Justice and Security: Neighborhood Watch Captain Attacks, Kills Unarmed Teenager

That's not going to stop Bells from stringing him up for it, of course.

As dishonest as the kid has been throughout all of this, Bells has been right there with him. She should leave this alone.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Before I post further, are you very sure of this opinion?

I suppose I could go back and review the entire thing again.

I guess it's not impossible; it could have been supported in a way if he'd actually had a sniffle.

Maybe not. Quadra, you're an expert in this field, no? Does anyone in your field use say statistical permutation to arrive at a probability distribution for audio clean-up? Establish say a couple thousand permutations of audio values for bass, say, then listen to the recording for the 5th percentile of all possible bass values established by permutation and see what it sounds like. If it sounds like "c**ns", then you could say with a 5% approximate probability of error that that's what he said, possibly. Sorry if that seems a bit dense. We use something similar for gene detection, although transplanting it to audio analysis would involve a bit of work, assuming it were viable in the first place. No matter what threshold was arrived at, you'd still have a guy sitting with headphones trying to decide what was said.

I swear, it won't.

Er, hardly.

That's some fine parroting from the site, but please examine quadra's response above. "Conspiracy theories", indeed. Are you unfamiliar with statistical analysis? Look up transforms and scale invariance, but you'll have to dig.

What is required is an immediate statement from Zimmerman as to what he actually said. While he's out on bail, he can access the talking points of apologists and/or impartial analysts and pick the explanation that suits him best, if he were so inclined.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A moderator who engages in the level of mudslinging you engage in should never give out a warning or an infraction, especially resulting from threads you're involved in. I have argued that you shouldn't even be a moderator, given your willingness to get as dirty (or moreso) than most who would received such infractions or warnings, and I think this thread is just the latest example of why.

No, it's just a common one.

I have to wonder what the fate would be of someone who accused you of such a thing. I'm willing to bet it would be different than your own fate for an identical action.

So it isn't setteld, then. And let's face it, Bells, you're involved in things like this all the time.

Perhaps not, but it's your way of shutting him up officially and sicking the other mods on him. Other mods who have already demonstrated an unwillingness to moderate you. Gee, I wonder who's going to get the short end of this one? And what do you want to bet that nothing whatsoever happens to you as a result?

 

I understand this and I do sympathize with your outrage, which I think was justified. When he commented on "what a black kid would do", however, I think he meant it as a response to a semi-rhetorical question about "what you think a black kid should do" when confronted by such a person as Zimmerman; i.e. "this is what any kid should do". I may recall that wrongly; I leave my correction up to you, but my impression was that he meant that as a general rhetorical response. I certainly don't agree with his subsequent characterizations, of course - and I also resented the rhetorical cheap shot from you that that's what I was writing in about. Not nice.

Yes, but what you did to me was not any ethically different, nor any argumentatively different, and probably constitutes the same breach under the forum rules.

I do understand where you're going here, and I sympathize. I don't know about hostile towards him because you're black, if you're black, but I'm certain you took offense from it, and rightly so.

Well, we do have a longstanding grudge, but that's not the issue here. Several people have been critical of your bomb-dropping on SF. You have at times engaged in behavior that would have resulted in severe sanctions coming from a regular poster. This is an ongoing issue. In this case, I believe your complaint was justified, but JDawg raises a salient point about this kind of thing on the forums.

Having said my piece in return, I leave the thread to the OT.

 

Not only has nobody "corroborated" that supposition, but nobody of any relevance has ever made the claim in the first place. Zimmerman and his actual advocates don't claim that he said "cones." It was a distraction introduced here, at SciForums, by one adoucette - who has since, apparently, given up on posting here. So I'm unclear on why we're still talking about it. It isn't relevant to anything - although it would be very easy to (dis)confirm if anyone of relevance were actually suggesting it.

The story from the actual Zimmerman advocates is that he said "fucking cold."

I tend to agree, and also note that he certainly seems to be pretty damned stupid.

Yeah, this issue has become something of a distraction.

Why aren't we instead talking about the deluge of new evidence that's been leaked recently?

 

Mod Hat — On the "black kid" digression

Mod Hat — On the "black kid" digression

I really don't see how this is so problematic.

For instance, there is a suggestion that what the black kid should do is, essentially, to mean what any kid should do.

No.

One chooses specifically to insert the adjective black. But why?

Why is that important?

Now, let's set aside black for the moment. And kid.

One person is walking home from the store at night. Another person follows the One in a car. The Other's behavior causes the One concern, so the One flees. The Other chases the One on foot, and confronts him.​

Now, if you are the One, what, exactly are you thinking at that moment? What do you say?

• "Well, goshy, good sirrah. I's a-jus' walkin' home from th'store where I gots me some Skittles an' some ice' tea. I promise ya, sirrah, I ain't doin' nothin' suspicious. Jus' walkin' home from th'store. Dinna mean to alarm ya, sirrah."​

I don't know, does that seem a little like a two-bit parody? Well, it's what happens when you insert the adjective black as if it is somehow significant.

Or maybe you might think to yourself:

• "And who the fuck are you?"​

Now, as an American, I can tell you there are a good number of people who won't just think the latter, but come out and say it.

But, you know, this One was black. So ... what, then?

Even if we go with kid, it seems a little strange to expect a seventeen year-old to not be suspicious at the notion of someone first following him slowly in a car, and then chasing him on foot.

"Logically, a black kid walking along with some snacks would have simply answered the questions and gone about his way."​

Not only is this a strange suggestion for anyone who has been followed suspiciously by a car, and then chased on foot, what is the difference between being black, a kid, or a black kid and anyone else?

A warning has already been issued in this digression, and it stands.

Let me make that clear: As the direct oversight of EM&J, and as a supermoderator empowered to revoke warnings and suspensions issued by my colleagues, the yellow card issued in this thread stands without question or reserve.

This digression ends now. Period.

Indeed, as our neighbor only digs a deeper ditch in his own defense, there is a reasonable question of escalating the staff response to this situation. At this time, however, this post is the whole of that escalation.

And the outcome is simply enough expressed: This digression ends now.

If people want to have a discussion about how one should respond to being followed by a stranger in a car, and then chased on foot by that stranger, and the different obligations of how that one should respond to the pursuing other according to skin color, age, &c., they can start another thread. To the other, I can understand why some might not be anxious to undertake that discussion, as it involves the idea that parents should teach their kids, "If a strange adult ever follows you in a car and then chases you down on foot, you owe it to him to cooperate." And it involves the proposition that black people owe greater deference to such pursuing strangers than people of lighter skin tones. And, of course, since this particular issue originates in the United States, as this situation has it, we eventually will run into considerations of Equal Protection and whether or not people with darker skin are obliged to greater deference to their neighbors.

Yes, I know it sounds a bit complicated. That's why it should be its own thread.

But for the current thread, this digression ends now, before some who would include racist considerations further embarrass themselves and oblige site authority to a stronger response.

Members who wish to dispute the moderator outlook in this issue are welcome to contact me via private message. But we are not going to continue dragging this discussion down according to ouroboros digression.

Thank you.

 

As i said previously if this was a 17 year old GIRL who was chased by a guy in a car and then on foot untill she was exusted and who at that point fought back not ONE person would say she was in anyway in the wrong.

Normally i would be the first to say that you should wait for a jury verdict to pronounce judgment on someone but this guy has by his own statments proved he was at the very least ethically cupable for this crime. "I followed him in my car and then got out and chased him" anything which follows from this and which this poor kid did out of fear doesnt justify this wackjob shooting him, if he had stayed in his car, if he had never followed him then none of this would have happened.

 

Others have claimed that if was two people of the same race, it may not have hit the media.
And "girls" are not easily classified as weak. Really- a red herring.

Now in fairness, I came into the thread less informed than I should have and made bold claims. I was called upon to support those claims and had to admit to a failing on my part.

I am not advocating that Trayvon Martin did not run. I am not advocating that Martin was not frightened.

I did advocate a speculative probability of it in the beginning due to a faulty assumption on my part that:
"Zimmerman was on duty and visibly recognizable as a guard." - I was wrong.
In fact, he was on his way to the store, spotted Martin and started watching him.
Additionally, Martin was a visitor to the neighborhood and a Guest. He could not have been expected to recognize Zimmerman as it's been known all along they were strangers. So it's not as if Martin could have recognized him off duty but still known that he was a Guard, not a stalker.
It separates into two perspectives:
Martins: Strange man in p.o.v. watching me. Creepy. Should keep away.
Zimmermans: Potential perp after a rash of robberies, the last of which got away when I followed protocol and stayed in the car.

Zimmerman probably felt justified in pursuing. He had caught a burglar before and that led to an arrest. He was probably pumped up- thinking that would happen again.

Martin, on the other hand had no knowledge of any of this. He only knew a strange man was following him. So he tried to avoid him.

You can say, "if he had stayed in his car, it wouldn't have happened" as easily as you can say that if Martin had not bothered to go to the store that night, it wouldn't have happened."

The event that led to the shooting was more immediate than that. Yes, had Zimmerman stayed in his car, as he should have, this would not have happened.
However, if Zimmerman had Called out to Martin with, "Young man! I am George Zimmerman, neighborhood watch! Do you live here?"
None of it would have happened as well.
This shows that the event leading to a shooting was more immediate.

It's been established he did not Identify himself.

What we have at this point is probable Cause against Zimmerman. The immediate events that led to the shooting are currently, not yet established.

 

Heck, you can leave them both male and just swap their races and you'll get the same response. And if we were talking about a black man stalking and accosting a white girl? Well, then the accusations of a "lynch mob" out to get Zimmerman would probably have been totally accurate...

 

Really? Because that does happen and it does hit the news where stalkers accost girls like that as you just described... Where are all the lynchmobs?

 

They're stuck outside of the police stations, since the police aren't in the habit of sending black men who accost and kill white girls home. Instead, they get arrested, tried and imprisoned for long periods of time.

But if police were to handle such a case the way they did this one, by sending the killer home that night, you could expect a lynch mob.

 

Apparently there is one in this case... that's well known.

But, I doubt the veracity of the strength of the claim. Do you have any evidence of lynch mobs hanging outside of police stations?

I really think this one falls under speculative opinion. We'd have to research and cite known cases of lynches from suspects out on bail... how many observed occurrences... etc...

 

You're claiming there's an actual lynch mob out to get Zimmerman?

What a bunch of bullshit. Why are you so invested in making this killer out to be a victim?

You say all that as if the USA doesn't have a long and notorious history of lynchings of black men for little more than looking at white women.

Suffice it to say that I'm not going to bite on the obtuse troll-bait of having to pretend that race relations in the USA are other than they are and then "prove" to the satisfaction of some troll that there's a real problem. If you aren't aware of the real race problems we have, then you aren't qualified to participate in this discussion, and your pretense of scientific investigation is a cover for racist trolling.

 

Bullshit link:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/23/nation/la-na-nn-george-zimmerman-20120323
Bullshit quote:

Death threats is not a technical lynch mob unless they have a noose and pitchforks- But Lynchmobs are Death Threats.

Asguards commentary suggests a Kangaroo Court. Jump over the hedge of the law from "Arrested -> sentence him."
It's disturbing.
That's lynchmob mentality.

History is history. What about the recent history, even?What about the present? Either support the claim that lynchmobs are common... Or do as I have had to do and back down on the claim you cannot support.
And you are talking about historical Lynchmobs- which falls under Actual mobs looking for vigilante justice.

Claiming that lynch mobs would be the result of something- even though that something does occur in the news frequently requires support.

This is not troll baiting - it's valid.

And if you dislike it- don't respond to my posts. It won't hurt my feelings any.:shrug:

 

Actually if Martin was a girl i can see the whole News story now

"Young 17 year old girl stalked and murdered by so called "watch captain"

A young 17 year old girl on her way home from the shops was stalked and viciously murdered by a so called watch captain, he stalked her for x time in his car and when she started to run he hunted her down on foot and then shot her. This was all witnessed by her traumatised boyfriend who was on the phone at the time and was therefore unable to help this poor girl." and so on and so on.

 

From the article Bells just posted:

Capture? By who? To be delivered to whom?
Tensions, indeed. Face it folks, I read an article weeks ago and got an idea in my head that some guy that just wanted to do some good in the world made a tragic mistake.

There is more and more damning evidence against his behavior every day.

Yes, of course this causes me to revise my opinions if I get better informed. (This same article shows a damning picture of Zimmerman. But in fairness- the pitbull mentioned had threatened his wife. This article neglected to mention that.

)

However, it's still disturbing, on the same fundamentals I started out with.

Yes, I've changed my opinions about many aspects of the case- thanks in no small part to many of you who made me examine it closer.

But what's with the ONE thing that remains? The man must go to trial. A real trial- in court.
Does anyone honestly disagree with that?

I will not stop speaking out against the Lynch Mob mentality even if he's guilty as all hell and had intent to kill at the outset.

The lynchmob Mentality MUST be fought against. No Matter What.
If it is not fought against, Quadraphonics post about actual lynchmobs (Not mentality or by media) really would be true.

For those of you claiming I'm trying to make a guilty man look innocent at this point- you are not reading my posts, then- You are refusing to let go of a preconception you have.

 

Another thought, how many of us posting call the cops? I've called the cops on people.
My wife called the cops on a man while driving when she saw him slugging the daylights out of a passenger in the car as it swerved across four lines of traffic. She felt it was reasonable that lives were in danger and called it in.
I have called in for teenagers messing with a dumpster outside of an apartment complex with red lensed flashlights. Turns out they had thrown in at least 40 kitten corpses in- I do not know why or what the result of that was.

The article does paint an image of a Neurotic man. But it can, as easily, paint an image of a man pro-active about protection and safety. And since the article doesn't go into detail, we don't really know the circumstances (Pitbull for example) and are left to assume.

And how often, after a crime, are people left complaining, "No one called the cops- no one did anything!"

Maybe if one of those people in one of those houses had been another Zimmerman, we'd know how the fight started.

Oh- one last thing. For those of you posting with such extreme prejudice and anger- remember that Zimmerman got out of his car that night in the same frame of mind.