GEORGE ZIMMERMAN

[Choir Loft]

The question before us today is whether we as a nation shall be ruled by the law or by the lynch mob.

At what point is Mr. Zimmerman assumed to be guilty? Is evidence sufficient to convict beyond a reasonable doubt (that is the method of law)? Did the unanimous vote of the jury provide ample justice of innocence?

Does a man have the right to defend his own life with lethal force?

At what point does race and ignorance decide an issue instead of law, evidence and formal trial?

Does the Federal government have real jurisdiction in this case according to law or can it insinuate itself into the debate simply because it has the military power to do so?

At what point did forgiveness become an obsolete term?

[Philbert]

Did Zimmerman take a lie detector test?

[keithprosser3]

Apparently he did a 'voice stress analysis'.

[Philbert]

Apparently he did a 'voice stress analysis'.

What, if anything, did they conclude from that?

[scourge99]

As I brought up in another topic,

according to the physician's testimony, the nature of zimmerman's wounds contradict his claim of his head being slammed against the pavement repeatedly.

Please cite your source.

According to Zimmerman's doctor's report he had a fractured nose, 2 black eyes, two cuts on the back of his head, and a minor back injury.

[scourge99]

Apparently he did a 'voice stress analysis'.

What, if anything, did they conclude from that?

Voice stress tests are notoriously unreliable just like lie detectors. They are inadmissible as evidence in most situations. I don't know why law enforcement continue to use them. Its almost as absurd as hiring a psychic.

[Goat]

In a new update... although George Zimmerman got off from killing Martin Treyvor,
apparently he has been arrested again for threatening his wife (who filed for divorce) with a gun.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/09/09 ... e-with-gun

[Choir Loft]

[Replying to post 26 by Goat]

Steve Novella wrote:

“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Although scientific data may be devoid of magic, the interpretation of it is something else entirely. Therein lies our difficulty. We see through human eyes and a human mind and those instruments are imperfect.

An accounting professor of mine once cautioned us by saying, "figures don't lie, but liars can figure."

The difference between knowledge and wisdom is often misunderstood. They are two different things. For example, knowing a tomato is a fruit is knowledge, but not putting it into a fruit salad is wisdom.

In our present culture we are confronted with historical revisionism, media sensationalism and government misinformation. Science is not a religion and science is not a panacea for all the ills of society. As long as scientific fact requires interpretation, forensics remains an art.

That's why our judicial system has a judge and a jury.

and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft...