Zimmermann and the "lie detector"
Found via Skepchick an article from AntiPolygraph.org News
A lawyer for George Zimmerman ... has told WOFL television news that his client passed a voice stress test administered by the Sanford, Florida Police Department.
Snip/
However, voice stress testing ... has never been proven to work at better than chance levels of accuracy. A job posting by the Sanford P.D. indicates that ... it uses is the Computer Voice Stress Analyzer (CVSA), which is marketed by the so-called National Institute for Truth Verification ... NITV has acknowledged in federal court that “the CVSA is not capable of lie detection”
The final point in the post is supported by a case in San Diego, reported by the Indianapolis Star archived at Truth in Justice; the reporter was John Tuohy.
Please note that it doesn't mean that GZ had to have had any special expertise to "pass" this test, just that the Sandford Police wasted money on the stupid device and the training of its officers in the use of this pseudo-scientific woo-woo.
= new reply since forum marked as read
...if he started the confrontation, IMO.
The law specifically does not give you any kind of protection if you start the fight. The exceptions are a) if you manage to break off the fight and back away wholeheartedly and unambiguously, or b) the victim responds with grossly disproportional force.
An example of "a" would be if I shoved you after you made a rude comment, we tussled then I broke off and ran out of the building. If you chased me to finish beating me to a pulp, then our roles reverse.
An example of "b" would be if you made a rude comment, I shoved you, and you drew a gun and shot me.
I don't see either of those happening here.
Since Martin was unarmed, not a martial artist, and 10 years and 100 pounds lighter than Zimmerman, I don't see how either "a" or "b" could be applied.
So, then we have Zimmerman the aggressor. Regardless of any belief Zimmerman had that Martin was a criminal (and this belief may be rational or irrational, "acting suspicious" or "walking while black"
, I don't see how Zimmerman can legally use lethal force.
If at any point he "reasonably believed", either subjectively by his (possibly twisted mental state) or objectively (by the standards of a panel of normal people), that he was in imminent danger of death or severe bodily harm, it was AFTER he had started a conflict on a smaller, younger, more vulnerable person.
The more I write on this, the more I come to the conclusion that Zimmerman simply wasn't going to lose a fight to a "goon". In other words, racist ego.
