Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Debating with the enemy


Trayvon Martin Case

Debating with the enemy


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-05-2012, 09:12 AM   #451
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,520
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat View Post
Computers would allow a totally unbiased legal system.
Not true. A computer does exactly what it's told, either by the end user or by the programmed instructions from the programmer. It cannot determine, on its own, such human responses as distress, nervousness, or other human responses that would determine if someone is lying or not. It just has pre-formatted outcomes based on what the programmer has placed in an array somewhere within the program. That does not necessarily prove an unbiased approach to the legal system, but does completely ignore other aspects that are considered when someone is on trial, like psychological and psychosocial issues. And those issues, are often, the bases of innocence and guilt.

More so, the programmer would have to gather his outcomes, based on prior trial activity; activity in which its outcomes were based on human determination. So the long and short of it is, you would build a legal program based on data collected by the human response and the human ability of being unbiased, since that is the only data you could gather from.
__________________
Not the same Skinsguy that posts on ES.
skinsguy is offline  

Advertisements
Old 06-05-2012, 10:25 AM   #452
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 12,540
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat View Post
JoeRedskin and CRR:

You've yet to explain why emotion needs to be a part of law and justice, you just assert that it should be.

We'll leave it there. If you can't present an argument then we have no discussion, just a disagreement.
To be fair, you have yet to demonstrate a computer system in existence which could handle the range of human ethos and reach valid conclusions.

Let's take a red light camera, as this is a very simple go-no go situation.

This is an actual example, not sure emotions specifically come into play but for a computer justice system to work, one would think infallibility would be a critical piece, else it goes to a human arbitrator, and we are back where we started:

DC uses red light cameras. Driver is driving straight, and is stopped at a red light. He realizes he is in a turn only lane so he changes back to the straight lane which has a green light, and goes forward. A ticket comes later, which clearly identifies him as switching and proceeding in a legal manner. So he appeals. The judge overturns the ticket.

Now, in a computerized system you have to explain to me,
A) will a human look at the camera picture and validate the claim that the driver executed a legal maneuver?
- or -
B)will the computer system take the redlight system's data as correct and invalidate the appeal?

if A is your answer, than humans and human bias are still involved, because, maybe the line isn't as clear cut, so ultimately you have a data entry clerk determining whose appeal is valid, and whose isn't.

If B is your answer, than ultimately you will see some atrocities simply because bad data in equals bad result sets.

Now if you are saying in a hypothetical computer system that hasn't been built or conceived yet, but that could render decisions without human input, yet still make those fine detail differences between truth and falsehood, fact and fiction, and deliver exact results, then i would say, build it, test it on a small dataset, while having normal jurisprudence continue, and see where the difference lies.

Skinsguy also makes an excellent point about intuitive responses to if someone is lying. Would the computer system use lie detector results? Again it's answer is only as good as the input given. It can neither think, nor "feel", it's way to a truth. And someone would be inputting what it should think of as it's truth, or valid data set and rules.

In this specific case, how would you imagine about the occurrence is fed into the computer system. Simplistically: Did Defendant 1 shoot Victim 1? yes. Computer says guilty. Then you would have to enter in extenuating circumstances. Who decides which circumstances qualify? All the laws would have to be programmed in to make sure that every exception or possible exclusion is covered, and at some point someone, either machine or human will have to make value decisions about whether an exclusion should or should not be accounted for.

Let's take another case. The OJ murder case. The computer is given as fact a glove was used in the murder. The question is proposed - does the glove fit, for the computer it's a yes no answer. No it did not. Computer finds not guilty. heck Defense Attorneys would now have a field day, as any simple fact that goes outside established parameters would have to yield not guilty rulings. Forget that humans may lie, or tell half truths and someone has to sort through that using emotional and gut feelings.

Finally
Just to bring TV back in because I know you RR get that:
Spock would make a great prosecutor, but I wouldn't want him judging me if I happened to circumvent a rule or two to pass a rigged test.
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is online now  
Old 06-05-2012, 10:43 AM   #453
New HC, new hope!
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,702
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy View Post
Not true. A computer does exactly what it's told, either by the end user or by the programmed instructions from the programmer.
So how does that make my statement 'not true'? It just takes unbiased programming.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy View Post
It cannot determine, on its own, such human responses as distress, nervousness, or other human responses that would determine if someone is lying or not.
A computer has a far better sense of human feedback than a human does and would be impervious to human flaws. It would also be completely impartial, in fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy View Post
It just has pre-formatted outcomes based on what the programmer has placed in an array somewhere within the program. That does not necessarily prove an unbiased approach to the legal system, but does completely ignore other aspects that are considered when someone is on trial, like psychological and psychosocial issues. And those issues, are often, the bases of innocence and guilt.
Or exploited by some weasel defense attorney.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy View Post
More so, the programmer would have to gather his outcomes, based on prior trial activity; activity in which its outcomes were based on human determination.
That's why they get paid the big bucks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy View Post
So the long and short of it is, you would build a legal program based on data collected by the human response and the human ability of being unbiased, since that is the only data you could gather from.
Which over time would correct the erroneous and biased prior verdicts.

As an example of why I don't like the jury system, we have a group here (on WP) that share a common interest yet how often do we see that interest debated with polarizing views?

As previously stated, most people are too stupid to be on a jury.
RedskinRat is offline  
Old 06-05-2012, 11:00 AM   #454
MVP
 
NC_Skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,528
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

A computer would never work because the input data required by said computer would be added in by a human. Now, if you are some sort of AI program that could learn on its on and be able to decipher facts and apply it to law, we might be onto something, but let me know when that's available. Until then, we get what we get.
__________________
"So let me get this straight. We have the event of the year on TV with millions watching around the world... and people want a punt, pass, and kick competition to be the halftime entertainment?? Folks, don't quit your day jobs."- Matty
NC_Skins is offline  
Old 06-05-2012, 11:16 AM   #455
New HC, new hope!
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,702
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
To be fair, you have yet to demonstrate a computer system in existence which could handle the range of human ethos and reach valid conclusions.
Google 'Affectiva', 'iBrain' and dig around on www.eff.org. If you really think I need to demonstrate a computer system etc then you're way behind the curve. A lot of people are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
Let's take a red light camera, as this is a very simple go-no go situation.
Let's not, that's a horribly unsophisticated tool. Even CA is getting rid of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
DC uses red light cameras. Driver is driving straight, and is stopped at a red light. He realizes he is in a turn only lane so he changes back to the straight lane which has a green light, and goes forward.
That's an illegal use of the road. If you're in a 'turn only' lane that's what you should do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
A ticket comes later, which clearly identifies him as switching and proceeding in a legal manner. So he appeals. The judge overturns the ticket.
How would a still shot show that? I call BS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
Now, in a computerized system you have to explain to me,
A) will a human look at the camera picture and validate the claim that the driver executed a legal maneuver?
- or -
B)will the computer system take the redlight system's data as correct and invalidate the appeal?
Neither, we won't be wasting time with red light cameras. Your straw man has just been incinerated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
Now if you are saying in a hypothetical computer system that hasn't been built or conceived yet, but that could render decisions without human input, yet still make those fine detail differences between truth and falsehood, fact and fiction, and deliver exact results, then i would say, build it, test it on a small dataset, while having normal jurisprudence continue, and see where the difference lies.
They already exist, they are already reading what you do on a daily basis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
Skinsguy also makes an excellent point about intuitive responses to if someone is lying. Would the computer system use lie detector results? Again it's answer is only as good as the input given. It can neither think, nor "feel", it's way to a truth. And someone would be inputting what it should think of as it's truth, or valid data set and rules.
Lie detector tests are great for Maury. Read up on social engineering, see if you feel the same about your ability (or anyone else for that matter) to read a practiced liar. Check out how women work men in bars.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
In this specific case, how would you imagine about the occurrence is fed into the computer system. Simplistically: Did Defendant 1 shoot Victim 1? yes. Computer says guilty.
You're aware that there's a little more information than that, right? By you saying 'simplistically' you set the argument so skewed in your favor as to make argument pointless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
Then you would have to enter in extenuating circumstances. Who decides which circumstances qualify? All the laws would have to be programmed in to make sure that every exception or possible exclusion is covered, and at some point someone, either machine or human will have to make value decisions about whether an exclusion should or should not be accounted for.
Correct. It's called programming.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
Let's take another case. The OJ murder case. The computer is given as fact a glove was used in the murder. The question is proposed - does the glove fit, for the computer it's a yes no answer. No it did not. Computer finds not guilty.
You're kidding, right? You're aware that the combination of blood on the glove (shrinkage) and the fact that OJ was allowed to wear rubber gloves (bulk) caused the glove to be too tight? That was an awful piece of prosecuting FAIL. Human error cough-cough....

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
heck Defense Attorneys would now have a field day, as any simple fact that goes outside established parameters would have to yield not guilty rulings. Forget that humans may lie, or tell half truths and someone has to sort through that using emotional and gut feelings.
Emotion? Gut feeling? We have brains for 'thinking'.......

Quote:
Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule View Post
Finally
Just to bring TV back in because I know you RR get that:
Spock would make a great prosecutor, but I wouldn't want him judging me if I happened to circumvent a rule or two to pass a rigged test.
OK, but he was part human, he wouldn't qualify as a juror either.
RedskinRat is offline  
Old 06-05-2012, 11:18 AM   #456
New HC, new hope!
 
RedskinRat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: I'm in LA, trick!
Posts: 8,702
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by NC_Skins View Post
A computer would never work because the input data required by said computer would be added in by a human. Now, if you are some sort of AI program that could learn on its on and be able to decipher facts and apply it to law, we might be onto something, but let me know when that's available. Until then, we get what we get.
I think you Luddites are basing your impressions of computing power on Grandma's 386.
RedskinRat is offline  
Old 06-05-2012, 11:19 AM   #457
Pro Bowl
 
skinsguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Greensboro, North Carolina
Posts: 6,520
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat View Post
So how does that make my statement 'not true'? It just takes unbiased programming.
Let me say this again, because I don't think you were able to grasp the concept. The programmer's only source of data to use for such a program would be prior trial outcomes, convictions or what not. Realistically, where else do you think he or she is going to get the data? A programmer is not trained to be a judge, he or she is trained to be a computer programmer; therefore, it does not matter the bias of the programmer. Law is not simply "If variable Outcomes = Array[1], then Boolean variable = True, otherwise false." Simply saying, person A shot and killed person B, therefore person A is guilty. It would be much more complicated than that, and I am afraid that you're on the borderline of thinking in fantasy world rather than realistic logic.



Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat View Post
A computer has a far better sense of human feedback than a human does and would be impervious to human flaws. It would also be completely impartial, in fact.
A computer only does what the programmer and or end user tells it to do. This is fact. A computer cannot think for itself. It must follow a list of commands. Please think in terms of real life, not Star Trek.


Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat View Post
That's why they get paid the big bucks.
Programmers get paid to program, not to become legal judges.



Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat View Post
Which over time would correct the erroneous and biased prior verdicts.
No. Over time, the program would continue to use the same criteria that the programmer hard coded into the system. The computer does not suddenly decide that it no longer needs criteria previously built in its arrays and decides it's going to break out on its own. Either the programmer or someone else, would have to decide that the data should be replaced by outcomes saved into new databases, which would still need the use of a human response determining what is accurate data and what is not. A computer cannot determine it, it can only determine data based on the commands it was told to perform. Nothing more and nothing less.
__________________
Not the same Skinsguy that posts on ES.
skinsguy is offline  
Old 06-05-2012, 11:29 AM   #458
MVP
 
NC_Skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,528
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat View Post
I think you Luddites are basing your impressions of computing power on Grandma's 386.
Not hardly. Can you name me one computerized product that has zero human input?

Not saying it won't be possible, but not with current technology.
__________________
"So let me get this straight. We have the event of the year on TV with millions watching around the world... and people want a punt, pass, and kick competition to be the halftime entertainment?? Folks, don't quit your day jobs."- Matty
NC_Skins is offline  
Old 06-05-2012, 11:44 AM   #459
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 12,540
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat View Post
Google 'Affectiva', 'iBrain' and dig around on www.eff.org. If you really think I need to demonstrate a computer system etc then you're way behind the curve. A lot of people are.



Let's not, that's a horribly unsophisticated tool. Even CA is getting rid of them.



That's an illegal use of the road. If you're in a 'turn only' lane that's what you should do.



How would a still shot show that? I call BS.
Red light cameras take multiple still shots, the guy was in the lane and changed back to the straight lane legally, hence why the human judge overturned the camera system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat View Post
Neither, we won't be wasting time with red light cameras. Your straw man has just been incinerated.
so, you can't validate a red light system, but claim a far more effective system already exists. lovely. let's hold off on the incineration please



Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat View Post
They already exist, they are already reading what you do on a daily basis.



Lie detector tests are great for Maury. Read up on social engineering, see if you feel the same about your ability (or anyone else for that matter) to read a practiced liar. Check out how women work men in bars.



You're aware that there's a little more information than that, right? By you saying 'simplistically' you set the argument so skewed in your favor as to make argument pointless.



Correct. It's called programming.



You're kidding, right? You're aware that the combination of blood on the glove (shrinkage) and the fact that OJ was allowed to wear rubber gloves (bulk) caused the glove to be too tight? That was an awful piece of prosecuting FAIL. Human error cough-cough....
Ok, but my point is who will determine if the glove fit? A computer, ok, so it takes the hand scans it, takes the size of the glove, does it account for shrinkage, inside outside felt and lining. Who's to say the killer wasn't wearing rubber gloves. Who makes that argument. The point is there is subjectiveness, and at some point legal cases don't fall to simple yes/no thinking, or even logical thinking.





Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat View Post
Emotion? Gut feeling? We have brains for 'thinking'.......



OK, but he was part human, he wouldn't qualify as a juror either.
Um, I believe the brain processes emotions as well as thinking, and also equips us to go with our gut. You can't only use a small sliver of what the brain does, and say good enough.
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is online now  
Old 06-05-2012, 11:48 AM   #460
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 12,540
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

I just realized RR is actually JR trying to get me to claim lawyers are needed. AAARRRGGGGHHHHH
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is online now  
Old 06-05-2012, 12:14 PM   #461
Registered User
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 50
Posts: 15,818
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12thMan View Post
And so I maintain when you find a case where an armed assailant walked free after pursuing and killing an unarmed teen, let me know.
You seem to pick and choose your facts. At the time of the attack/killing Zimmerman was by his truck and not pursuing Trayvon as the dispatcher had asked.
firstdown is offline  
Old 06-05-2012, 01:18 PM   #462
MVP
 
12thMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: washington, D.C.
Posts: 11,456
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
You seem to pick and choose your facts. At the time of the attack/killing Zimmerman was by his truck and not pursuing Trayvon as the dispatcher had asked.
i

Bullshit, I'm not picking and choosing a damn thing. Zimmerman was following Martin his in SUV, de-boarded, and the dispatcher told him to get his dumb ass back in the vehicle. He said, okay. That's what happened.

Had Zimmerman stayed in his SUV from the jump, this thread wouldn't even exist.
12thMan is offline  
Old 06-05-2012, 01:47 PM   #463
Contains football related knowledge
 
JoeRedskin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Second Star On The Right
Age: 51
Posts: 8,554
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

@ fd - The girlfriend's testimony make's it very clear that Zimmerman was following Martin. Her phone records will show the time of the conversation.

As for RR's -- despite the fact that none have existed to date, fundamental to his argument is the belief that an "unbiased programmer" can exist who will create a system to govern humanity better then the we poor, backward and deeply flawed luddites could ever hope to do. In accepting this as a truism, RR demonstrates faith in a being whose existence he cannot prove and in whom he will entrust the judgment of life and death over humans.

A man of such deep and unprovable faith cannot be convinced of the fallacy of said faith.
__________________
You aren't worth the water in my spit but, maybe, just maybe, you're worth the lead in my shotgun.
JoeRedskin is offline  
Old 06-05-2012, 01:55 PM   #464
MVP
 
NC_Skins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,528
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12thMan View Post
and the dispatcher told him to get his dumb ass back in the vehicle. He said, okay. That's what happened.
He did? You must have read some transcripts I'm not aware of.


911 calls paint picture of chaos after Florida teen is shot This Just In - CNN.com Blogs





Quote:
Originally Posted by 12thMan View Post
Had Zimmerman stayed in his SUV from the jump, this thread wouldn't even exist.

Had Martin not walked through a neighborhood that wasn't his own, this thread wouldn't even exist.

Had previous burglaries have not had happened in the neighborhood causing people to be on guard like Zimmerman, this thread wouldn't even exist.


We can play that game all day long on. At the end of the day, Zimmerman was within his right to follow a suspicious person in trying to protect his neighborhood. This doesn't mean he instigated anything, it simply means he's doing what anybody else probably would have after a few burglaries in the neighborhood. Does this give him a right to harass or shoot a person? Not at all. Does this mean Zimmerman DID harass Martin? Not all all. Does this mean that Zimmerman killed Martin in cold blood? Not at all. At the end of the day, we don't know what happened based on the evidence, but we can collaborate some of Zimmerman's story with it though.
__________________
"So let me get this straight. We have the event of the year on TV with millions watching around the world... and people want a punt, pass, and kick competition to be the halftime entertainment?? Folks, don't quit your day jobs."- Matty
NC_Skins is offline  
Old 06-05-2012, 01:55 PM   #465
Gamebreaker
 
CRedskinsRule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pasadena, Md
Age: 47
Posts: 12,540
Re: Trayvon Martin Case

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin View Post
@ fd - The girlfriend's testimony make's it very clear that Zimmerman was following Martin. Her phone records will show the time of the conversation.

As for RR's -- despite the fact that none have existed to date, fundamental to his argument is the belief that an "unbiased programmer" can exist who will create a system to govern humanity better then the we poor, backward and deeply flawed luddites could ever hope to do. In accepting this as a truism, RR demonstrates faith in a being whose existence he cannot prove and in whom he will entrust the judgment of life and death over humans.

A man of such deep and unprovable faith cannot be convinced of the fallacy of said faith.
It's SCIENCE!!!
__________________
Dirtbag59, sending songs to oblivion 1 writer at a time.
CRedskinsRule is online now  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.44442 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25