Slashdot Mirror

1a) Doesn't anyone know what a pinhole camera looks like?

Do you know what a pinhole camera looks like?

The amazing thing about a pinhole camera is it can look like anything. It can look like a real camera, it can look like a small pipe held together by tape (as it was in this case). It can also look like an entire aircraft hanger.

I've made many pinhole cameras over the years. I certainly would not be able to tell you what one looks like.

Image of the "device.". Yes, it was an overreaction because it was not a threat, but I don't see a note there... perhaps there's one in the shadow. If you suspect it's a bomb, are you supposed to get close enough to read the note on it?

Hindsight is 20/20... deciding what to do in situations like these is very difficult, but there's no way that, looking at that picture, you can't call it suspicious.

I've seen the flag-on-the-truck thing many times - never seen a confederate flag.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/sta...
http://www.tampabay.com/multim...
http://onlyoneheaven.files.wor...
http://media.cmgdigital.com/sh...
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0cuK...
https://historicstruggle.files...
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic...

I rest my case.

I see a lot of doctors and nurses bicycle to work where I live, to the nearby hospitals. At least I used to a couple years back. White hipster kids are slowly leaving the area, and there are irreversible transformations at the nearby hospitals, which may have longterm effects on the budget and bottom line of the whole city and region, especially when it comes to tourist-health-care, people visiting for a surgery from far away land because they heard the local hospitals are best at it, or at least used to be, that kind of cash cow may go on for a while longer then just stop, unless they can mobilize a whole new gang of different class of customers, but still of affluence, I'd say mostly from Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, etc, and stay away from a financial implosion. Some people are so fed up with "discrimination" that they will shortsightedly drive entire businesses out of business by trying to fix "discrimination" issues. And then how do you gain from the whole thing? At least you used to get tax revenue to your own area from these "discriminatory" punks that used to work there, once the place goes out of business, then there is nothing. Nothing. You get a whole lot of this: http://media.salon.com/2011/10... and this http://media.cmgdigital.com/sh... and this http://i1109.photobucket.com/a... and this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi... and this http://blog.preservationnation... and this http://www.museumofthecity.org... How many times have you seen it? Let's fix what's wrong with America today, it's discrimination, once we fix that, everything'll be alright. You know I'm saying?

The lot to our south is empty, and according to long-time residents of the neighborhood, has been since the 1960s. At the time, an old lady lived in a little house there, and it blew up due to a gas leak. The property is still owned by the lady's daughter. No idea why she's never sold it or built on it again.

There was a similar explosion a neighborhood over a few years ago. The burnt out frame remnants of this house are still there, behind the chain link fence. The house next door (on one side) was knocked a foot off its foundation and is still there, condemned. The house on the other side was fine because there was a row of trees between them to disrupt the force of the explosion. The only thing they've done to the site besides the fence was haul away the metal hulk of his car, I presume to recycle.
http://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/crews-battle-north-austin-house-fire
http://www.kvue.com/news/local/Two-injured-in-North-Austin-home-explosion-136939943.html
http://www.kvue.com/news/Family-of-Austin-man-killed-in-gas-explosion-suing-Texas-Gas-Service-141829703.html

Here's the google street view, still showing the house almost two years later:
http://goo.gl/maps/mk8ck

And here's basically what it still looked like the last time I drove past:
http://media.kvue.com/images/459*264/9JessExplosion011012.jpg
http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/lt/lt_cache/thumbnail/960/img/photos/2012/09/22/ed/61/020412gas_1323574a.jpg

So we have one opinion of an apparently confused anonymous juror. On the other hand, the transcripts of the case are available to all, and the jury instructions are clear there. They did mention the lack of duty to retreat because that's what the standing Florida law is; but it was not a factor that played any role in the decision because Zimmerman did not have the ability to retreat at the point when violent confrontation began (and he had no obligation to retreat before that, unless Trayvon somehow indicated his aggressive intentions before initiating the attack).

The black boys were not left loose because they were not defending themselves, but rather trying to rob the guy (in case you aren't aware, SYG only applies in case of legitimate self-defense, and you don't get to claim such when you were committing a violent crime yourself). I don't even know why I have to explain this; it's something that's so obviously common sense that you have to be either an idiot or a troll to even ask that question.

I see that you don't offer any comments at all regard the case that I've linked to. Is it because it does not conform to your mental picture of the world, where hordes of gun-toting whites stalk poor black kids in hoodies to murder them in some kind of undercover RaHoWa?

As for the case that you've linked to. The guy shot and killed a person after being verbally insulted (not even threatened). He claims that there had been an attempt to attack him with "some pipe-like object", but the object was not found, he has no injuries from such an attack, and no witnesses to back his claims, so the obvious conclusion is that it's all bullshit. In contrast, in Martin/Zimmerman case, Zimmerman had injuries consistent with his story of having his head banged against the concrete; he had a close witness confirming that he was on the bottom; and nature of Martin's wound and the corresponding damage to his clothes can only be reasonably explained by him being on top.

It's specific language of the law, full stop, with the defendant's name interjected. From the transcript from the jury instructions as recorded (page 12):

If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had he right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony

The actual law 776.013(3)

(3)A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.