Y2HH

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 08:35 AM) Come on man, you know darn well that there can be different levels of racism. "I hate all black people" versus "Black people in my neighborhood look particularly suspicious". Person might think the second one, everyone would still say they're a great neighborhood watch captain and great neighbor, and that doesn't make the latter any less of an expression of racism. This STILL doesn't address the fact that a random black kid was wandering around a gated black community. Could this have been racially motivated? Yes. But right now, the only thing that's making it that are you people assuming it. You're assuming he said something racist...when you have NO actual evidence he did...mostly because the media says it "might have been". You have no idea what he said. Where you are just assuming it was racial, I'm not. I know, I'm an ass for assuming Zimmerman isn't guilty...just because you really really want him to be.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 08:32 AM) Haha ok, your technical knowledge of noise cancellation in phones trumps the actual, real phone conversations I just had yesterday. I have a Droid X2 running whatever the version of Android before ice cream. My coworker has a Bionic. I heard him and the person he was talking to very clearly as well as the drone of the machinery in the background. but I guess that was impossible? But you've just admitted that not every phone in the world has this amazing noise cancelling technology (including phones that are fairly new!), so you've no reason to assume that "technical facts" are getting in the way here. I simply asked the question that everyone's ignoring. Fact is, the technology exists, and it's real...you present anecdotal evidence that just because you were able to hear background conversations, and apparently you can recite them back in detail, that so can this kids girlfriend? How presumptuous of you. I can do that, too. I've had many conversations on my phone, and I CAN'T hear the conversions in the background...and I've also used speakerphones where there was a lot of background noise, and in order for the person to hear me, or for me to hear them, we had to yell. But hearing anything the background in detail? No. And no, for the record, I don't believe Zimmerman's story either.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 08:29 AM) Sorry, but, this is just a huge leap to make. First, your "FACT" that Zimmerman is hispanic is irrelevant, or possibly even makes it MORE likely. This is a sad fact in Chicago, and I am sure elsewhere, that Hispanic and Black communities often do not get along. Look at the way neighborhoods are here. So the fact that he is Hispanic does nothing to reduce the chance this was racially motivated, and may even increase it. Here is the reality - you cannot possibly know if Zimmerman's judgment was colored by color, nor can anyone else. There is no "pretending" here, except by anyone who thinks they KNOW it was, or KNOW it wasn't, racist. One thing for damn sure - regardless of whether or Zimmerman or Martin turned out to be the aggressor during the physical confrontation, the confrontation itself was caused by Zimmerman acting beyond what he reasonably should have been in his role. Zimmerman caused the situation to occur. If Zimmerman was a racist, he probably wouldn't choose to live in a gated community with black people. It is possible? Yes. It is unlikely...I'm afraid so. I don't know many racists that choose to live -- next door -- to the race they hate. My point was that people are saying the only reason this kid was follow was because he's black. This is not logical when you consider the realities of that community. Other black people lived there. Zimmerman's neighbors are black. So my point remains: seeing a black kid wandering around probably isn't out of the ordinary.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 08:28 AM) I don't know what authority if any 911 operators have. They're typically just call center employees. They have none.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 08:16 AM) Just yesterday I was speaking with someone on the phone and could easily hear both background noise (machinery running in the background) and people talking around him. We both have relatively new Android phones. His phone was not on speakerphone. Later, on another call, it was on speakerphone and outdoors and it was clear enough to speak with several people. There are no "technical facts" that are getting in the way here. If you're going to automatically discount her statements based on presumed bias, then you can't believe anything about Zimmerman's statements, either, and we're back to having zero information on what happened between Zimmerman hanging up with 911 and the witness seeing Martin on top of Zimmerman. Ok, so you're telling me that noise cancellation doesn't exist now? You are flat out, technically and factually...wrong. While you can hear chatter in the background, it's NOT clear, and it's NOT loud enough for you to claim you can hear clearly. The technology prevents that. That's why the technology exists. And, if it doesn't exist on your phone, you may have a "new" phone, but it's either old tech or running a very old OS. And yes, there are technical facts getting in the way here. Noise cancellation is real. It actually exists.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 08:12 AM) I can appreciate the point you are trying to make here, and I think it's a good one, Milk. We honestly have no idea what happened, but obviously it is beginning to appear as though Martin wasn't the helpless victim he was originally presumed to be. Regardless, the application of the law doesn't change, nor does the fact that Zimmerman was still stalking people while armed with a concealed weapon, merely for the fact that Martin was a black kid walking through a gated community. As more and more facts reveal themselves, I wouldn't be shocked if it becomes apparent they were both complete fools. I'm going to have to go ahead and call this out...because this isn't about race, and I'm sick and tired of people trying to make it about race. Fact: Zimmerman is Hispanic, NOT white. Facts: A black kid was wandering around a gated community where other minority's lived, including other black people. Zimmerman's neighbors in said community are black. So, I beg the question, why are people continuing to try making the kids skin color an issue? Would it be a valid issue if it was a gated "whites only" community? Yes. But...and get this...it wasn't. So let's stop pretending it was.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 08:05 AM) What does smoking pot have to do with anything? Some of the most brilliant, peaceful people in the world smoke pot. That doesn't mean everyone who smokes pot is brilliant and peaceful. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't call most of them brilliant...and I've known plenty.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 08:03 AM) The police seem to believe it. The witness saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. But hey, let's continue to take the word of the two-bit pot head (probably drug dealer) over the witnesses, police findings, and neighborhood watch captain whose own black neighbors claim is not racist. Yes, but you are ignoring the bestest witness of them all, apparently Martin's girlfriend was on the phone with him, and heard everything so clearly that she can tell you exactly what both people said leading all the way up to the confrontation. So now the technical forensic side of me kicks in and I ask what kind of phone did he have? The reason I ask is because modern Android phones and iPhones have automatic background noise cancellation built into them...so unless he had her on speakerphone the entire time, she didn't hear anything intelligible from anyone other than Martin. But let's not let technical facts get in the way of a good "over the phone" witness that has no reason to be biased or anything. Oh, and we all know how clear speaker phones are when used outdoors... I agree with Milkman...jumping to conclusions and basing all of our assumptions on what we WANT versus what may have actually happened is awesome fun.

QUOTE (flippedoutpunk @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 11:25 PM) So.. I like my new iPad a lot! I wanted one since the first one came out but then held off and told myself i wouldn't get one until Apple releases an iPad with a proper retina display and voila my prayers have been answered. I will admit though, i already had a new Macbook Air and my use of this fancy new toy has been sort of relegated to the occasional game or reading books on the kindle app. I agree with your statement about a proper screen. I had an iPad2 and the resolution was just garbage...I rarely used it. Now that I traded up to an iPad3, I use it extensively. Other than games, photo or video work, I rarely use my desktop anymore...that's how much it's changed my usage. One of the nice things about Apple products is they retain value. When new iPhone models come out, you can usually sell your old one for the same price you'll pay for the new one with the contract...so if you were going to stay with your carrier anyway, it's a free upgrade. I just sold my iPad2 for 450$ on Amazon marketplace and bought the iPad3...so I got an iPad 3 for less than 200$. When the iPhone 5 comes out, I'll sell my iPhone 4s for 250$. And someone will pay that.

QUOTE (SoxFan1 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 12:06 AM) I always get excited to do P90X plyometrics. Then 20 minutes in, I hate myself. And the next day, I hate myself even more. I personally believe the P90X plyo workout is the best leg workout there is, it translates to things you do everyday in a way lifting weights (squats, etc) never translate too. It's pretty much the only P90X video I still use, because otherwise I prefer running on the treadmill, rollerblading or lifting weights for other workouts. IMO, P90X can never hit my arms/chest/shoulders/back as hard as free weights can, but when it comes to leg workouts, I think Plyo-X is tops.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 09:21 PM) Y2hh, Could have been clearer, I hate this Florida law. I dont hate all laws, and most of my hate is because they are written so badly. No argument from me on this.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 08:50 PM) y2hh, Of course, and that is why a dead victim is a double edged sword. If Im the prosecutor Zimmerman is a wannabe cop who has his gun proudly holstered for all to see (and if the facts dont support that) or he was brandishing a gun in the open, trying to imitate the police he watches on tv shows. If Im Zimmerman's lawyer, obviously I argue Martin had no idea he had a gun, and if it wasnt for Zimmerman's quick reaction getting his gun, Martin could have killed him. Who knows what will happen. I just hate the law, so Im just hoping that this causes people to realize that untrained citizens should not be walking around with guns trying to play police. They sure as hell shouldn't be, you won't get an argument from me on that. But I don't hate the law...advocating anarchy isn't a great idea either. An anarchist society would last about 8 minutes before it turned on itself and the people ate each other alive. What I'm not a fan of is vague laws riddled with possible loopholes and grey areas...which this law reeks of.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 08:40 PM) This is my question...how far can you go to defend yourself if someone is following you with a gun? What if he verbally threatens you? Do you have to wait for him to actually attack you? Is your only legal right at that point just to try and flee? How do you know they have a gun?! Most people wandering the streets don't have guns...and I don't assume they have guns...so it's more reasonable to assume people arent armed with guns all the time than it is to assume they are.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 08:18 PM) Y2hh, There is absolutely evidence who the initial aggressor is. Zimmerman called 911 and said that he was following Martin, following someone while armed, would be considered an aggressive act to most reasonable people. If someone is following you with a loaded weapon, do you feel they are being aggressive? My answer is yes. This would be a good point, but the flaw in this argument would be that the victim would have had to know he had a gun...otherwise it was just some guy wondering what the kid was doing around there. You are presuming he knew Zimmerman was armed in order for your argument to hold water.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 07:53 PM) The girl was on the phone with martin up until zimmerman confronted him. It is speculation what happened, but I've seen nothing to indicate an increasing likelihood that martin was the initial aggressor. Absolutely...there is no evidence who was the initial aggressor...and that's kind of the problem. BUT, it seems highly unlikely that if Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, armed with a loaded gun, that he'd let a smaller, younger "kid" get him to the ground...kinda seems off to me. Sounds to me if Zimmerman was the trigger happy gun toting stalking aggressor the media painted him as being, he'd have just shot that kid before any of that happened.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 07:43 PM) I do not think he started out intending to shoot Martin. I think The most likely case is he confronted Martin, perhaps physically, and Martin started to defend himself from this weirdo stalking him. Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked and shot martin. This is corroborated by all witness testimony except for Zimmerman. We dint have evidence that he actually did return to his car. The only thing corroborated by witnesses was that Zimmerman was getting punched...the rest of what you wrote before that is pure speculation. Zimmerman attempted to follow him based on the 911 call, and lost him...I believe that's all part of the 911 recording, was it not? At that point, the only story we have is Zimmermans...as there is no other living witness for that time frame. The only witness that saw anything, if anything, makes it sound like Martin was the aggressor...as all he saw was Zimmerman yelling for help while Martin was on top of him punching him. Any/all other witnesses cannot confirm anything with any certainty other than they heard voices, and it's doubtful they know who's voices they heard in such a situation. As a matter of fact, the only witness that saw anything says it was Zimmerman yelling for help.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 07:44 PM) I honestly don't know... heh

And not to defend Obama, but him speaking out on this and bringing attention to a poorly written law that exists in 20 states, seems prudent. The law is too vague for my liking...and it needs to be done away with, as does any law stating you have to retreat. The only thing Obama said I didn't care for is the crap about that's how his son would have looked or something...as if that has anything to do with anything...I didn't quite understand the need to say that. That aside, Obama did nothing wrong.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 07:28 PM) uh oh, just saw in interview with one Zimmerman's neighbors. The neighbor was black, by the way. He said that Zimmerman was not racist, and Zimmerman is Hispanic, not white. poor Obama media. the story has now completely fallen apart. I thought you were a huge Obama guy? Or are you being sarcastic here sans green text? :/ Or maybe I'm confusing you with someone else. Edit: And I thought everyone knew Zimmerman was Hispanic for a while now...?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 07:23 PM) Just like I came up with a bunch of scenarios earlier, you can come up with a dozen other scenarios. Kid could have been hiding and Zimmerman spotted him. Zimmerman could have threatened him with the gun and he jumped at him o prevent him from taking the shot. Same deal. Zimmerman was wounded, clearly there was a struggle, and if there was a struggle, then in any scenario you come up with, under that law, Zimmerman has the right to kill. The only way to avoid this mess is to have the law require him to retreat, and to get the guy with the concealed gun off the streets in the first place. Also very true, good point.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 07:08 PM) Because you always believe the testimony of the shooter since dead men tell no tales. There is actually something too this people want to dismiss...but it's reality. It's why they say if you shoot a home invader, make sure they're dead. And why? For the exact reason you stated.

I elaborated a bit on why...I'm just trying to think about the situation logically. It's all speculation, but I'm just trying to see how a guy, who was the supposed aggressor, who had a loaded gun, would allow this kid to get right up on him...as the aggressor, it'd be HIM trying to get up on the kid, not the other way around. Something just doesn't add up with this in a logical sense to me... a) If Martin had gotten away, and he supposedly did based on the 911 call that he "lost him" and was going back to his car...how did they end up in a scuffle? b) If Zimmerman was the aggressor, with a gun, how'd the kid get close enough to hit him/wrestle him to the ground? c) Witness says he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, see B...how'd that happen to a gun toting aggressor? I just can't see it in my minds eye... I'm probably missing something important here, so please if you see something, point it out...but I just can't comprehend how he got in such close quarters to a guy who the media has painted as someone that was looking to shoot and kill this kid...people who have guns that want to kill someone, don't let them get close enough to wrestle them down and possibly get disarmed and have their own weapon used against them...it just doesn't add up to me.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 07:01 PM) Not really. Yea, really. To be perfectly honest, when the story first broke, it looked like a complete screw up due to a vague law, where Zimmerman was the aggressor. This was mostly perpetuated by the media, because it's the story they wanted to be true, so it's the story they seemed to run with, and then a lot of people hopped the bandwagon, because it was free publicity to do so. And it may end up being true...who knows. BUT...as time went by and more detailed emerged, it seems like it may be the opposite based on the accounts of witnesses...if Zimmerman was the aggressor, and had a gun, I find it HIGHLY dubious that Martin ended up on top of him, hitting him, etc...as the witness claims to have seen. Armed with a gun, if Zimmerman was the aggressor, I find it unlikely he'd let Martin get close enough to him if he was ready for it. The only way I see it happening is if he surprised him...which is what Zimmerman's story is...and logistically, trying to think about the situation, it seems likely...as said, if I had a gun and he approached me...knowing that law existed (as Zimmerman did), he'd have shot him right then and there...no way he'd let the guy get up on him and start hitting him. Just seems unlikely. Possible, sure...just unlikely. If this Zimmerman was looking to shoot and kill this kid, I think he would have without taking the chance of letting him right up on him, as is what happened based on witness accounts.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 05:35 PM) How do you think they're going to pay for those other cameras you'd like? They're not going to use the traffic ticket money to do so, so what's your attempted point here?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 26, 2012 -> 05:27 PM) Y2hh, But everyone is in agreement that criminals should be caught, so once again, who are you going to be outraged against? Is it outrage against the Police because they dont catch criminals? Is it outrage against taxes because they should be raised so that we can have a police officer on every corner? Is it outrage against drug laws because police are busy arresting non-violent offenders instead of spending more time catching murderers? What is the outrage about? I'm going to outrage about YOU! How about that? I understand your point...but it's all about watching how things are done in Chicago, politically. They're putting up "speed" cameras near every park/school, but high crime areas where they have off the charts gun violence and violent crime...f*** cameras...we need them for speeding tickets! That's the outrage I have. Apparently speeding tickets are far more important. And since privacy violations seems to mean nothing to them with all the traffic cameras they're putting up...I don't see that as an excuse as to why they can't put higher quality cameras in other areas where they can actually catch some people...but hey, at least we'll make more money off of traffic tickets now!