• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Latest Zimmerman PR Stunt

hawke812 said:
On the other hand, we have direct evidence of someone saying something, can't explain upon what he said during an investigation, then does a 180 and says the opposite of what he initially said on a talk show, "after the fact". End result, you believe him.
Click to expand...
False! He did not do a 180. He clarified what he meant. Big difference.


And Tracy wasn't clarifying what he meant by saying it wasn't his son. He changed his whole tune. That is a 180.

The fact remains that we know it wasn't his son. And his words only help establish what we already know.
It was not his son screaming or calling for help, it was Zimmerman.
 
Excon said:
False! He did not do a 180. He clarified what he meant. Big difference.


And Tracy wasn't clarifying what he meant by saying it wasn't his son. He changed his whole tune. That is a 180.

The fact remains that we know it wasn't his son. And his words only help establish what we already know.
It was not his son screaming or calling for help, it was Zimmerman.
Click to expand...

1. He's running vs He's not running IS a 180. We have direct evidence of this (911 call, Serino investigation, Hannity).

2. No direct evidence of Tracy Martin SAYING it was not his son, ONLY a third party report, which can easily be misconstrued. Tracy Martin clarified himself.

What is your criteria of what is a 180 "after the fact" and what is a "clarification"? Why did Tracy Martin "change his tune", but Zimmerman "clarified himself"?

I listed the main difference of why Tracy Martin clarified himself, which is no direct evidence of him actually saying "no". George Zimmerman had a chance to clarify himself during the investigation, but did not until the Hannity show. THAT is "changing his whole tune".

Experts have already ruled out Zimmerman as the one screaming for help. By using your process of elimination....:lol:
 
hawke812 said:
Experts have already ruled out Zimmerman as the one screaming for help. By using your process of elimination....:lol:
Click to expand...

The FBI stated the tape was of poor quality and their analysis was inconclusive.
Dr. James Wayman also stated that analysis of the voices is inconclusive.
How can you state for certain who's voice it is?

So we have some experts saying it is not GZ. We have others saying you can't determine. Looks like something for the jury to sort out.
Yet, I know you will go with the "experts" that support your opinion.
 
hawke812 said:
1. He's running vs He's not running IS a 180.
Click to expand...
:naughty
No it isn't. It is a clarification.
You are not thinking of what he is speaking about.
Trayvon is moving away from him in a hasty manner.
He clarified that he believed it was not out of fear because of the manner in which Trayvon did it. He skipped.


He said it was done by running. He then later clarified that it was by skipping.
Trayvon is still moving away from him. It hasn't changed.
It is not a 180.



hawke812 said:
2. No direct evidence of Tracy Martin SAYING it was not his son, ONLY a third party report, which can easily be misconstrued. Tracy Martin clarified himself.
Click to expand...
Holy ****! Wrong!
Two eyewitnesses are direct evidence.
Tracy is doing a 180.
Too bad for him there are two witnesses to say otherwise. lol





hawke812 said:
Experts have already ruled out Zimmerman as the one screaming for help. By using your process of elimination....
Click to expand...
:lamo:doh:lamo
Wrong!
Those supposed experts have been discredited. That means their analysis is also discredited.

Regardless. We can hear that it is Zimmerman screaming. It clearly sounds like him, and not some child.
And definitely not like Trayvon's, as his voice was much deeper than Zimmerman's
 
This is what I don't get about the screams. Why doesn't the def assemble some audio experts, maybe FBI, reenact the scene and have Zimm scream like what was heard on the 911 tape? THEN have the audio experts do some analysis and determine if it was Zimm.

Then have them testify.
 
spanky said:
This is what I don't get about the screams. Why doesn't the def assemble some audio experts, maybe FBI, reenact the scene and have Zimm scream like what was heard on the 911 tape? THEN have the audio experts do some analysis and determine if it was Zimm.

Then have them testify.
Click to expand...

Why would the defense want to help the prosecution:confused:
 
spanky said:
This is what I don't get about the screams. Why doesn't the def assemble some audio experts, maybe FBI, reenact the scene and have Zimm scream like what was heard on the 911 tape? THEN have the audio experts do some analysis and determine if it was Zimm.

Then have them testify.
Click to expand...
Because you can not reproduce the fear and stress that Zimmerman experienced that night.
 
Excon said:
Because you can not reproduce the fear and stress that Zimmerman experienced that night.
Click to expand...

I think it can, at least well enough to get a scientific result.
 
spanky said:
I think it can, at least well enough to get a scientific result.
Click to expand...
Then the voice exemplars they made would be sufficient.

But as we already know, they are not.
 
Excon said:
Then the voice exemplars they made would be sufficient.

But as we already know, they are not.
Click to expand...

They were comparing it to conversational speech. I'm not surprised they couldn't get a determination.
 
spanky said:
They were comparing it to conversational speech. I'm not surprised they couldn't get a determination.
Click to expand...

:naughty

He gave exemplars of him screaming.
That is what the FBI used.
 
spanky said:
This is what I don't get about the screams. Why doesn't the def assemble some audio experts, maybe FBI, reenact the scene and have Zimm scream like what was heard on the 911 tape? THEN have the audio experts do some analysis and determine if it was Zimm.

Then have them testify.
Click to expand...

The question I would have that unless you can put GZ in the same stress he was in that night, would a reanctment produce telling results?
 
So hawke
explain to me why we should believe the source you have on the tape analysis when others including the FBI says its inconclusive?

I think the prosecution, if they used the "experts" that said it was not GZ, would have a bunch of explaining to do.
 
Excon said:
:naughty

He gave exemplars of him screaming.
That is what the FBI used.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that, checked, and you are correct.

Never mind...

11929d1294158788-graduation-hair-advice-rosannadanna.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom