"blithering nonsense"? "The Sanford police department did NOT take Zimmerman into custody that night." Get a clue!
http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/george-z ... e-16024475This link shows Mr. Zimmerman exiting a police cruiser in handcuffs. You understand the backseat of those vehicles do NOT let an occupant get out by themselves. Any reasonable or even legal definition of "arrest" will include being taken into custody with the implication that you are not free to go as you wish. Being in handcuffs and driven to a police station (not the front door) in the back of a cruiser you can't get out of is being arrested. Your articles are playing into a fantasy of words which seem to somehow differentiate between "taken into custody" and "arrested." While there may be procedural differences in the declared status of "taken into custody" and "arrested" which seem to center on intent, the effect and legal fact is the person was arrested. Any statement to the contrary is a semantic fiction. (you can bet someone read him his rights)
Regarding the transcript, the average reader would assume its some official transcript created by an impartial government agency. Aren't ALL 911 calls recorded and transcribed after all? ANY reasonable person reading it should be skeptical of its authorship when you read a passage:
[It sounds like Zimmerman says under his breath, ‘F-ing coons’ at 2:22]
NOTE:
[Listen here at 1:17 for CNN's edited frame]
Quoting it as if it were legitimate evidence of a hate crime in action needed correction and attribution. An official transcript wouldn't contain ANY of that tripe.
AGAIN taking out of context and NOT finishing the attribution burns you again.
SirPepsi wrote:When I provide stark evidence supporting the fact that the voice screaming for help was NOT Zimmerman, you have the blatant audacity to discount two accredited audio experts!
You cite two experts, and paraphrase their conclusions, but don't provide to everyone else the important information that goes with it.
CNN wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html
...Audio experts Tom Owen and Ed Primeau, who analyzed the recordings for the Sentinel using different techniques, said they don't believe it is Zimmerman who is heard yelling in the background of one 911 call. They compared the screams with Zimmerman's voice, as recorded in a 911 call he made minutes earlier describing a "suspicious" black male.
"There's a huge chance that this is not Zimmerman's voice," said Primeau, a longtime audio engineer who is listed as an expert in recorded evidence by the American College of Forensic Examiners International.
"After 28 years of doing this, I would put my reputation on the line and say this is not George Zimmerman screaming."
What witnesses say
Owen, a forensic audio analyst and chairman emeritus of the American Board of Recorded Evidence, also said he does not believe the screams came from Zimmerman.
He cited software that is widely used in Europe and has become recently accepted in the United States that examines characteristics like pitch and the space between spoken words to analyze voices.
Using it, he found a 48% likelihood the voice is Zimmerman's. At least 60% is necessary to feel confident two samples are from the same source, he told CNN on Monday -- meaning it's unlikely it was Zimmerman who can be heard yelling.
The experts, both of whom said they have testified in cases involving audio analysis, stressed they cannot say who was screaming.
[/quote]
Based on a 48% chance that it IS Mr. Zimmerman screaming for help these two experts are confident enough to say they don't believe it was him. They say they can't say WHO it is. The FBI analysis report says they can't say that it wasn't Master Martin or Mr. Zimmerman calling for help. Hopefully, that sheds some light on my blatant audacity and why I dismiss your "experts" in favor of the FBI report.
I read the entire stinkin PDF about eyewitness accounts. It does NOT invalidate what the eyewitness claims. It demonstrates the loss of details in recollection over time and retelling. I got into a fight in the fourth grade with Barry Kirksey. The day after I could have told you what he was wearing what I was wearing, what was said before and during the fight. Today, I can't remember how tall he was, his hair style or even what date or time of day it was, but I
DO remember we fought. I didn't
IMAGINE it. The eyewitness remembers what he remembers and swears to its accuracy. He too, didn't imagine it! You are in effect saying he did!
Nite, your judicious use of censorship is amazing. Thread after thread of vitriol, profanity and hate get posted day after day and you do nothing. I am accused of being a liar by someone who omits damning sections from articles he claims as evidence. I called him on it and called him an idiot and a liar himself for doing it. Somehow, this gets your ire? Give me a break! That's pathetic.
To Pepsi, if you honestly didn't read or understand the evidence you posted was tainted or misused, then I retract my liar accusation. I will stand by my statement that you should read more and post less however. Finally, please understand, I take great umbrage at being called a liar. I can stand being called ill-informed and sometimes un-informed. I will NOT post on a subject I feel I am either and will vigorously defend my positions to those who claim I am. I apologize if my kindergarten math chide overly insulted you, but please don't make the mistake of calling my integrity into question again.
“The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see.”
“You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.”
"Freedom (n.): To ask nothing. To expect nothing. To depend on nothing."
