Y2HH

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 10:30 AM) Is it racism? To me, I could see a white kid in a hoodie or a black kid in a hoodie loitering around and have the same feelings. I agree with this 100%. It's prejudice, yes...but racist? I'm not sure I agree with the racist claim when it comes to this.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:52 AM) That's pretty much where I am coming from. I have said all along, no one really knows how the physical confrontations occurred. But it seems pretty obvious that the situation occurred because Zimmerman was, at the very least, overzealous and created a situation that did not need to occur. I think we all agree on this. I think this discussion was more about the perception the media projected. The media and celebrities alike, including Obama, drew lines in the sand before any actual facts of evidence was taken into account based solely on an overzealous Zimmerman. I think this was wrong. I'm glad it's drawing attention to a bad law, but that withstanding, I don't like the fact that the world painted Zimmerman as a murderer of an innocent kid, and a lot of people just accepted it despite the total lack of facts.

Ok, can we all stop the endless stream of assumptions now? I think we've pretty much covered this case, from the lack of evidence we have, quite thoroughly.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:37 AM) If you have a family or job, those are things that should be called in to the police. I won't deny that Zimmerman created the situation, but it wasn't illegal or even that unreasonable to think and do what he initially did. This is exactly what we agree on, and it's why we're bothering to argue this.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:26 AM) Actually, it's certainly plausible that he does have that authority depending on what Zimmerman's actions leading up to that moment were. If Zimmerman approached him and made physical contact with him or tried to grab him, responding with that level of force is justified. Hell, at that point, anything he did other than shooting him would have been justified. The opposite also holds true. This is all assumptions.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:24 AM) There's logs of what he called in floating around out there that can be google'd up. He called in a bunch of dumb bulls*** like kids playing basketball in the street, noisy parties and suspicious vehicles playing loud music (because criminals love to announce themselves?). But most importantly, "they" would have been back at their father's house, eating skittles and drinking ice tea and playing Xbox. Regardless of legality, Zimmerman created this situation. You can't say regardless of legality...because that's the meat of the matter here. It matters very much.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:23 AM) Which is why my answer here is that the laws are wrong. First of all he shouldn't have been able to legally carry a gun, because then he'd never have gotten out of the car to confront the kid in the first place, and second, even after the confrontation started, his legally mandated response should have been to flee. In my view, this is exactly the kind of situation you expect when you give everyone who wants one a gun with little to no training and then start making it more and more legal to use them. If people are willing to tolerate kids getting gunned down in conflicts that shouldn't have ever started as a consequence of the other great things gun liberalization is supposed to do, then that's a case they can make. We disagree 1000% on the bolded. Wrong, wrong, wrong. This law is JUST AS BAD as laws that say you are legally mandate to flee.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:21 AM) Actually we do know that since nothing happened for several weeks after his shooting and the police considered the thing closed until it got national attention. No, you don't know. You assume. Investigations are re-opened all the time. Now, being realistic, is what you're saying a safe assumption? Sure. I'm not going to deny that. But you still don't know for sure.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:20 AM) But we're seeing his neighborhood watch viceroy status being used as a reason that he'd act in some logical, non-confrontational way. But his past history of pestering 911 with a bunch of petty bulls*** seems to point to a wanna-be cop with authoritarian dreams. He had aspirations to becoming a cop, I believe. So yes, he was a wanna-be. Still has nothing to do with the fact that following the kid wasn't illegal, and it was his right to do so. The actions Zimmerman took leading up to the confrontation were NOT illegal, in any regard.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:18 AM) without national attention, there would have been zero additional investigation into this case. You don't know that. You can't know that...unless you get a time machine, go back and keep the situation quiet...and see what was to happen. Did the national attention speed things up? Sure...but that doesn't mean the additional investigations wouldn't have happened anyway...and there is no possible way for you or anyone else to know that...since it happened.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:16 AM) The part that makes this statement suspect is his own statement "These assholes, they always get away" which is in the transcript of his 911 call. Not denying that, which is why he followed him. This Zimmerman seems to be the exact type of personality that would follow him...legally I might add. Did that escalate the situation? Seems like it. But was it illegal for him to follow? Nope, sure isn't.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:13 AM) Why are we lending any real weight to his status as a neighborhood watch captain? It's not something that comes with any real training, responsibility or authority. It's an archetype...at least, in my opinion. I think the type of personality that organizes such a thing, and takes charge of such a thing, is the exact type of person that would follow a suspicious person around...where as you or I would simply call the cops and go inside.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:11 AM) No, Zimmerman's story and the girl's story are contradictory. Zimmerman claims he was returning to his truck and was attacked from behind. The girl claims that, through what Martin was saying, that Zimmerman approached Martin and Martin yelled at him. There's no "truth is in the middle" for those two stories. So why can't we all just hope the truth comes out and let it be? Why do you all seem to really want Zimmerman to be guilty of murder one in this situation, simply because you wouldn't have followed the kid, when he did? You're also not a neighborhood watch leader...who seems like the exact type of person that WOULD, in fact, take things further and follow someone they find suspicious.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:09 AM) There are all kinds of things that we have the legal right to do, but that common sense tells us will exponentially increase the odds of hurting ourselves or others. As far as we know, Zimmerman is just guilty of engaging in stupidity. However, the more times you engage in stupidity, especially when it involves guns and killing others, the more likely you are to end up in prison as well. This I can agree with. It does appear that Zimmerman escalated the situation...but it's possible that the kid then took it further and a confrontation took place. I just find it hard to believe that a neighborhood watch guy, who actually started by following protocol and calling the police, was looking for a physical confrontation. It appears from the events leading up to the situation, that Zimmerman was legit wondering what this kid was doing and why. Just seems reasonable to me that if Zimmerman was looking for a confrontation, he never calls 911.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:05 AM) Great, let's say that she didn't actually hear Zimmerman completely clearly but her brain put together what he was saying. Her statement still makes it clear that Zimmerman was not actually returning to his truck and jumped from behind. That's a whole mess load of assumptions you're just deciding to believe, versus Zimmerman's story which says the opposite. His word against hers...and you're just deciding, on a whim, that he's the liar, and shes telling the truth... And she may be. But...so may he be...or he may be she he be.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 09:01 AM) My problem is...by his own admission...he is at fault. He created this circumstance. Without his actions and his decisions, none of this happens, and the kid gets to where he's walking to alive. He refused to allow the normal path of calling 911 on a suspicious person play itself out, and a kid wound up dead. Whatever happened in-between, he made the initial decision to escalate things, and a kid wound up dead. From what we know, this isn't a bad assumption. But, it ignores the fact that Zimmerman actually has the right to check out what this kid was up too...should he have? That's not up to us to determine...but that doesn't mean he doesn't have the right. I heard some stuff a few weeks back down my alley, some kids were messing around...and I went down there to check it out. Call it curiosity...of course, I didn't shoot any of them...but that doesn't mean much...the fact that I have every right to make sure nothing bad is happening isn't something I need permission to check on, not from you, and not from some 911 operator.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 08:56 AM) Noise cancellation, at least anything I've ever seen, is fantastic at cutting out constant background noise. Engines running on a plane, traffic drone, air conditioners, lawn mowers, etc. What they struggle to adapt to are unpredictable noise patterns, such as someone starting to talk to you right next to you. Like I said, use a modern bluetooth headset, such as a jawbone. You will hear NOTHING but the person you're talking too.

I think what's happening here is Milkman and I are the only two defending Zimmerman's right to be innocent here... It just seems, on the surface, that most of you not only want to exonerate this kid, but you really hope that Zimmerman ends up being guilty. I don't know who is innocent or guilty, I just want the truth to come out, regardless of who it ends up being. Just seems tainted to me...seems like you all really really want it to be Zimmerman at fault.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 08:52 AM) I didn't claim noise cancellation doesn't exist. I'm claiming that I very seriously doubt it works nearly in the manner that you claim and nearly as effectively based on my personal experiences. If you and me are facing each other a few feet away talking while you're on the phone, the phone isn't going to be able to block out what I say. If you ever used a Jawbone bluetooth device...you'd know they use military grade noise cancellation. If, for example, he was using one of those, she heard nothing Zimmerman said.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 08:50 AM) Link Sounds like a Bluetooth device to me? It's very possible noise cancellation has nothing to do with this...but it's a technical limitation I posed, and it's real. Now, if it was a wired ear piece, she would, in fact, be able to hear quite clearly. BUT, let's say it was a bluetooth device...such as a jawbone. If it's a jawbone...there is NO way she heard a damn thing Zimmerman said. So, like I said, it is actually important to know this...

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 08:47 AM) How did you determine Martin has a phone with this technology? I didn't, but I did pose the question. It's probably a page or two back in this thread where I asked what kind of phone he was on...because it would be an important piece of evidence, regardless of SS's assertion that it doesn't matter...reality says otherwise. He [sS] is claiming noise cancellation doesn't exist...too bad he's wrong. http://www.google.com/search?q=smarphones+...271&bih=931 Google begs to differ. I don't know what kind of phone he was on...but I asked...and if he was on a modern cell phone, especially an iPhone, it matters a lot. Because in that case, there IS a technical real world challenge, despite the fact that he [strangeSox] denies it. He's flat out wrong.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 08:46 AM) But those technical challenges aren't really real. Only they are.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 08:42 AM) Here's the problem: you made an assertive claim. You said her story is unreliable because phones have noise-cancelling technology and you can't hear other people near the phone user. The burden to uphold that claim is on you, and I presented some evidence (yes, anecdotal) that rebutted your claim. There are no "technical facts" getting in the way of her claim unless you assume that Trayvon had a very recent phone (newer than a Droid Bionic) that is able to cancel out someone a few feet away talking to Trayvon picked up via a headphone mic. IMO, her story IS unreliable for many reasons, including the technical challenges I posed. IMO, his story is also unreliable... With the facts we have at this, if the media is the be believed, we don't know either way. But unlike you people, I'm not just assuming this kid was innocent and Zimmerman is guilty...which is exactly what you're all doing.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 08:31 AM) Not the case. As stated earlier, they represent the public safety department in response. They don't have police authority, but there can occasionally be consequences to ignoring them. Probably not in this scenario, but it can happen. That wasn't what I said. I said they have no authority, and they don't. Can you get yourself in trouble for saying and doing stuff while on the phone with them, which is being recorded? Yes. That has nothing to do with the fact they have no authority...which is the only question I was addressing.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 08:39 AM) No, there will absolutely not be enough to convict Zimmerman. But the fact that there isn't something to convict him on is the best illustration of the problem with the law as it currently stands. Why do you want this guy convicted of something so badly when he may, in fact, be completely f***ing innocent?