do you want him arrested ?** ( by this I mean arrested now, before a indictment)**
OR
B. Do you want him convicted?
Pick one. A or B. No choice C. No waffling.
See that line " (by this I mean arrested now, before a indictment)". Thus, I covered "You can’t get a trial without making an arrest first, so of course she wants him to be arrested."
And of course, there’s only one way to have a arrest before an indictment; by having a bureaucrat make a decision. Only if you have the GJ make the decision do you bypass a bureaucrat making the decision (depends on if you consider an elected official a “bureaucrat” of course).
Your batting average continues, btw.
Will you answer? ( I bet you won’t)
It’s a either or.
A. Do you want him arrested ? ( by this I mean arrested now, before a indictment)
OR
B. Do you want him convicted?
Pick one. A or B. No choice C. No waffling.
They have already decided he’s guilty, so choice B covers the 'fair trial"- since to them, the only “fair” verdict would be guilty.
Or D assurance that there was due diligence done before and that due diligence has been done in this round of investigation
If everyone does what they should do I’ll be content with the outcome.
You can’t get a trial without a lawful arrest. What’s so hard to understand about his statement? It takes a grand jury to get this done and not the ravings of a racist like Reverend “hymietown” Jackson. There is the distinct possibility that the GJ will not return a warrant and all the hyperbole going on is going to explode into large scale violence. There has already been an incident in CA where a Latino kid was beaten up by a gang of AA kids. I don’t know if the 2 are related but this “demand for justice” has grown way out of proportion. Martin wasn’t gunned down by Zimmerman indiscriminately, he was shot in an altercation in which he had the upper hand. The decision by the original attorney who ruled against an arrest may stand.
I would like to see a trial or at least clarification and disclosure of all the facts.
However, I could re-word the question as follows; Given that a arrest NOW may jeopardize a fair trial and conviction later, do you still demand a arrest now?
But they will just waffle and say “We demand justice!” of course, their brand of justice includes a arrest now, a speedy show trial, and a quick lynching.
Do you really think that if Zimmerman is given a trial and gets off due to self-defense that the “Arrest him NOW!” crowd will be happy? No, they will simply say that this proves blacks can’t get justice in America.
Thus for them, the only possible “justice” is a conviction.
Or so the shooter claims. That might be true, but it might not be.
I’ve actually heard of the beaten child in California; but nowhere have I heard it has anything to do with this case. I’m pretty sure kids of one race beat up kids of another race pretty damn regularly in America, probably multiple times a day. I think it is dishonest to try and link those incidents without any evidence to this incident.
Yes, if the teens in the case in California said they were “getting justice for Trayvon” then fine, you could link it. Do we have any evidence of that?
I didn’t say they were linked but it happened on the heels of it and they are protesting this in MY city which is nowhere near the event. So it’s not dishonest to SUGGEST the 2 are related when it’s a national news event.