A great article. The point of not only working hard for your career but working hard to build a great family is really refreshing. Too often we see people going, "all in", on one aspect of their lives, whether that is career or personal enjoyment. The balance described might make him tired, but as he said that is a really good thing.
Maybe it would have or maybe it would give the prosecutor more evidence. At this point we will never know. The only fact we do know is that it would have provided more total evidence for both sides to interpret what happened.
Why does anyone invest in security cameras then? What would be the point? Every street corner in NYC has one, buildings, and now peoples homes. Without video the Boston bombers would not have been caught as well. Video has a place in the court room and gives law enforcement more information about what happened.
Advanced devices like a future version of Google Glass will be incredibly hard to re-use or sell once stolen. The devices are customized to the individual and the device will know when the owner is not wearing it.
What it would not deter, though, is a worst case Martin scenario: he sees that Zimmerman is wearing the device and without words ambushes him from behind, making sure it never gets to transmit a clear picture or useful audio of him.
Which strongly argues for covert monitoring, the same reason a lot of people prefer concealed to open carry. At net such an overtly visible system might get more people hurt and killed....
Of course my blog post is not taking into account every single possible horrible scenario that could have happened, how could anyone debate all the possibilities? I merely state the case that this new technology should be explored for ways to prevent escalating tensions.
My main point would be that each party involved in the situation would be more careful on how they react. How would Zimmerman approach Martin if a police officer was standing there? The Google Glass would be evidence as if an officer or court room was standing there at that moment.
If you were even vaguely familiar with the case and/or fair minded---after all, the jury validated to some degree the following---you would know that according to Zimmerman he never "approached" Martin in any sense of the word that I'm familiar with.
Let's put it this way: you're implicitly asking to know the truth of the incident; I suggest you don't ask unless you're willing to face the truth, whatever it might turn out to be.
The investigating officer testified at the trial that when he lied to Zimmerman and told him a video had been found of the entire incident, he looked relieved and said "Thank God." Assuming that someone with a documented history of fighting like Martin would want the truth to be available for the authorities is ... a bit further than I'm willing to go, and there fails your concept ... well, unless you put the pair of glasses on Zimmerman.
I'll bet you more than a few Neighborhood Watch types are going to start using Google glasses when they become generally available.
> If you were even vaguely familiar with the case and/or fair minded
There are a number of court cases that find one way, but the public disagree.
We should not need glasses style propaganda to persuade the public, we should be happy with the jury, but you can see how it'd be handy? When we have someone saying they did something, and a video showing that they did do that it would go some way to stopping people knee-jerking.
Having more information would be useful regardless of which side of the debate you are on. Knowing that video evidence will be available can also act as a deterrent. The point is technology might help prevent some tragedy's from occurring.
