Black Teen Shot 3

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Loudog75 wrote:
Zimmerman was essentially a self employed security guard.

99% of all security guards go to work with a flashlight and a notebook. Their job - Observe and Report.

Zimmerman decided to take his gun to work that day. Wrong decision!! Now he should be liable. If they don’t get him for manslaughter I believe they’ll take the rest of his life financially in civil court.

I can’t believe you guys are all still arguing for his innocense.

GUILTY!!![/quote]

This is a very complicated case, Louddog. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you’s. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in mind, man.

But here’s a quick summary of the discussion over the last 3 threads:[/quote]

The Pink Panther has ties to the criminal underworld and has been linked to jewel theft, so if the Little Man decided to shoot him for painting a pillar pink, he’s perfectly at liberty to do so.[/quote]
I’d shoot him for painting my pillar pink.[/quote]

If owner of pillar you are not, choice of color is not yours to make…hmmm…[/quote]
What did I say?[/quote]

“I’d shoot him for painting my pillar pink”.[/quote]
Yes.[/quote]

Glad you remembered. [/quote]
Glad you have a grasp on context.[/quote]

Not so glad you have a grasp on a gun, smartass.

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I do not see any damage to his nose.[/quote]
Looks broken to me.

Is there a pre-event profile pic?[/quote]

Why would a broken nose matter. That would show a fight not an assault.

I can cause those injuries if I’m fighting for my life.

Martins people can call any wounds on Zimmerman as Defense wounds as Martin was trying to get away from this stranger following.

I don’t really understand the focus in injuries form Zimmerman or Martin.

If a woman being raped fucks up her attacker and still gets raped it does not change anything.[/quote]

Reposted for emphasis. Zimmerman has a broken nose, a cut on the head…alledgedly. Martin is DEAD.[/quote]

Ofcoarse tt matters because it helps corroborate Zimmermans story, that trayvon attacked first. If it is proven that zimmmerman provoked the attack then the broken nose wouldn’t matter. [/quote]

I’m not sure it proves a First strike but it does help show a struggle went down. I’m not sure anyone can prove an unprovoked attack. But he can show a struggle that he feared losing because of his gun[/quote]

Ya I agree injuries alone definitely don’t prove who attacked first. They do show that Zimmerman is not flat out lying about an attack and that it is reasonable he may have been on the losing side of it, so they are relevant.

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I do not see any damage to his nose.[/quote]
Looks broken to me.

Is there a pre-event profile pic?[/quote]

Why would a broken nose matter. That would show a fight not an assault.

I can cause those injuries if I’m fighting for my life.

Martins people can call any wounds on Zimmerman as Defense wounds as Martin was trying to get away from this stranger following.

I don’t really understand the focus in injuries form Zimmerman or Martin.

If a woman being raped fucks up her attacker and still gets raped it does not change anything.[/quote]

Reposted for emphasis. Zimmerman has a broken nose, a cut on the head…alledgedly. Martin is DEAD.[/quote]

Ofcoarse tt matters because it helps corroborate Zimmermans story, that trayvon attacked first. If it is proven that zimmmerman provoked the attack then the broken nose wouldn’t matter. [/quote]

A broken nose would NOT show Trayvon attacked first. Further, it is pure speculation that even if he did strike first that it was not provoked or necessary.

All we do know is the kid was chased for a long time and then fought with and then shot.

To me, you blame the guy chasing who had the gun, not the kid who feared for his life because he didn’t even know who Zimmerman was or what he wanted.

Don’t chase people in the rain if you don’t want them to hurt you.

If I chase a woman down a dark ally because I “think” she stole something, I get to claim self defense if I kill her after she hits me???

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Loudog75 wrote:
Zimmerman was essentially a self employed security guard.

99% of all security guards go to work with a flashlight and a notebook. Their job - Observe and Report.

Zimmerman decided to take his gun to work that day. Wrong decision!! Now he should be liable. If they don’t get him for manslaughter I believe they’ll take the rest of his life financially in civil court.

I can’t believe you guys are all still arguing for his innocense.

GUILTY!!![/quote]

This is a very complicated case, Louddog. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you’s. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in mind, man.

But here’s a quick summary of the discussion over the last 3 threads:[/quote]

The Pink Panther has ties to the criminal underworld and has been linked to jewel theft, so if the Little Man decided to shoot him for painting a pillar pink, he’s perfectly at liberty to do so.[/quote]
I’d shoot him for painting my pillar pink.[/quote]

If owner of pillar you are not, choice of color is not yours to make…hmmm…[/quote]
What did I say?[/quote]

“I’d shoot him for painting my pillar pink”.[/quote]
Yes.[/quote]

Glad you remembered. [/quote]
Glad you have a grasp on context.[/quote]

Not so glad you have a grasp on a gun, smartass.[/quote]
:slight_smile: Just don’t paint my shit and you’ll be fine.

Has it been confirmed Zimmerman was “chasing” Martin? Or was Zimmerman “following” him?

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Has it been confirmed Zimmerman was “chasing” Martin? Or was Zimmerman “following” him?

[/quote]

LOL!!!

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I do not see any damage to his nose.[/quote]
Looks broken to me.

Is there a pre-event profile pic?[/quote]

Why would a broken nose matter. That would show a fight not an assault.

I can cause those injuries if I’m fighting for my life.

Martins people can call any wounds on Zimmerman as Defense wounds as Martin was trying to get away from this stranger following.

I don’t really understand the focus in injuries form Zimmerman or Martin.

If a woman being raped fucks up her attacker and still gets raped it does not change anything.[/quote]

Reposted for emphasis. Zimmerman has a broken nose, a cut on the head…alledgedly. Martin is DEAD.[/quote]

Ofcoarse tt matters because it helps corroborate Zimmermans story, that trayvon attacked first. If it is proven that zimmmerman provoked the attack then the broken nose wouldn’t matter. [/quote]

A broken nose would NOT show Trayvon attacked first. Further, it is pure speculation that even if he did strike first that it was not provoked or necessary.

All we do know is the kid was chased for a long time and then fought with and then shot.

To me, you blame the guy chasing who had the gun, not the kid who feared for his life because he didn’t even know who Zimmerman was or what he wanted.

Don’t chase people in the rain if you don’t want them to hurt you.

If I chase a woman down a dark ally because I “think” she stole something, I get to claim self defense if I kill her after she hits me???[/quote]

Read carefully: It HELPS corroborate Zimmermans story. Never did I say it proves who attacked or provoked who. If Zimmerman claimed he was attacked and getting beat to where he thought his life may be in danger but he didn’t have a scratch on him, is that a major red flag?. Point is they are relevant.

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Loudog75 wrote:
Zimmerman was essentially a self employed security guard.

99% of all security guards go to work with a flashlight and a notebook. Their job - Observe and Report.

Zimmerman decided to take his gun to work that day. Wrong decision!! Now he should be liable. If they don’t get him for manslaughter I believe they’ll take the rest of his life financially in civil court.

I can’t believe you guys are all still arguing for his innocense.

GUILTY!!![/quote]

This is a very complicated case, Louddog. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you’s. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in mind, man.

But here’s a quick summary of the discussion over the last 3 threads:[/quote]

The Pink Panther has ties to the criminal underworld and has been linked to jewel theft, so if the Little Man decided to shoot him for painting a pillar pink, he’s perfectly at liberty to do so.[/quote]
I’d shoot him for painting my pillar pink.[/quote]

If owner of pillar you are not, choice of color is not yours to make…hmmm…[/quote]
What did I say?[/quote]

“I’d shoot him for painting my pillar pink”.[/quote]
Yes.[/quote]

Glad you remembered. [/quote]
Glad you have a grasp on context.[/quote]

Not so glad you have a grasp on a gun, smartass.[/quote]
:slight_smile: Just don’t paint my shit and you’ll be fine.[/quote]

Not sure if you’re getting the metaphors here: who decided it was your pillar? The gun? Kind of why we’ve had three threads on this.

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Loudog75 wrote:
Zimmerman was essentially a self employed security guard.

99% of all security guards go to work with a flashlight and a notebook. Their job - Observe and Report.

Zimmerman decided to take his gun to work that day. Wrong decision!! Now he should be liable. If they don’t get him for manslaughter I believe they’ll take the rest of his life financially in civil court.

I can’t believe you guys are all still arguing for his innocense.

GUILTY!!![/quote]

This is a very complicated case, Louddog. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you’s. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in mind, man.

But here’s a quick summary of the discussion over the last 3 threads:[/quote]

The Pink Panther has ties to the criminal underworld and has been linked to jewel theft, so if the Little Man decided to shoot him for painting a pillar pink, he’s perfectly at liberty to do so.[/quote]
I’d shoot him for painting my pillar pink.[/quote]

If owner of pillar you are not, choice of color is not yours to make…hmmm…[/quote]
What did I say?[/quote]

“I’d shoot him for painting my pillar pink”.[/quote]
Yes.[/quote]

Glad you remembered. [/quote]
Glad you have a grasp on context.[/quote]

Not so glad you have a grasp on a gun, smartass.[/quote]
:slight_smile: Just don’t paint my shit and you’ll be fine.[/quote]

Not sure if you’re getting the metaphors here: who decided it was your pillar? The gun? Kind of why we’ve had three threads on this.[/quote]
I’m talking about my pillar, just like I said.

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Has it been confirmed Zimmerman was “chasing” Martin? Or was Zimmerman “following” him?

[/quote]

Zimmerman felt he was following because that is what he told 911. Martin felt he was chasing because he Ran.

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Has it been confirmed Zimmerman was “chasing” Martin? Or was Zimmerman “following” him?

[/quote]

Zimmerman felt he was following because that is what he told 911. Martin felt he was chasing because he Ran.[/quote]

Martin’s girlfriend said he heard him ask “why are you following me?” just before the phone cut out.

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

It definitely matters if they want to charge him with murder 1. Doesn’t really matter if they charge him with manslaughter, which is most likely.
[/quote]

His intent was to stop the “criminal” from getting away.

he did that.

I would think intent was shown right there.

Bottom line, it does NOT look like he was beaten within an inch of his life so no, I do not believe for a second that he HAD to kill the kid to save his own life.[/quote]

It doesn’t matter if his intent was to chase a supposed criminal or whether he was being beat from an inch of his life for murder 1. They have to show premeditated intent to KILL (did he plan to kill trayvon a week before? day before? an hour before?). Unlikely he will be charged of that based on the facts that have come out. If so they will have a VERY diificult time proving it. Which is why they will probably charge him with manslaugher, which is pretty much an unlawful killing due to provocation or other circumstances, no need to prove premeditation.

[/quote]

Manslaughter…prolly. But like four60 I see him walking

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Has it been confirmed Zimmerman was “chasing” Martin? Or was Zimmerman “following” him?

[/quote]

Zimmerman felt he was following because that is what he told 911. Martin felt he was chasing because he Ran.[/quote]

Martin’s girlfriend said he heard him ask “why are you following me?” just before the phone cut out.

[/quote]

I understand what you’re saying if you don’t want to say chase say follow both show a Pursuit.

Oh and I’m not commenting on any Zimmerman or Martin “wittneses” unless that have something to back them up. Everyone seems vague and each
attorney should be able to cast dout on both sides. Even martins girl unless the phone records back up her statements

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Loudog75 wrote:
Zimmerman was essentially a self employed security guard.

99% of all security guards go to work with a flashlight and a notebook. Their job - Observe and Report.

Zimmerman decided to take his gun to work that day. Wrong decision!! Now he should be liable. If they don’t get him for manslaughter I believe they’ll take the rest of his life financially in civil court.

I can’t believe you guys are all still arguing for his innocense.

GUILTY!!![/quote]

This is a very complicated case, Louddog. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you’s. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in mind, man.

But here’s a quick summary of the discussion over the last 3 threads:[/quote]

The Pink Panther has ties to the criminal underworld and has been linked to jewel theft, so if the Little Man decided to shoot him for painting a pillar pink, he’s perfectly at liberty to do so.[/quote]
I’d shoot him for painting my pillar pink.[/quote]

If owner of pillar you are not, choice of color is not yours to make…hmmm…[/quote]
What did I say?[/quote]

“I’d shoot him for painting my pillar pink”.[/quote]
Yes.[/quote]

Glad you remembered. [/quote]
Glad you have a grasp on context.[/quote]

Not so glad you have a grasp on a gun, smartass.[/quote]
:slight_smile: Just don’t paint my shit and you’ll be fine.[/quote]

Not sure if you’re getting the metaphors here: who decided it was your pillar? The gun? Kind of why we’ve had three threads on this.[/quote]
I’m talking about my pillar, just like I said.[/quote]

Of course, you literally own a pillar that you’d shoot a cartoon panther for painting pink. My mistake.

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Loudog75 wrote:
Zimmerman was essentially a self employed security guard.

99% of all security guards go to work with a flashlight and a notebook. Their job - Observe and Report.

Zimmerman decided to take his gun to work that day. Wrong decision!! Now he should be liable. If they don’t get him for manslaughter I believe they’ll take the rest of his life financially in civil court.

I can’t believe you guys are all still arguing for his innocense.

GUILTY!!![/quote]

This is a very complicated case, Louddog. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you’s. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in mind, man.

But here’s a quick summary of the discussion over the last 3 threads:[/quote]

The Pink Panther has ties to the criminal underworld and has been linked to jewel theft, so if the Little Man decided to shoot him for painting a pillar pink, he’s perfectly at liberty to do so.[/quote]
I’d shoot him for painting my pillar pink.[/quote]

If owner of pillar you are not, choice of color is not yours to make…hmmm…[/quote]
What did I say?[/quote]

“I’d shoot him for painting my pillar pink”.[/quote]
Yes.[/quote]

Glad you remembered. [/quote]
Glad you have a grasp on context.[/quote]

Not so glad you have a grasp on a gun, smartass.[/quote]
:slight_smile: Just don’t paint my shit and you’ll be fine.[/quote]

Not sure if you’re getting the metaphors here: who decided it was your pillar? The gun? Kind of why we’ve had three threads on this.[/quote]
I’m talking about my pillar, just like I said.[/quote]

Of course, you literally own a pillar that you’d shoot a cartoon panther for painting pink. My mistake.[/quote]
Like I said, context. Your extrapolations are off.

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]roybot wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]Loudog75 wrote:
Zimmerman was essentially a self employed security guard.

99% of all security guards go to work with a flashlight and a notebook. Their job - Observe and Report.

Zimmerman decided to take his gun to work that day. Wrong decision!! Now he should be liable. If they don’t get him for manslaughter I believe they’ll take the rest of his life financially in civil court.

I can’t believe you guys are all still arguing for his innocense.

GUILTY!!![/quote]

This is a very complicated case, Louddog. You know, a lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-you’s. And, uh, lotta strands to keep in mind, man.

But here’s a quick summary of the discussion over the last 3 threads:[/quote]

The Pink Panther has ties to the criminal underworld and has been linked to jewel theft, so if the Little Man decided to shoot him for painting a pillar pink, he’s perfectly at liberty to do so.[/quote]
I’d shoot him for painting my pillar pink.[/quote]

If owner of pillar you are not, choice of color is not yours to make…hmmm…[/quote]
What did I say?[/quote]

“I’d shoot him for painting my pillar pink”.[/quote]
Yes.[/quote]

Glad you remembered. [/quote]
Glad you have a grasp on context.[/quote]

Not so glad you have a grasp on a gun, smartass.[/quote]
:slight_smile: Just don’t paint my shit and you’ll be fine.[/quote]

Not sure if you’re getting the metaphors here: who decided it was your pillar? The gun? Kind of why we’ve had three threads on this.[/quote]
I’m talking about my pillar, just like I said.[/quote]

Of course, you literally own a pillar that you’d shoot a cartoon panther for painting pink. My mistake.[/quote]
Like I said, context. Your extrapolations are off.[/quote]

Please enlighten me on the “extrapolations” I’ve made out of “context”…both apparently are defined by you, and you alone so let’s hear the boundaries you’ve set for the argument.

HahHahaha well I will admit. You 2 got a good thread jack going.

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
Even if Martin was a felon, Zimmerman still must stand trial.[/quote]

THIS!

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
Even if Martin was a felon, Zimmerman still must stand trial.[/quote]

THIS![/quote]

I wouldn’t bet the farm on it. We will see.

Well Zimmerman’s story just took another hit:

Trayvon Martin shooting: It’s not George Zimmerman crying for help on 911 recording, 2 experts say
5:38 p.m. EST, March 31, 2012|
By Jeff Weiner, Orlando Sentinel

As the Trayvon Martin controversy splinters into a debate about self-defense, a central question remains: Who was heard crying for help on a 911 call in the moments before the teen was shot?

A leading expert in the field of forensic voice identification sought to answer that question by analyzing the recordings for the Orlando Sentinel.

His result: It was not George Zimmerman who called for help.

Tom Owen, forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services LLC and chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, used voice identification software to rule out Zimmerman. Another expert contacted by the Sentinel, utilizing different techniques, came to the same conclusion.

Zimmerman claims self-defense in the shooting and told police he was the one screaming for help. But these experts say the evidence tells a different story.

‘Scientific certainty’

On a rainy night in late February, a woman called 911 to report someone crying out for help in her gated Sanford community, Retreat at Twin Lakes.

Though several of her neighbors eventually called authorities, she phoned early enough for dispatchers to hear the panicked cries and the gunshot that took Trayvon Martin’s life.

George Zimmerman, a Neighborhood Watch volunteer, shot Trayvon, an unarmed 17-year-old, during a one-on-one confrontation Feb. 26.

Before the shot, one of them can be heard screaming for help.

Owen, a court-qualified expert witness and former chief engineer for the New York Public Library’s Rodgers and Hammerstein Archives of Recorded Sound, is an authority on biometric voice analysis ? a computerized process comparing attributes of voices to determine whether they match.

After the Sentinel contacted Owen, he used software called Easy Voice Biometrics to compare Zimmerman’s voice to the 911 call screams.

“I took all of the screams and put those together, and cut out everything else,” Owen says.

The software compared that audio to Zimmerman’s voice. It returned a 48 percent match. Owen said to reach a positive match with audio of this quality, he’d expect higher than 90 percent.

“As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it’s not Zimmerman,” Owen says, stressing that he cannot confirm the voice as Trayvon’s, because he didn’t have a sample of the teen’s voice to compare.

Forensic voice identification is not a new or novel concept; in fact, a recent U.S. Department of Justice committee report notes that federal interest in the technology “has a history of nearly 70 years.”

Ads By Google
Top Senior Dating NetworkMeet Active Seniors in Your Area. Join Today! www.SeniorPeopleMeet.com
In the post 9-11 world, Owen says, voice identification is “the main biometric tool” used to track international criminals, as well as terrorists.

“These people don’t leave fingerprints, but they do still need to talk to one another,” he says.

‘The home run’

Though the term “biometric analysis” may sound futuristic, it basically just means using personal characteristics for identification. A fingerprint scanner is an example of a biometric device.

Much as the ridges of a human hand produce a fingerprint, each human voice has unique, distinguishable traits, Owen says. “They’re all particular to the individual.”

The technology Owen used to analyze the Zimmerman tape has a wide range of applications, including national security and international policing, he said. A recently as January, Owen used the same technology to identify accused murderer Sheila Davalloo in a 911 call made almost a decade ago.

Owen testified that it was Davalloo, accused of stabbing another woman nine times in a condo in Shippan, Conn., who reported the killing to police from a pay phone in November 2002.

Davalloo was convicted, according to news reports.

Owen says the audio from Zimmerman’s call is much better quality than the 911 call in the Davalloo case. Voice identification experts judge the quality based on a signal-to-noise ratio; in other words, comparing the usable audio in a clip to the environmental noises that make a match difficult.

And the call on which the screams are heard is better quality than is necessary, Owen says.

“In our world, that’s the home run,” he says.

Not all experts rely on biometrics. Ed Primeau, a Michigan-based audio engineer and forensics expert, is not a believer in the technology’s use in courtroom settings.

He relies instead on audio enhancement and human analysis based on forensic experience. After listening closely to the 911 tape on which the screams are heard, Primeau also has a strong opinion.

“I believe that’s Trayvon Martin in the background, without a doubt,” Primeau says, stressing that the tone of the voice is a giveaway. “That’s a young man screaming.”

Zimmerman’s call to authorities minutes before the shooting provides a good standard for comparison, Primeau says, because it captures his voice both at rest and in an agitated state.

‘CSI’ effect

Only one person alive knows exactly what transpired in the moments immediately before Trayvon was fatally shot: Zimmerman, who has claimed he fired in self-defense.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-31/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-911-20120331_1_voice-identification-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty