We have been following the investigation into the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida. The shooter, George Zimmerman, 28, has not been charged and reported a suspicious character to 911. Martin was returning from a 7-11 after buying Skittles. He was carrying the candy, a small amount of cash, and an iced tea. The family and many others have called for the arrest of Zimmerman, though the accounts of the shooting have been murky. Previously, we discussed the need to hear the 911 tapes, which have now been released and are linked below.
Zimmerman is reportedly a habitual caller into the police and is heard on one of the tapes complaining that ““These a**holes always get away.” Zimmerman states on the call that Martin appeared “up to no good . . . It’s raining. He’s just walking around, looking about . . . He’s just staring looking at all the houses.” Zimmerman says on the call that it is Martin who confronts him: “Something’s wrong with him. He’s coming to check me out.” However, he later admits that he is following Martin, which the police dispatcher discourages.
Police Chief Bill Lee said the 911 calls show that the incident was not a case of racial profiling. He said Zimmerman could not say whether the suspect was black or white. However, on the tape you hear Zimmerman say “He looks black” and then a few moments later, “He’s a black male.” While he is at first equivocal, he does identify his race. That does not mean that this is a case of profiling, of course.
However, family member have been critical of the handling of the case by the police and what they view as the police bending over backward to defend Zimmerman. The family had to file a lawsuit to get these tapes. After a hearing, the police finally relented.
The tapes certainly contradict some statements by the police. However, I am not sure that they substantially alter the status in the case. The evidence still is largely based on Zimmerman’s account, though such contemporary records are generally admissible. The tapes both help and hurt Zimmerman.
The statement by Zimmerman that “these a**holes always get away” certainly shows animus and he clearly follows the youth. However, that does not translate into evidence of intent to kill. I am more interested in the level of force used by Zimmerman and the two gunshots heard on the tape. It is possible that audio creates a misleading impression of two shots but that would seem an important forensic question. It is hard to believe that Martin would allegedly continue any confrontation of Zimmerman after a warning shot unless the shot was fired in the midst of a struggle over the gun. Zimmerman can cite the tape for his statement that he believed that Martin had something in his waistband and appeared on drugs. He can also cite his contemporary description of Martin approaching him.
Putting aside the complaints regarding the handling of the case by the police and the conflicting statements given by officials, there remains the question of whether there is sufficient evidence to base a charge against Zimmerman. I would like to see the coroner’s report on the trajectory and distance of the gunshot wound as well as audio analysis of the gun shot or shots. I would also like to see evidence of the abrasions on both men. Zimmerman was reportedly bleeding from the struggle but we have not heard many details on Martin’s other injuries.
Zimmerman would be wise to secure criminal counsel. There is probably enough here for an indictment. The most salient facts against him are (1) the statement on the 911 tape showing animus, (2) the disregarded instructions not to follow Martin, (3) the advantage in weight and possession of a firearm in the struggle, and (4) the lack of any weapon or proof of criminal conduct by Martin.
What do you think about the state of the evidence?
Here is the Zimmerman tape: 911 Tape (Zimmerman)
Here is a witness tape: 911 Tape (1)
Here is a witness tape: 911 Tape (2)
Source: CNN
W=^..^
Then your statements are assertions of belief, not scientific fact. If you have proof particles are intelligent, please provide it. Me and the entire physics world would be very interested in it.
Ooooo. Never mind! I found it. http://gk12.rice.edu/trs/science/Atom/man.htm
Citing a K-12 education supplement that is factually wrong instead of grown up souces. Keeping that reading down to your level?
Here, try this one on for size . . .
“Under Investigation
In August of 1939 Einstein mailed a letter to the White House, informing President Franklin Delano Roosevelt of the potential threat posed by the discovery of and subsequent experimentation with nuclear fission in Berlin, Germany. His ominous prediction read:
“This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs, and it is conceivable—though much less certain—that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory.”
History indicates that Einstein sent four letters to President Roosevelt, each expressing an increased urgency for action. In December of 1941, Roosevelt heeded Einstein’s warning and convened the American investigation into nuclear fission and the development of such a bomb known as the Manhattan Project. This top secret project went underway in a laboratory in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Four years later, in 1945, the United States dropped the newly-developed atomic bomb, devastating the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Despite his role in alerting the President to the possibility of nuclear weapons, Einstein did not participate in the Manhattan Project. Though he was granted American citizenship in 1940, his involvement with liberal organizations whose missions called for world peace made Einstein a “radical” in the eyes of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In response to the perceived threat posed by Einstein, the FBI compiled an extensive secret file on the scientist, monitoring and recording his movements. His status as a security threat prevented Einstein from gaining the security clearance necessary to enter the secret laboratory in New Mexico. It is very likely that this was not a source of disappointment for Einstein, who publicly declared his dedication to pacifism. He was quite distressed when the public mind associated him with the dropping of the atomic bombs in 1945 and the subsequent civilian casualties.”
http://www.fi.edu/learn/case-files/einstein/investigate.html
Anything else you’d care to be factually wrong about, Sotb?
OS, oh okey doke,,,,cause I was worried about the ‘sniper’ thing…my credentials being on the light side 😉
SoT+, no Dude, I said nothing about your preferentials I only owned my own. The stuff in parenthesis was directed at OS. Glad you did no violence…
Gene, I’m not in agreement that ‘Intelligence cannot be without conscious thought.’ in general, but for discussions purpose, given that, I would vote on the side of a ‘Conscious Universe’ right down to the teeniest independant bit of atom and dark matter…..
Albert Einstein did NOT work on the Manhattan Project. However, it was his letter to President Roosevelt dated August 2, 1939 that got the ball rolling. Here is the letter with some background.
http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html
“Einstein: A Security Risk
In July 1940, the U.S. Army Intelligence office denied Einstein the security clearance needed to work on the Manhattan Project. The hundreds of scientists on the project were forbidden from consulting with Einstein, because the left-leaning political activist was deemed a potential security risk.”
The American Muesum of History
You have a link to your source or are you just blowing smoke out of your ass again?
Some of the notable scientists who actually worked on the Manhattan Project included Robert Oppenheimer, David Bohm, Leo Szilard, Eugene Wigner, Otto Frisch, Rudolf Peierls, Felix Bloch, Niels Bohr, Emilio Segre, James Franck, Enrico Fermi, Klaus Fuchs and Edward Teller, but Albert Einstein had no direct involvement in the project. His only contact with the project was the letter to FDR.
“Wait… I need to sneeze… ahhhh-fail! Now that was puerile of me!”
If one consider factual inaccuracy puerile, then you’ve succeeded in using the word properly for once. Congratulations!
I have always seen scientific, spiritual, and artistic inspirations as tied together initially with one common silver thread called imagination. Artists call it the muse, spirituality folk call it grace, scientists call it the falling apple.
From that initial commonality each follows a separate path seeking useful expression and understanding.
To anyone that cares:
“Who Was Involved With The Manhattan Project?
The Manhattan Project was carried out in extreme secrecy. By 1945, the project had nearly 40 labratories and factories which employed approximately 200,000 people. Among these employees were some of the greatest scientist that have ever lived. Included in this lot were Albert Einstein, Enrico Fermi, Richard Feynman, J. Robert Oppenheimer, and Harold Urey (and this is but a hand full of the many).”
Source: Rice University – NSF Program
Wait… I need to sneeze… ahhhh-fail! Now that was puerile of me! 🙂
sonofthunderboanerges,
Challenge? So far you’ve demonstrated that you don’t know what the words you use mean, that you get basic and historical facts wrong, that you don’t understand science or the scientific method, that you don’t understand the diffence between belief and fact, and that your argumentation and logic skills are that of the average paperweight. Perhaps “challenge” should be added to that list of words you don’t know the meaning of.
Coming from somebody so factually misinformed they thought Einstein worked on the Manhattan Project? That’s really funny, ThunderBoner.
The exact quote is “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” I was paraphrasing to make fun of your ridiculous projection of your failure to make your case upon others.
@All – I must admit I didn’t know much about Christopher Langan except that he was referenced as the Smartest man in The World. I just looked up International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design on Wikipedia and it does say he is into ID. I personally REJECT it! I am not a proponent of it. That’s why I coined SSA as deviant to ID (not in it’s totality though). So I never posted him here for religious reasons. Only his “smarts” as I would like to debate him as he seems to be a more worthy challenge to me. That’s no aspersions on most of you here! 🙂
@Bron – Still amused by your last comment that made me laugh so hard. It’s funny how many people think they are Shakespeare-philes and then totally misquote him – huh?
W=^..^
Every defintion of intelligence requires consciousness although there are some that would argue plants should be considered intelligent because they can sense the environment and adjust their morphology, physiology and phenotype accordingly, however, this argument fails because the behavior of plants can be explained simply as biochemical feedback mechanisms given that plants exhibit none of the other other traits associated with intelligence (abstract thought, understanding, reasoning, learning, emotions, memory, problem solving, forethought, etc.). Plants are not intelligent for the same reason bacteria are not intelligent. Intelligence cannot be without conscious thought.
Woosty, I don’t take myself seriously much of the time, so why should anyone else? I inherited my strange sense of humor from my maternal grandfather, who would say the most outrageous and improbable things with a perfectly straight face.
@W = ^..^ – I didn’t say I hated dogs. I love them too. The word “prefer” has a different meaning than what you must think. That profile was from psychology.com not me. And I did not use ANY violence on those pit bulls. So I don’t know what you mean by GUN thing… You use an asterisks as a special notation but did not put the notation in. So what do you and OS want to tell me about guns? I like guns. I live in the state that practically invented them and still supplies them to the world. I don’t own one but I still think they are a mechanical marvel of science. I even invented something that could be used as a preventative measure. However, it is in the realm of classified crap… (It uses DI technology – How’s that for a science-deficit person?)
At face value, the moniker ‘Intelligent Design’ implies a tautology…but does there need to be a ‘conscious’ intelligence…or is the ‘intelligence’ innate and unconscious…and therefore independant of thought? ….or ‘choice’….or ….reason?….
What is the ultimate definition of ‘intelligence’….for it may well be devoid of thought….and thereby rendering all ‘Judgements’ as ….MOOT!
@Otteray Scribe – I agree with you on the subjective nature of the issues at hand. However, the rhetorical question still remains.
Re: Mother Theresa – You do know about my total lack of confidence in Organized Christianity’s last 1,600 years don’t you? No wonder alleged saints and clergymen become disenchanted with all of the dogmatic lies and prevarications invented by 4th Century CE Emperor Constantine’s Catholica (universal) religion and continued by Martin Luther’s 16th century Protestantism. I personally attribute agnosticism and atheism (and the arguable scientific specious theories that followed) to “cause and effect” from this 1,600 year old belief system. The truth about the true God (YHVH or YHWH) is elsewhere, just not with them. Never has been. Other religions outside of Christianity I also hold in disagreement/rejection. The only reason why I apply this to Judaism, as I do believe in their G*d – YHVH, is their Sanhedrin’s betrayal of an OBVIOUS and DEMONSTRATED messianic “visitor” from their own prophecies from people like Isaiah.
“The only reason why I apply this to Judaism, as I do believe in their G*d – YHVH, is their Sanhedrin’s betrayal of an OBVIOUS and DEMONSTRATED messianic “visitor” from their own prophecies from people like Isaiah.”
SoTB,
To further clarify the comment I made above I was referring to this statement of yours, which I find puzzling. You obviously feel that Nicaea and the Councils that followed to Christian belief and turned it askew. Yet you don’t seem to get that even the Gospels were somewhat turned askew. Jesus was no doubt a revolutionary, but he lived as a Jew under the Jewish “yoke”. From his teachings, as exemplified in the Gospels, he was also quite probably a learned Pharisee. The Pharisees represented a more liberal interpretation of Jewish Law and in fact developed the system of Jewish writings that were the beginning of various books of Talmudic scholarship. These books were legal debates.
Because the Pharisees were leaders in the revolt against Roma domination when the RCC was formed writings had to be edited and expunged to hide this and to hide Jesus’ philosophical roots. The “quislings” of the then occupied Israel were the Sadducee, including the High Priest. They did not believe in interpretation of the law, but in strict, unthinking adherence. In any event the idea that Jesus was put to death because of the Sanhedrin is a historical. They didn’t have the power. Also a historical is the idea that the “Jewish Mob” chose Barabbas over Jesus, because the Romans gave them this privilege at holiday time. The idea is nonsensical, but was used for so many years to persecute Jews.
Believe what you will, disagree with me if you like, but before you do debate it I’d suggest you bone up a little more on the topic. As I suggested previously try Hyam Maccoby.
sonofthunderboanerges1, April 16, 2012 at 9:42 am
@W=^..^ – OK here is your profile*. I too love cats over dogs. Fortunately, I know how to deal with them.
———————————
for the record….I never said I prefer cats over dogs….and I don’t. I love both and in a perfect roomy world would have both and then some. I have never felt compelled to limit myself to 1 species and would either be a) dangerous on a farm or b) really happy on a farm.
But this is why I do not think profiling should be given all that weight….(not that I think it is worthless OS and I really* need to talk to you about the ‘gun’… thang….). Dogs, AND Cats are gregarious animals tho cats do have a more prolonged version of ‘whose rules rule’….which can be extremely tiring and stressfull. People with cats are not necessarily less outgoing, they are just caretaker to animals that are more housebound (in general). Dogs NEED to be let out dailyXX2-3 so the adaptation is necessarily more external. I also have birds but I don’t think I’d feel happier in a cage! Anyway…we love what we love … 🙂
@Malisha – Isn’t it interesting that we humans can now actually read someone’s subvocalizations? Not to worry it’s not as powerful as some people would think. You know the “tin hat” crowd? SV is NOT a sign of “tin-hatted-ness” 🙂 SV is perfectly normal in most cases.
Check it out click here.
SoTB, your rhetorical question is completely separate from what we KNOW. Belief is relative and subjective. Kind of like the sign I saw on an antique shop that said, “One person’s trash is another’s treasure.”
I read that after her death, it was revealed Mother Teresa was an agnostic. A secret she hid all those years and was revealed only after her death by her closest confidants. That figures. She ministered to some of the poorest and most downtrodden on the planet, and must have mused on the handiwork of a god that is supposed to be kind and benevolent.
Sotb,
“I didn’t think I was here to prove or disprove Evolution.”
No, but you sure had no problem slandering it then getting your panties in a bunch when challenged for it.
“Are you the only folks here that see why I post stuff (i.e. Chris Langan)? Is it to challenge some benighted theories of whatever or is it just simply information sharing on what SotB finds interesting in the world?”
Either you own your statements and assertions or you do not. You are free to say what you like. You are not free to have it go unchallenged no matter what your motives for saying it might be. Free speech is funny that way. So you are in fact wrong again.
“Christopher Langan, I believe, is not a Creationist.”
No. He’s a proponent of Intelligent Design. In fact, he’s a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design – one of the leading “think tanks” promoting ID.
***********
Bron,
Don’t blame me for Shakespeare’s utility. I’ll also remind you that your sour grapes at never winning an argument either are just adorable.