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

I just watched the video from CNN.com in which they isolated the "fucking c----" part of the speech, and it's really hard to tell. Just hearing it once, I thought it was "cones," but when the tech dropped the bass and isolated the word, it does sound more like "coons" than "cones." But I would never say it's "pretty certain" either way.

I haven't heard him speak otherwise, but if he's got a Southern accent, "coons" could have a slightly longer O sound than in other regions. But I'd need to hear a longer clip of him talking to know.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Do you have a link for that isolation? It sounds a lot like "cones" in the unedited version, or even of something else with a long 'o'.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I mean, I just Googled "Zimmerman coons audio" and it was the third hit on the list...but okay, if you're feeling particularly lazy:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-isolates-audio-on-alleged-%E2%80%98fcking-cns%E2%80%99-trayvon-martin-911-call/

Well, that's the next question that comes to mind. I haven't heard anything about the layout of the area, have no idea if there was road work, or if perhaps Zimmerman had cones in his driveway, or what. He could have been talking about several things. Does he have those little driveway lights that some people have? Whether or not they're cone-shaped, he could be referring to them, if he in fact is saying cones.

But yes, "Fucking cones" seems weird. It also seems weird that he'd saying "Fucking coons" while on the line with 911, so I don't know what to think. It's really hard to tell either way. Geoff is convinced it isn't coons, but I've eliminated his opinion on this subject, because there's just no way to be that certain.

 

Straight question: are you being deliberately obtuse, or accidentally so?

Coming out this May 21st: The Ignore That Never Was, starring Bells.

In point of fact, he was suggesting that hypotheticals could be advanced for either of them. If you want to argue those with him, why not just stick to them one by one, logically weighing as you go?

Yes, my laziness did not discover the third hit down on your nearly arbitrary combination of boolean Google syntax. Why, O why, did I not know the exact site you used - the toweringly well-known www.mediaite.com - to start with??? I'd only already looked up like four of them, but obviously I hadn't considered the paramount website of audio analysis and dissemination, mediaite.com! Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Actually I said in the unedited version. Let's try to be a bit more mature; it would be an impressive feat indeed to eliminate an opinion.

The modified version on JDawg well-known link does sound more like "c**ns". The next question is whether can the modification artificially create a sound more like the racial slur?

If the modified version is incorrect, one is left to wonder what the alternate word is. I don't know why he would say "cones" and on the original I find even the "c" sound difficult to locate. It becomes increasingly unlikely for other words. Or cones? Or see-you-next-Tuesday? Does he maybe not even know how to pronounce "c**ns", meaning to in the raw but getting it wrong? Would he, if a racial slur was preferred, not choose instead the "n-word"? On the whole, the weight is probably on the racial term...assuming that the cleanup of the audio does not purposefully or arbitrarily acquire a direction that it should not have. Permutation could - conceivably - develop a probability for this question.

 

Off Topic and not part of Zimmerman case debate

That would be true, if that's what was done. That was not what was done and that you lie about it while accusing the other of lying is very telling.
What was done was your unfounded accusations of racism, when I posted a descriptive narrative.
I did not, then, discount your argument- I discounted your Behavior and attitudes, suggesting a causal relationship. In other words: A Personal Vendetta. You are not impartial, nor unbiased.

The review was for post 430 on downward (Where the derailment and your heavy confusion occurred from post 433 onward). Saying you requested a review for the entire thread suggests dishonesty on your part.
If you cannot be honest- I can request a review on your behalf. IF the reviewers are willing to read the entire thread, all 26 pages of it... then that is fine. I doubted when I offered the proposal that most people had that kind of time and kept it restricted to only the derailment caused by your confusions.

The statement is misleading: Your misleading statement implies that a review was conducted and it was found by multiple people that I was a liar.
The only other person whom accused me of lying was JDawg and that has been covered. One other volatile and mistaken person is not "everyone else."
In fact, you have no business posting as if posting the results of an outside review of the section from post number 433 onward.
It is up to the reviewer to post that conclusion.
Off Topic and not part of Zimmerman case debate

 

People, the "cones" thing was a distraction introduced by the erstwhile adoucette, as a derail tactic. AFAIK nobody involved with the actual case has endorsed that interpretation. It's pretty facepalm that people are still going around and around on "cones" weeks after adoucette went on his merry way. Testament to his troll skills, I suppose, but still...

The current claim of the Zimmerman advocates (the actual ones, in real life) is that he said "fucking cold." Not sure whether that's supposed to refer to the temperature (it was 63 degrees F at the time, but then Floridians have a pretty warped idea of what constitutes comfortable temperatures) or a virus he was suffering from (should also be easy to dis/confirm).

 

Americans who make a big deal about skin pigmentation classify people's races according to how their skin pigmentation appears, not where they were born or what language they speak. There are plenty of white Latinos. That's why "Latino" is a separate "ethnicity" category on the census, distinct from "race."

Having never seen a picture of Gladys Mesa, I have no idea whether she's white or not.

Regardless, even if she is unambiguously non-white, that doesn't imply that Zimmerman isn't white. Again, Americans who make a big deal about skin pigmentation classify races according to how people's pigmentation appears, and not what race their parents are. Nobody stops and looks up a person's family photos before classifying their race.

That said, Zimmerman himself is kinda borderline. He looks darker in some photos I've seen of him, and definitely when he wears the peach-fuzz proto-moustache his appearance screams "minority." But in other photos where he's clean-shaven and looking less tan, he could well pass for white.

But if we're talking about how racism actually figures in to this whole show, then the story will again be different than the default system of appearance-based racial classification. One relevant fact: however white Zimmerman may or may not be, he sure as hell isn't black and Trayvon Martin sure as hell was black.

 

Hadn't even thought of "cold" and it never would have occurred to me. The modified audio sounds more like "c**ns" though. How hard would it be to erroneously edit a sound file like that? This is a normal part of the process, presumably.

 

Seemed kinda left-field to me as well.

This kind of audio analysis is something of a hash of a field. There are real experts who do real work, but there's also a lot of snake oil. The upshot is that even when done correctly, it doesn't work in a way that laymen can assess - it's as much about expert listeners as it is about audio processing.

I'm unsure if that material will even figure into the trial; if not we'll probably never get a better idea of what the guy said.

 

Considering the video was from CNN.com--which I mentioned in the first post--and that I simply followed Google's advice on the search ("Zimmerman coon audio," "Zimmerman coon remark," and "Zimmerman coon comment" all auto-fill from "Zimmerman coon"), you really shouldn't have needed me to provide the link. I mean, we're not talking about deep web stuff here. We're talking about a CNN video. In fact, typing "CNN Zimmerman" auto-fills with "-911," "-audio," "-racial slur," and "-coon."

But don't let any of that get in the way of your wiseassery.

How is it hard? You lost credibility when you said you were certain, therefore your opinion has no merit.

Conspiracy theories now? All the guy did was drop the bass and raise the volume. Dropping bass eliminates noise and clears up the high end.

I don't think anyone has actually bothered to look, though. I mean, especially considering how it isn't really clear if Zimmerman was on foot or in his car, "fucking cones" would be something someone in a car would say, especially if he's following someone.

 

Off topic Rant

Never said I was leaving altogether. I said I would not debate this threads topic as you make that a futile and impossible effort.

Actually, I have never seen you, have I, Bells? Never seen a picture- I'm sure your avatar is not an accurate reflection of physical appearance.

You might want to think about that...

Because you have acknowledged your race- Was that racial profiling?
Or was it apparent due to your strongly exhibited bias?

What I did say is that you're showing a lack of impartiality, a bias.
That is in your behavior. Not your race. That is no more offensive than calling me a racist for saying, "Logically, a black kid walking down the street"-- as opposed to WHAT? A pink and purple polka dot kid? OR are you saying that he is not black? Or are you suggesting that his being black shouldn't be mentioned- as if it's a non issue?

Funny because I primarily said, "He was just a kid." In fact, in most references I made to him, I made no acknowledgment of his race.

You ignore that while latching onto what you can perceive as racism (though it was simply a descriptive) so you can cry foul. That's offensive.

The way you disseminate posts to mislead is offensive.

The way you try everything in your power to attack an opponents character instead of his ideas is offensive.

When you threatened Moderator action under the ruse of trolling while ignoring the despicable tactics you have been employing, that was offensive.

Everytime you have dared to try to speculate about my son, that was offensive. (Granted that was in another thread over a year ago, where you found that I had a button in regards to my son you could push and twist, I have not forgotten what you said then and it did not go over well when you pounced on Buddhas question to me.) Everytime you tried to speculate about my personal being, that was offensive.

Trying to profile me, cast me into a mold that you created in order to attack my character, claiming I hold to ideas I do not due to your bias and unwarranted accusations was all offensive.

You have a very personal bias in this thread and it makes your behavior in it Offensive.

I've acknowledged and even, in parts apologized for my behavior. Because yes, when I stormed in and the claims I was relying on were unfounded- I looked like a fool.

It's high time you acknowledge your own offensive behavior- up to and including profiling strangers as racists without cause.

Off Topic Rant

 

It's not really about exactly what tone a person's skin is. Nobody looks up anybody's genealogy before deciding what their race is. While dark skin is the primary characteristic that is used, there's a variety of secondary characteristics that also figure heavily: shape of the nose/lips/other facial features, hair, manner of speaking, even dress. There are examples of Americans with rather light skin that are, nevertheless, unambiguously black. And there are people with relatively dark skin who are nevertheless unambiguously white.

 

Well then maybe he said coons. I'm not saying he didn't, I'm just saying that "fucking cones" is not as implausible as, say, Martin throwing his cellphone to the ground to attack Zimmerman.