Trayvon Martin

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

There's more to racism then openly believing blacks are inferior and hating all blacks.

[Y2HH]

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.

[Balta1701]

But there is no proof of it. The proof seems to suggest more that Zimmerman was caught off guard by Martin. That was already discussed. I suppose it's who you want to believe at this point, but certainly not enough to convict Zimmerman.

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.

[Y2HH]

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?

[Balta1701]

just because you really really want him to be.

Haven't I pretty much said repeatedly and had you agree that I think he's innocent of violating every law currently on Florida's books?

 

He ought to be guilty of something. He shot a kid after provoking an unnecessary confrontation and putting himself in a situation by choice where he did not belong. But the state of the law in Florida allows that.

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

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.

[Y2HH]

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.

[Balta1701]

Why do you want this guy convicted of something so badly when he may, in fact, be completely f***ing innocent?

He arranged a hostile situation where there should not have been one and the end result was a dead kid. If I provoke a fight, the other person fights back harder, and then I kill them, I'm still the one who provoked the incident.

 

The simple fact is that a kid is dead unnecessarily because of an unnecessary set of aggressive actions made by this guy. The state of Florida has deemed that particular set of actions to be legal, and I judge that to be a mistake, because a kid is dead unnecessarily.

[Y2HH]

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.

[StrangeSox]

But there is no proof of it. The proof seems to suggest more that Zimmerman was caught off guard by Martin. That was already discussed. I suppose it's who you want to believe at this point, but certainly not enough to convict Zimmerman.

 

There is no evidence that Zimmerman was caught off-guard except for Zimmerman's own statements. Zimmerman's story contradicts the story of the girl that Trayvon was on the phone with up until the start of the altercation. She claims that she heard Zimmerman yelling at Martin, and Martin shouting "why are you following me?!" Then she heard someone getting pushed or shoved and the call was dropped.

 

What she can't know is if Zimmerman was walking up to Trayvon and Trayvon shoved him first. I'm honestly not sure how that would impact the self-defense claim.

[StrangeSox]

IMO, her story IS unreliable for many reasons, including the technical challenges I posed.

 

 

But those technical challenges aren't really real.

 

edit: The problem is that, no matter what transpired between the end of the 911 call and the shooting, Trayvon Martin was completely innocent of any crime and had no reason to draw suspicion other than being an unfamiliar young black male wearing a hoodie. If Zimmerman wasn't an obsessive wanna-be cop who carried a gun and decided to pursue someone doing nothing but walking down the sidewalk, there never would have been any confrontation.

Edited March 27, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

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.

No, if you'll note...I've made zero assumptions about the innocence of the kid. The kid might darn well have crossed several lines in how he responded to the guy stalking him down the street.

 

That does not justify the guy following him down the street, and that should not justify having the kid be killed. Even if he believed his life was genuinely in danger, he should have been required by the law to withdraw. And it would have been darn nice if he didn't have the gun in the first place, because that'd make it awfully hard for him to have decided to provoke the situation.

[Y2HH]

But those technical challenges aren't really real.

 

Only they are.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Only they are.

 

How did you determine Martin has a phone with this technology?

[Y2HH]

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.

Edited March 27, 2012 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

How did you determine Martin has a phone with this technology?

 

How do we determine that this technology can't pick up someone near Trayvon talking directly to Trayvon and very likely not in a soft-spoken manner? We're not talking about incidental background conversations 20 feet away here.

[Balta1701]

How did you determine Martin has a phone with this technology?

Martin's girlfriend recalled Martin saying that he was trying to lose the man pursuing him, Crump said. At one point Martin told her he thought that he had lost him, Crump said.

 

Then Martin said, 'Oh, he's right behind me again,'" Crump said. "She says run. But he said I'm not going to run, I'm just to going to walk fast.'"

 

The girl heard Martin ask, "Why are you following me?'" Crump said. She then heard another voice ask, "What are you doing around here?" the lawyer said.

 

An altercation ensued. The girl concluded Martin was pushed, because his voice falls out during the conversation, Crump said.

 

She said she next heard what sounded like Martin's cellphone earpiece getting dislodged from his ear before the call was abruptly ended. She tried phoning back, but there was no answer, Crump said.

Link

 

Sounds like a Bluetooth device to me?

[StrangeSox]

I didn't, I asked, quite a while back what kind of phone he was using, because it would be an important piece of evidence.

 

He's claiming noise cancellation doesn't exist.

 

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 and iPhone, it matters a lot. Because in that case, there IS a technical real world challenge, despite the fact that he wishes it didn't exist.

 

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.

[iamshack]

Let me just say that because a black kid walking through his neighborhood aroused his suspicions does not make Zimmerman racist, and I never meant to imply that. Most of the time, we are a culmination of our experiences and observations. It does not make one racist if he becomes suspicious of an African American person or a Hispanic person walking through his neighborhood, if that suspicion is based on experiences whereas most of the crime in his neighborhood is perpetrated by African Americans or Hispanics. It does not make a person racist if he becomes suspicious of Asians in his neighborhood if it is a statistical fact that Asians perpetrate the most crimes in his neighborhood. It may be profiling, but it is not racism.

 

My point in Zimmerman's case was that IMO he was basing his suspicions partially on the fact that Martin was black. At no point did I accuse him of racism.

 

My apologies if I implied that Zimmerman was racist, and I can see how it could have been interpreted as such.

 

What I should have made more clear is the point that Martin's ethnicity or race gives Zimmerman no more legal justification to follow him with a concealed weapon.

[StrangeSox]

Link

 

Sounds like a Bluetooth device to me?

 

Or a corded headphone with an in-line mic, maybe?

[Y2HH]

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...

[Y2HH]

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.

[Balta1701]

I want to start off by saying that the state provided Zimmerman with the ability to carry a weapon, not his affiliation with the neighborhood watch. I believe it's much more likely that Zimmerman is always armed, not just when he's "on duty". I make no arguments that he wasn't overzealous. But I also do not believe that it is out of the question for him to attempt to catch up to the unknown person in order to talk to him, nor do I believe it is illegal. I can see why it would cause Martin to get nervous, but I also don't think it entitles him to attack Zimmerman. People seem to either think Zimmerman came after him openly brandishing his gun (I find that hard to believe, as Martin clearly had the upper hand at one point and did not go for the gun) or that Zimmerman approached him to ask him what his business was there. It's not something Martin had to answer, but Zimmerman can ask.

And you're right on all of these issues. There's not necessarily one obvious step in this sequence which is illegal under Florida law. That includes Martin striking back at a strange guy who followed him down the street for a fair distance. You get followed home by a person for a long distance, try to lose them only to get caught by them again, then approached by them and they start yelling, you're probably going to think this guy is going to try to mug you and you better get them first.

 

Every step here from the moment he decided to chase down the suspicious looking kid himself can be reasonably explained, and the end result is a kid is dead who should not be. That tells me there is something fundamentally wrong with the laws that allow such a situation to occur. Either that or you have to tell me this is just acceptable collateral damage.

[StrangeSox]

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...

 

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.

[StrangeSox]

I don't care who you are, everyone has a slight tendency towards racism unless they grew up in a completely mixed home and neighborhood. You can argue it all you want, but I truly believe it to be the case. I'm not saying that we see a minority and automatically wish death on them.

 

I agree with this 100%. Racism is implicit in our inner assumptions and biases way more than it is overt, KKK-style stuff these days.