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

[Balerion]

H

All right, I finally got around listening to the "coons/cones" audio. Sounds likes "cones", or something else with a long "o". I think that's pretty certain. Quadra thinks otherwise; does anyone have another bite where they're certain it sounds like that?

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.

 

[GeoffP]

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'.

 

[Bells]

He was advancing a hypothetical, under the position that there have been several hypotheticals advanced around Zimmerman that are specious or biased.

About my skin colour?

Suuurreee...

As for hypotheticals about Zimmerman, why create or advance hypotheticals that go against what we know to be actual facts?

Ugh..

Why am I even asking you... Of course you'd take his side.

*Curse taking you off ignore*
_______________________________________________________________

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.

Why would he have been saying "fucking cones"?

Were there witches hats or cones in his way?

Road works, etc?

Saying "fucking cones" doesn't make sense at all. Unless of course he tripped on a cone, but nothing was said in the media about cones being in the lane way or from where he was chasing Martin.

When I listened to the 911 transcript, it was hard to make out. Just seems weird that he would say "cones".

 

[Balerion]

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'.

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/

Why would he have been saying "fucking cones"?

Were there witches hats or cones in his way?

Road works, etc?

Saying "fucking cones" doesn't make sense at all. Unless of course he tripped on a cone, but nothing was said in the media about cones being in the lane way or from where he was chasing Martin.

When I listened to the 911 transcript, it was hard to make out. Just seems weird that he would say "cones".

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.

 

[GeoffP]

About my skin colour?

Suuurreee...

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

Ugh..

Why am I even asking you... Of course you'd take his side.

*Curse taking you off ignore*

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?

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/

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.

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.

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.

 

[Bells]

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.

Wasn't in his driveway though.

Was down the road and then in the laneway. And no one reported there being any cones which would corroborate his comment.

 

[Bells]

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

I actually did find it very offensive. Would be akin to my saying to you, for example, that you really should not be participating or discussing this because you are white and Zimmerman is white, so it would mean you would automatically be biased because of your colour. It is offensive, rude and racist. Discounting someone's argument because of their colour is racist. Not to mention the way he said it.. I honestly cannot believe he said it, but he did. And then tried to lie through his teeth about it.

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?

In a case where there is already a lot of confusion, it isn't necessary. Certainly not necessary or warranted when said hypotheticals go against the known facts.

For example, we know the shooting and attack itself did not take place at Zimmerman's car. We know this because the altercation and the shooting itself occured in a laneway, nowhere near Zimmerman's car. Which he had parked on another street and then given chase. We know this because he gives the 911 operator the address of where he had parked his car.. He even described where his car was. He then gets out of the car and starts to chase Martin.

This is known fact. There is no need to create or invent a hypothetical about this. It already clouds an already cloudy issue.

Just as his supposed "hypotheticals" when he repeatedly comments about Martin's suspicious actions and queries why he was walking there. It isn't necessary.

I'll put it this way. This case is volatile. There is no need to make it more so by blaming the victim for walking down the street and apparently being the black kid acting without logic because he failed to tell a complete stranger who was following him in his car and on foot why he was there and what he was doing, etc. Martin had every right to walk where he was walking when he was walking and as he was walking. The initial police report was clear. It was Zimmerman who could have avoided this and he did not. Instead he went out of his way to confront Martin, who had not been doing anything wrong. Which blows the stand your ground rules out of the water. Now Neverfly discounts this. Why? Because he is too busy making up hypotheticals and it doesn't fit into his hypothetical that Martin is innocent.

Neverfly discounts the police reports which state, openly, that this could have solely been avoided by Zimmerman. And then he lies about it and about what I said in reporting that. There is creating hypotheticals and there is lying. And unfortunately for him, he did both at the same time. Openly and blatantly. You can't tell me you didn't notice it...

 

[Neverfly]

Off Topic and not part of Zimmerman case debate

Discounting someone's argument because of their colour is racist.

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.

I have sought a review of this thread and your participation in it. Seeing that I am not the only one who has found you to be dishonest and to lie repeatedly.. in other words, it's not everyone else but you. It actually is you.

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

 

[quadraphonics]

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).

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

. . . . Zimmerman is white . . . .

George Zimmerman's mother Gladys (née Mesa) is Latina, born in Peru. Americans who make a big deal about skin pigmentation generally do not count Latinos as "white."

 

[quadraphonics]

George Zimmerman's mother Gladys (née Mesa) is Latina, born in Peru. Americans who make a big deal about skin pigmentation generally do not count Latinos as "white."

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.

 

[GeoffP]

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.

 

[quadraphonics]

Hadn't even thought of "cold" and it never would have occurred to me.

Seemed kinda left-field to me as well.

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.

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.

 

[Balerion]

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

Wasn't in his driveway though.

Was down the road and then in the laneway. And no one reported there being any cones which would corroborate his comment.

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.

 

[Bells]

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.

So much for your going away.

Now you suggest a personal vendetta because you believe "I'm black". And that I am not impartial or unbiased because you think "I'm black".

Wow, because that isn't racist either, right?

You know, each time you try and excuse your behaviour, you come off sounding even more racist and even more offensive.

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

Since you have extreme reading comprehension issues and you are again trying to lie, I'll just highlight a very big part of what you quoted and you might just get it.

I have sought a review of this thread and your participation in it.​

You see, you don't get to choose which gets reviewed. That's not how it works. Your participation, and mine in association to yours, will be looked at by the moderator of this forum. They just need to determine if you are either lying or incompetent.

 

[Bells]

George Zimmerman's mother Gladys (née Mesa) is Latina, born in Peru. Americans who make a big deal about skin pigmentation generally do not count Latinos as "white."

Really..

I have light coloured olive skin and according to Neverfly, I'm "black".

I guess some Americans still hold hard and fast to that one drop rule and apply the standards based solely on that.

 

[Bells]

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.

Yes but he seemed to say it after he had gotten out of his car and had given chase on foot.. He said 'he's running' and you can hear him start running when he says it.

 

[Neverfly]

Off topic Rant

So much for your going away.

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

Now you suggest a personal vendetta because you believe "I'm black". And that I am not impartial or unbiased because you think "I'm black".
Wow, because that isn't racist either, right?
You know, each time you try and excuse your behaviour, you come off sounding even more racist and even more offensive.

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

 

[quadraphonics]

Really..

I have light coloured olive skin and according to Neverfly, I'm "black".

I guess some Americans still hold hard and fast to that one drop rule and apply the standards based solely on that.

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.

 

[Balerion]

Yes but he seemed to say it after he had gotten out of his car and had given chase on foot.. He said 'he's running' and you can hear him start running when he says it.

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.