Somebody posted it above. It included a medical orthotic ($800+) and a $400+ shower head.
For reference, my shower head cost me about $30 at Costco and has lasted for many years. How long would a shower head made out of processed cornstarch last?
And I won't even bother with the orthotic. Anyone who argues with a straight face that they're going to whip up a medical device on their makerbot doesn't deserve my time.
Oh, you have no idea just how much BS the article really was. Notice how they didn't name the household items beyond shower curtain rings?
Some other guy posted the items from the paywalled article. It includes a medical orthotic ($800+) and a $400+ shower head (!!). I'm sorry, but I don't 3D print my medical devices and a shower head made out of processed cornstarch is not going to last very long or look anything like an expensive shower head.
This whole article was pure, unadulterated horseshit. I feel dumber for having read it.
You've obviously never actually been poor or have been around actual poor people, and thus have a very deranged and clueless view of how poor people live.
Well, I am a landlord, so I get to know my residents' income and how they live. And as you might expect, over the years I have known plenty of people who are living in poverty, as defined by the US Census Bureau.
I'll just cut to the chase: you're wrong, and GP is right. My poor residents all have nice TVs and video games and cars. For a long time, they had nicer TVs that I had (I don't watch TV, so buying a nice TV seemed silly) and they still drive nicer cars than I do (I am not a car person, so I drive a 15-year-old beater).
If you want to see real poverty, I'm afraid you'll have to leave the US. Try traveling to the third world a bit and then get back to me on "poverty" in the US.
Same type of thing can happen in the US, too. It depends on the local jurisdiction policy and the mood of the cop. Back in my younger days, I was at a few parties where the cops showed up and made us pour out all of our beer (we were in high school) and told us to keep the music turned down unless we wanted him to come back in a bad mood.
In college, the cops would just arrest everybody. Different town, different policy.
I think that the reaction is real on some level and we'll have an accurate explanation for it at some point in the future. The only thing that the studies have shown so far is that the reaction is not explained by a simple intolerance to MSG.
That was my thought as well, but then I figured that the people who perform these studies know (or ought to know) that cancer patients often have to take supplements to mitigate a deficiency. I just assumed that they account for that.
MSG is a tricky one. No study has ever been able to confirm MSG sensitivity, but yet people get "chinese restaurant syndrome" from something and it seems not to happen if they know that they are avoiding MSG. Perhaps it's placebo, but how would they get chinese restaurant syndrome in the first place?
Some nutritionists suspect that it's MSG combined with some unknown substance that sets people off, but my my sister in law reacts to MSG in non-Asian foods. I'm guessing that one day we'll find the true culprit behind chinese restaurant syndrome, but it seems pretty clear that MSG alone is not it, based on studies. Just don't try to tell my sister in law that MSG isn't giving her migraines!
Linus Pauling was diagnosed with terminal cancer in his 60s and given a few months to live, then went on living to the age of 93.
I might have skimmed Wikipedia too quickly, but I find no reference to this being diagnosed with terminal cancer in his 60s and fighting it off for 30 years with vitamin C.
Anyway, for all that modern medicine has learned about the various types of cancers, that is only the tip of the iceberg, and treating cancers is currently as much art as science, unfortunately. Oncologists spend a ton of their time sifting through data, reading study after study to see what's worked and what hasn't for each patient's unique situation. Given that study after study has concluded that vitamin C is only as effective at preventing cancer as a placebo, it's more likely that Pauling had a rare spontaneous remission. Just like the people who "fight" cancer with antifungals, baking soda, etc.
One of these languages you can comfortably make a cheat-sheet notecard carrying a comprehensive overview of the language, as well as some of the common libraries.
I view this as a bad thing, based on the number of broken CS-101 data structure implementations that I've seen in my lifetime.
Standard, battle-tested libraries for standard programming tasks are a godsend.
Raising kids is tricky business, and they don't come with instruction manuals.
I agree with you that just ignoring your kids is a recipe for complete disaster. Not only will their brains fail to be stimulated in a positive manner, they will also grow up feeling insecure, unloved, and unwanted. However, I thought I'd take a moment to chime in with what kids *do* need, in case anybody is reading this.
First, kids need to feel like their parents love them and need to feel safe when they're with their parents. If you don't love them, fake it.
Developmentally, little kids need to learn to think symbolically and then abstractly. You and I do this intuitively, so we don't even think about it, but just the act of thinking of a toy train as a toy and a train rather than a piece of painted wood is insanely important. To help them along this path, you need to get down on the floor and play with them.
Crucially important is reading to them. Helps their language and with abstract thinking. This is difficult if mom has a 3rd grade education, but at the same time, if the kid isn't read to from the start, the kid will most likely present as "booger-eating stupid" starting in middle school when abstract reasoning is required. It'll be one of those, "why the fuck don't you get this? No seriously, this is dead easy, why can't you process it? Are you broken?" sort of way.
Also, playing "make believe" with them. Same reasoning as the above. You need to develop their curious little brains from the very beginning.
In closing, I just want to say that every kids is different and all bets are off. You need to be attentive and do what's right for your kid and not follow generic guidelines blindly.
Wow! That sounds awful! I guess your state's lemon law didn't apply to your situation, which blows.
Anyhow, I am not a car person by any stretch, but my general completely uninformed impression is that GM trucks and GM cars diverge wildly in their reliability. Again, just my impression. I've not done any research, and neither have I owned a GM vehicle, ever.
As I look back, I guess I've owned only German and Japanese cars.
Not to trivialize your pain, but I think that your results were atypical. It sounds like you may have been exceptionally unlucky.
I think that a more typical minivan example would be to buy a new Toyota Sienna for $30-35k. And a 2009 Sienna would net (according to Edmunds, anyway) of $14k or so in a dealer trade ($15k in a private sale).
That Toyota would have a 3 year / 36k mile warranty, so you're mostly on the hook if your car breaks down in year 4. But obviously scheduled maintenance and tires wouldn't be included. Toyotas are pretty reliable, but you can get a lemon in any make.
In all, that's not a horrible deal. Worst case, you pay $35k-14k=21k+interest of 2.5k, give or take+maybe an extra 100/mo in insurance = 21000+2500+4800=$28,300 or $7k/year.
So, real money, but it costs me worst case $3k/yr to keep my POS running, so it'd really only cost me $4k/year to drive a decent car all the time instead of a POS.
Hmm. Am I getting older or something? Because I almost think I just talked myself into buying a new car. That was unexpected.
average annual salaries are $130K or so, and a $60K car isn't outside of the realm of typical.
I'm so glad I'm not a car person. Still driving a car that I bought new 14 years ago for about 20k.
I wonder what people who buy $50-60k cars every few years are spending. What do those cars go for used after a few years? I could look it up, but I'll pull the number $25k out of my ass for after... 4 years. Hmm. Not as bad as I was expecting, but still bad. $6.25k+interest. I guess insurance is a bitch. That's a pretty nice skiing or diving trip each year. Not a totally fair comparison, though, since I think the new car would still be under warranty for most of the years of ownership, whereas I spend $2-3k/yr keeping my POS car running.
And what part of that says that Z didn't follow M and attack him? You don't know fuck all and neither do I or anyone else so stop acting like you were there.
You are correct that I wasn't there. I can, however, read a map. I also read a bit about the evidence and eyewitness testimony. So you can't claim that I have zero knowledge.
Here's what I know based on call records and recordings: at 7:11:33pm, Z tells D that M ran. Z doesn't know where M is for the duration of the call, which ended at 7:13:41. Also, Rachel Jeantel, the woman who Martin spoke with over the phone during the ordeal, testified that M was in his father's backyard before the confrontation. M could have simply entered his home and called the cops. But perhaps he had other plans?
Jeantel also claims that as best as she could tell over the phone, Martin was the one who hit first in the confrontation and several neighbors called 911 and also testified that they observed a black male on top of Zimmerman, pounding his head into the cement.
One more thing. At trial, the prosecution inexplicably played a recording of a prior suspicious person call that Zimmerman had placed just a few weeks before reporting Martin. During the call, the dispatcher asked Zimmerman what the suspicious person was doing. So the jury, the courtroom, and indeed the entire country got to listen to Zimmerman say the following words: "I don't know what he's doing. I don't want to approach him, personally. If you have an officer available I'd probably have him stop on Rinehart across from Walter Read's Bentley and go around the back."
Is Z a wannabe cop who hunts innocent kids down based on race? It sounds to me like he doesn't want to have anything to do with these suspicious people and just wants the real cops to come.
Now I just provided a bunch of evidence that supported my position. How did you arrive at your position?
How do you get that he was scared out of that? I get that he didn't feel like taking the time to give out his full address because he was chasing a 'bad guy'. He didn't want to give his address to dispatch - how does that make him afraid of M?????
If you listen to the call, it'll be clearer from Z's tone of voice. He first starts giving out his address and then stops and says, "oh crap I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is."
In other words, Z was perfectly willing to give the dispatcher his home address. He just didn't want the suspicious person to know where he lived!
Annoying is more like it. How do you know Dispatch never gives orders? Are you a dispatcher? Do you have access to the policy for the police department at your fingertips perhaps? You have reviewed all the Dispatch records over time and determined they never give orders?
I hope that you'll be able to step back and engage in some self-reflection so that you'll be as amused by this as I am right now.
This whole conversation got started because I kindly requested that you justify your statements that you were presenting as fact, and you threw a mild hissy fit. Well, now I've made a tangential claim that isn't relevant, so I didn't bother to provide justification, and you've just thrown a 2-alarm tantrum. Apparently, you are agreeing with me that when people make claims that they should be able to back them up? Am I reading you correctly? That people shouldn't make claims that they can't back up? So I was right when I originally asked you for justification?
Oh, yeah. The backup. According to Sean Noffke's sworn testimony at trial--he is the dispatcher who answered Zimmerman's call--dispatchers are trained never to give callers orders or tell them what to do. It's against policy, because dispatch could be held liable if they tell someone to do something, they do it, and suffer harm as a result. They are trained to give suggestions only, which is why Noffke merely suggested that Z following M was unnecessary. Watch N
- because he knew in which direction M was headed. We're talking about a gated community here, not outer space.
It's a gated community, not a fortress. If Martin wanted to lose Zimmerman, it would have been trivial. He could have entered his father's home. He could have walked out the eastern entrance to the community. Or he could have just hopped over the community's fence at any point, a trivial acrobatic feat for a 17-year-old athlete. (I say that as a former 17-year-old athlete).
Also, I don't think that Zimmerman wanted to follow Martin, at all. Z was scared of M. Listen to his call with police dispatch: Dispatcher: What's your apartment number? Zimmerman: It's a home it's [house number removed], (knocking sound) oh crap I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is.
- not followed M after the dispatcher told him not to perhaps.
Dispatch never gives orders. It's against policy. I know it's a detail, but can't we be precise?
Anyway, I think we've come full circle. You are operating with the assumption that Z followed M after dispatch said Z didn't need to, despite having no evidence that he did so.
I have presented evidence that he stopped following M. That evidence is that dispatch asked some questions about M. After that, you hear the car door opening and the car's chime going off and then you hear a fat, out-of-shape man panting into the phone, suggesting that he was running after M. Dispatch hears all this and asks Z if he's running after M, and Z says that he is. D says you don't need to follow, so Z says, "Ok". After that, the panting stops. For the remainder of the call, Z makes further statements that he does not know the whereabouts of M and wants to meet a police officer.
- quite right and what I've been saying all along. I have only pointed out one possible scenario that you don't seem to like.
It's not a question of liking or not liking. It's a question of you saying that you "know" something, but then when I ask how you "know" it, all of a sudden it's all wishy-washy. If you merely suspect something and don't really know it, couldn't you just say it that way?
How about, "I suspect Z was trying to reestablish contact with M because he initially observed him and thought he was suspicious and wanted to lead the police to him."? That would be a totally reasonable thing to say, would it not? I would happily agree with that, because for all I know, that *was* what Z was doing. But saying that you *know* what Z was doing is a different ballgame, and that's why I called you on it. I think you don't really know what Z was doing. Which is fine. I wonder if even Z knew what he was doing!
- and I'll say that it's as (in)valid as the one that I put forth as neither of us has any substantive idea what actually happened
Yup. True. The only difference is that I called mine a theory instead of a fact. Other difference is that I personally think that the evidence and testimony that came out in the trial makes my theory more likely, but that's to be expected since Martin never got to tell his side of the story.
I presented a substantial argument, which you ignored in favor of the 911 vs. nonemergency point of fact, which was never an argument. This is convenient for you, but also is a bit silly.
My substantial argument was when the dispatcher asked Z which way M ran, Z got out of his car to look. When D said Z didn't need to follow, he said "Ok", an indication that he understood and would cease following.
Throughout the rest of the call, Z is answering D's questions, arranging a meeting with police. Z even says that he doesn't know where M is. How could Z follow M if he doesn't know where M is?
I've been reading a bit about the case, and I'm curious what you think Z should have done differently. He claims to have observed M walking around aimlessly in the rain, looking into homes, and not walking on the designated paths. This aroused Z's suspicions, so Z called the police nonemergency number. During the conversation with dispatch, M and Z make eye contact, and M circles around Z's truck and runs off. Dispatch asks where M ran, so Z got out to run after him. D hears Z panting and asks if Z is following M, and he responds that he was. D says Z doesn't need to follow M, so he stops. You hear Z's panting cease because Z stops running after him.
Z moves around some more to try to find a street address to tell the cops, but decides against it and requests that the cop call Z and arrange a meeting. He leaves it at that with dispatch. I'm not making this up, by the way. I was just listening to the recording and the court testimony of the dispatcher.
Z doesn't sound angry on the call, and is just answering D's questions. As to whether Z was a wannabe cop, Sanford Police Department had previously approached Z with an offer to make him a "Citizen on Patrol". That would have given him some police training, a civilianized patrol car, an uniform, and everything. He would have conducted regular patrols. So of course, Z jumped at this dream opportunity, right? As close as he could be to being a real, live police officer, right? Nope. He declined their offer to be Citizen on Patrol.
Anyway, what happened between Z and D's call ending and Z being observed being severely beaten by M, MMA style, is anybody's guess. We have only Z's version of events, and I'm not really inclined to have as much confidence in his telling, since it's not corroborated by evidence or eyewitness testimony. We do, however, know that Z's version of the story was never discredited by evidence or eyewitness testimony. So, there is that.
And before you ask, no, there is no pattern of Z calling the cops every time he sees a black person.
You say "if Z hadn't followed M then none of this would have happened." I say, you sound so confident here. Where did Z go wrong, definitively? What action did Z take at what point in the evening that caused you to make that statement, and what should Z have done differently?
I'll also offer an alternate theory: if M would have just gone inside after he had lost Z, M would still be alive today.
I'm not asking you to like my attitude, but I do humbly request that you be straight and honest with me.
First you said:
We know that GZ was a bit of a busybody and decided, against the recommendations of 911, to follow the kid, which led towards the confrontation.
And when I asked how you know that GZ followed TM after the dispatcher said following TM was not needed, you replied with:
Based on the behavior of M up to this point (running away) and the way Z behaved up to this point (following M), Z then continued looking for M, found him and had the confrontation.
I'm sorry, but in my mind, your reasoning does not rise to the level of "knowing". It sounds much more probabilistic to me. More like a weather forecast than, say, a well-documented bit of history.
Based on your supporting information, I would have written your first quote as, "Based on my perception that M was running away and Z was following M, I hypothesize that Z might not have been truthful to the dispatcher. Dispatcher said following M was not needed, so Z responded 'Ok' and later in the conversation, Z committed to meet an officer at the clubhouse. I theorize that Z did not do as he said that he would, and instead of proceeding to the clubhouse to await the arrival of the officer, he resumed chasing M."
By the way, if M was "running away", as you say, once M was safely in his backyard, why did he not simply enter his home and phone the police to report Z for stalking? Why was M later observed by eyewitnesses pinning Z to the ground and smashing Z's head into the cement sidewalk over and over and over again? One plausible explanation for that is that M did not fear Z and elected to hunt Z down and cause severe bodily harm to Z, and the rest, as they say, is history.
So you'll have to forgive me; I'm a little late to the party. I only really started reading up on this fiasco yesterday.
Question: I read elsewhere that there were 4 minutes unaccounted for between when Zimmerman hung up with the dispatcher and when neighbors heard Zimmerman's cries for help and came out to observe Martin beating Zimmerman's head into the cement. However, the timeline in the linked-to photo has Z going over to the main road to get a street address and then walking back to his truck but being intercepted by M en route.
However, based on the transcript of Z's call to the police, Z was intending to go to the community's clubhouse to meet the officer. What I don't get is if Z was really walking back to the clubhouse to meet the officer, why would it take 4 minutes for M to intercept Z at the "T intersection"? Wouldn't Z have been at the clubhouse after 4 minutes?
I realize that the above is more of an academic question. While M was beating Z's head into the cement, Z was permitted to use deadly force per FL statute. A reasonable person would expect to suffer grave bodily injury due to repeated blows to the head causing the head to repeatedly impact the sidewalk. From what I read, this is pretty basic self-defense and would apply in other jurisdictions. Not just FL.
Anyway, I'm just curious if anyone has coughed up a plausible explanation of what happened during the unaccounted for 4 minutes.
We know that GZ was a bit of a busybody and decided, against the recommendations of 911, to follow the kid, which led towards the confrontation.
We don't actually know that. Listen to the tape of Zimmerman and the dispatcher.
Dispatcher: Are you following him? Zimmerman: Yeah. Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that. Zimmerman: Ok. Dispatcher: Alright sir what is your name? Zimmerman: George... He ran.
And for the rest of the call, Zimmerman is just answering questions about where to meet the officer when he arrives.
To me, it sounds like Z did not follow M after D said it was unnecessary to follow M. M ran off and is not mentioned again in the call.
If you have evidence to the contrary, that Z did follow M after the dispatcher said it was unnecessary, please go ahead and present it. I'm already a little concerned that the "facts" that you're presenting with a "we know _______" are not as factual as you believe them to be. You may be relying on incorrect information.
By way of example, GZ never called 911 to report TM as a suspicious person. He called the local police non-emergency number. I know, it's a small difference, but it does suggest that your source of information might not be as rigorous with respect to what is "fact" as you'd probably like. After all, since this is/., I'm going to assume that you like to deal in truths rather than rumors. We tend to be a rigorous bunch around here.
Actually, I'm not sure we do know that. If memory serves, the defense claims that GZ called 911 and the operator asked him what TM looked like and which direction he went, so GZ got out of his truck to go find out and start following him, but the 911 operator said he didn't need to follow TM, so he said OK and headed back for his truck. That's when TM surprised GZ and attacked him.
I wasn't there, and I haven't really followed this trial at all, but anyway, I think that that's more or less what the defense claimed.
GZ: "You don't belong here leave or I will make you leave" TM: "Fuck off" GZ (Grabs TM): "Grumble Mumble!!"
As a short, middle-aged, fat, out-of-shape man, I'll just tell you right now that the chances that I would initiate a physical confrontation with a 6'2" football player are precisely 0%. To believe that GZ initiated physical confrontation, we'd need to get past the above point, as well as the fact that GZ called 911 before the altercation took place.
If GZ had designs on beating up and/or shooting TM, why did he call the cops first? All that would accomplish is to increase his chances of getting arrested and he'd also risk losing track of TM's whereabouts while on the phone with 911. That makes so sense to me, and I guess it made no sense to the jury, either.
Slashdot Mirror
Somebody posted it above. It included a medical orthotic ($800+) and a $400+ shower head.
For reference, my shower head cost me about $30 at Costco and has lasted for many years. How long would a shower head made out of processed cornstarch last?
And I won't even bother with the orthotic. Anyone who argues with a straight face that they're going to whip up a medical device on their makerbot doesn't deserve my time.
Oh, you have no idea just how much BS the article really was. Notice how they didn't name the household items beyond shower curtain rings?
Some other guy posted the items from the paywalled article. It includes a medical orthotic ($800+) and a $400+ shower head (!!). I'm sorry, but I don't 3D print my medical devices and a shower head made out of processed cornstarch is not going to last very long or look anything like an expensive shower head.
This whole article was pure, unadulterated horseshit. I feel dumber for having read it.
You've obviously never actually been poor or have been around actual poor people, and thus have a very deranged and clueless view of how poor people live.
Well, I am a landlord, so I get to know my residents' income and how they live. And as you might expect, over the years I have known plenty of people who are living in poverty, as defined by the US Census Bureau.
I'll just cut to the chase: you're wrong, and GP is right. My poor residents all have nice TVs and video games and cars. For a long time, they had nicer TVs that I had (I don't watch TV, so buying a nice TV seemed silly) and they still drive nicer cars than I do (I am not a car person, so I drive a 15-year-old beater).
If you want to see real poverty, I'm afraid you'll have to leave the US. Try traveling to the third world a bit and then get back to me on "poverty" in the US.
I don't even get social security.
Why not? If you're disabled and can't work, why don't you get SSDI?
Same type of thing can happen in the US, too. It depends on the local jurisdiction policy and the mood of the cop. Back in my younger days, I was at a few parties where the cops showed up and made us pour out all of our beer (we were in high school) and told us to keep the music turned down unless we wanted him to come back in a bad mood.
In college, the cops would just arrest everybody. Different town, different policy.
Yeah, it's complicated.
I think that the reaction is real on some level and we'll have an accurate explanation for it at some point in the future. The only thing that the studies have shown so far is that the reaction is not explained by a simple intolerance to MSG.
That was my thought as well, but then I figured that the people who perform these studies know (or ought to know) that cancer patients often have to take supplements to mitigate a deficiency. I just assumed that they account for that.
No study has ever proven that MSG is bad for you
MSG is a tricky one. No study has ever been able to confirm MSG sensitivity, but yet people get "chinese restaurant syndrome" from something and it seems not to happen if they know that they are avoiding MSG. Perhaps it's placebo, but how would they get chinese restaurant syndrome in the first place?
Some nutritionists suspect that it's MSG combined with some unknown substance that sets people off, but my my sister in law reacts to MSG in non-Asian foods. I'm guessing that one day we'll find the true culprit behind chinese restaurant syndrome, but it seems pretty clear that MSG alone is not it, based on studies. Just don't try to tell my sister in law that MSG isn't giving her migraines!
Linus Pauling was diagnosed with terminal cancer in his 60s and given a few months to live, then went on living to the age of 93.
I might have skimmed Wikipedia too quickly, but I find no reference to this being diagnosed with terminal cancer in his 60s and fighting it off for 30 years with vitamin C.
Anyway, for all that modern medicine has learned about the various types of cancers, that is only the tip of the iceberg, and treating cancers is currently as much art as science, unfortunately. Oncologists spend a ton of their time sifting through data, reading study after study to see what's worked and what hasn't for each patient's unique situation. Given that study after study has concluded that vitamin C is only as effective at preventing cancer as a placebo, it's more likely that Pauling had a rare spontaneous remission. Just like the people who "fight" cancer with antifungals, baking soda, etc.
In the vegetarian world we have a name for those folk who eat fish oil and wear leather shoes they are called liars.
In the omnivorous world we have a name for those folk who are quick to judge others and they are called assholes.
One of these languages you can comfortably make a cheat-sheet notecard carrying a comprehensive overview of the language, as well as some of the common libraries.
I view this as a bad thing, based on the number of broken CS-101 data structure implementations that I've seen in my lifetime.
Standard, battle-tested libraries for standard programming tasks are a godsend.
"Addicted to porn"
Porn is addictive? I need to confirm this firsthand.
Raising kids is tricky business, and they don't come with instruction manuals.
I agree with you that just ignoring your kids is a recipe for complete disaster. Not only will their brains fail to be stimulated in a positive manner, they will also grow up feeling insecure, unloved, and unwanted. However, I thought I'd take a moment to chime in with what kids *do* need, in case anybody is reading this.
First, kids need to feel like their parents love them and need to feel safe when they're with their parents. If you don't love them, fake it.
Developmentally, little kids need to learn to think symbolically and then abstractly. You and I do this intuitively, so we don't even think about it, but just the act of thinking of a toy train as a toy and a train rather than a piece of painted wood is insanely important. To help them along this path, you need to get down on the floor and play with them.
Crucially important is reading to them. Helps their language and with abstract thinking. This is difficult if mom has a 3rd grade education, but at the same time, if the kid isn't read to from the start, the kid will most likely present as "booger-eating stupid" starting in middle school when abstract reasoning is required. It'll be one of those, "why the fuck don't you get this? No seriously, this is dead easy, why can't you process it? Are you broken?" sort of way.
Also, playing "make believe" with them. Same reasoning as the above. You need to develop their curious little brains from the very beginning.
In closing, I just want to say that every kids is different and all bets are off. You need to be attentive and do what's right for your kid and not follow generic guidelines blindly.
Wow! That sounds awful! I guess your state's lemon law didn't apply to your situation, which blows.
Anyhow, I am not a car person by any stretch, but my general completely uninformed impression is that GM trucks and GM cars diverge wildly in their reliability. Again, just my impression. I've not done any research, and neither have I owned a GM vehicle, ever.
As I look back, I guess I've owned only German and Japanese cars.
Not to trivialize your pain, but I think that your results were atypical. It sounds like you may have been exceptionally unlucky.
I think that a more typical minivan example would be to buy a new Toyota Sienna for $30-35k. And a 2009 Sienna would net (according to Edmunds, anyway) of $14k or so in a dealer trade ($15k in a private sale).
That Toyota would have a 3 year / 36k mile warranty, so you're mostly on the hook if your car breaks down in year 4. But obviously scheduled maintenance and tires wouldn't be included. Toyotas are pretty reliable, but you can get a lemon in any make.
In all, that's not a horrible deal. Worst case, you pay $35k-14k=21k+interest of 2.5k, give or take+maybe an extra 100/mo in insurance = 21000+2500+4800=$28,300 or $7k/year.
So, real money, but it costs me worst case $3k/yr to keep my POS running, so it'd really only cost me $4k/year to drive a decent car all the time instead of a POS.
Hmm. Am I getting older or something? Because I almost think I just talked myself into buying a new car. That was unexpected.
average annual salaries are $130K or so, and a $60K car isn't outside of the realm of typical.
I'm so glad I'm not a car person. Still driving a car that I bought new 14 years ago for about 20k.
I wonder what people who buy $50-60k cars every few years are spending. What do those cars go for used after a few years? I could look it up, but I'll pull the number $25k out of my ass for after ... 4 years. Hmm. Not as bad as I was expecting, but still bad. $6.25k+interest. I guess insurance is a bitch. That's a pretty nice skiing or diving trip each year. Not a totally fair comparison, though, since I think the new car would still be under warranty for most of the years of ownership, whereas I spend $2-3k/yr keeping my POS car running.
FYI, heated seats can be added to just about any car for a few hundred bucks, installed.
And what part of that says that Z didn't follow M and attack him? You don't know fuck all and neither do I or anyone else so stop acting like you were there.
You are correct that I wasn't there. I can, however, read a map. I also read a bit about the evidence and eyewitness testimony. So you can't claim that I have zero knowledge.
Here's what I know based on call records and recordings: at 7:11:33pm, Z tells D that M ran. Z doesn't know where M is for the duration of the call, which ended at 7:13:41. Also, Rachel Jeantel, the woman who Martin spoke with over the phone during the ordeal, testified that M was in his father's backyard before the confrontation. M could have simply entered his home and called the cops. But perhaps he had other plans?
Jeantel also claims that as best as she could tell over the phone, Martin was the one who hit first in the confrontation and several neighbors called 911 and also testified that they observed a black male on top of Zimmerman, pounding his head into the cement.
One more thing. At trial, the prosecution inexplicably played a recording of a prior suspicious person call that Zimmerman had placed just a few weeks before reporting Martin. During the call, the dispatcher asked Zimmerman what the suspicious person was doing. So the jury, the courtroom, and indeed the entire country got to listen to Zimmerman say the following words: "I don't know what he's doing. I don't want to approach him, personally. If you have an officer available I'd probably have him stop on Rinehart across from Walter Read's Bentley and go around the back."
Is Z a wannabe cop who hunts innocent kids down based on race? It sounds to me like he doesn't want to have anything to do with these suspicious people and just wants the real cops to come.
Now I just provided a bunch of evidence that supported my position. How did you arrive at your position?
How do you get that he was scared out of that? I get that he didn't feel like taking the time to give out his full address because he was chasing a 'bad guy'. He didn't want to give his address to dispatch - how does that make him afraid of M?????
If you listen to the call, it'll be clearer from Z's tone of voice. He first starts giving out his address and then stops and says, "oh crap I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is."
In other words, Z was perfectly willing to give the dispatcher his home address. He just didn't want the suspicious person to know where he lived!
Annoying is more like it. How do you know Dispatch never gives orders? Are you a dispatcher? Do you have access to the policy for the police department at your fingertips perhaps? You have reviewed all the Dispatch records over time and determined they never give orders?
I hope that you'll be able to step back and engage in some self-reflection so that you'll be as amused by this as I am right now.
This whole conversation got started because I kindly requested that you justify your statements that you were presenting as fact, and you threw a mild hissy fit. Well, now I've made a tangential claim that isn't relevant, so I didn't bother to provide justification, and you've just thrown a 2-alarm tantrum. Apparently, you are agreeing with me that when people make claims that they should be able to back them up? Am I reading you correctly? That people shouldn't make claims that they can't back up? So I was right when I originally asked you for justification?
Oh, yeah. The backup. According to Sean Noffke's sworn testimony at trial--he is the dispatcher who answered Zimmerman's call--dispatchers are trained never to give callers orders or tell them what to do. It's against policy, because dispatch could be held liable if they tell someone to do something, they do it, and suffer harm as a result. They are trained to give suggestions only, which is why Noffke merely suggested that Z following M was unnecessary. Watch N
- because he knew in which direction M was headed. We're talking about a gated community here, not outer space.
It's a gated community, not a fortress. If Martin wanted to lose Zimmerman, it would have been trivial. He could have entered his father's home. He could have walked out the eastern entrance to the community. Or he could have just hopped over the community's fence at any point, a trivial acrobatic feat for a 17-year-old athlete. (I say that as a former 17-year-old athlete).
Also, I don't think that Zimmerman wanted to follow Martin, at all. Z was scared of M. Listen to his call with police dispatch:
Dispatcher: What's your apartment number?
Zimmerman: It's a home it's [house number removed], (knocking sound) oh crap I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is.
- not followed M after the dispatcher told him not to perhaps.
Dispatch never gives orders. It's against policy. I know it's a detail, but can't we be precise?
Anyway, I think we've come full circle. You are operating with the assumption that Z followed M after dispatch said Z didn't need to, despite having no evidence that he did so.
I have presented evidence that he stopped following M. That evidence is that dispatch asked some questions about M. After that, you hear the car door opening and the car's chime going off and then you hear a fat, out-of-shape man panting into the phone, suggesting that he was running after M. Dispatch hears all this and asks Z if he's running after M, and Z says that he is. D says you don't need to follow, so Z says, "Ok". After that, the panting stops. For the remainder of the call, Z makes further statements that he does not know the whereabouts of M and wants to meet a police officer.
- quite right and what I've been saying all along. I have only pointed out one possible scenario that you don't seem to like.
It's not a question of liking or not liking. It's a question of you saying that you "know" something, but then when I ask how you "know" it, all of a sudden it's all wishy-washy. If you merely suspect something and don't really know it, couldn't you just say it that way?
How about, "I suspect Z was trying to reestablish contact with M because he initially observed him and thought he was suspicious and wanted to lead the police to him."? That would be a totally reasonable thing to say, would it not? I would happily agree with that, because for all I know, that *was* what Z was doing. But saying that you *know* what Z was doing is a different ballgame, and that's why I called you on it. I think you don't really know what Z was doing. Which is fine. I wonder if even Z knew what he was doing!
- and I'll say that it's as (in)valid as the one that I put forth as neither of us has any substantive idea what actually happened
Yup. True. The only difference is that I called mine a theory instead of a fact. Other difference is that I personally think that the evidence and testimony that came out in the trial makes my theory more likely, but that's to be expected since Martin never got to tell his side of the story.
I presented a substantial argument, which you ignored in favor of the 911 vs. nonemergency point of fact, which was never an argument. This is convenient for you, but also is a bit silly.
My substantial argument was when the dispatcher asked Z which way M ran, Z got out of his car to look. When D said Z didn't need to follow, he said "Ok", an indication that he understood and would cease following.
Throughout the rest of the call, Z is answering D's questions, arranging a meeting with police. Z even says that he doesn't know where M is. How could Z follow M if he doesn't know where M is?
I've been reading a bit about the case, and I'm curious what you think Z should have done differently. He claims to have observed M walking around aimlessly in the rain, looking into homes, and not walking on the designated paths. This aroused Z's suspicions, so Z called the police nonemergency number. During the conversation with dispatch, M and Z make eye contact, and M circles around Z's truck and runs off. Dispatch asks where M ran, so Z got out to run after him. D hears Z panting and asks if Z is following M, and he responds that he was. D says Z doesn't need to follow M, so he stops. You hear Z's panting cease because Z stops running after him.
Z moves around some more to try to find a street address to tell the cops, but decides against it and requests that the cop call Z and arrange a meeting. He leaves it at that with dispatch. I'm not making this up, by the way. I was just listening to the recording and the court testimony of the dispatcher.
Z doesn't sound angry on the call, and is just answering D's questions. As to whether Z was a wannabe cop, Sanford Police Department had previously approached Z with an offer to make him a "Citizen on Patrol". That would have given him some police training, a civilianized patrol car, an uniform, and everything. He would have conducted regular patrols. So of course, Z jumped at this dream opportunity, right? As close as he could be to being a real, live police officer, right? Nope. He declined their offer to be Citizen on Patrol.
Anyway, what happened between Z and D's call ending and Z being observed being severely beaten by M, MMA style, is anybody's guess. We have only Z's version of events, and I'm not really inclined to have as much confidence in his telling, since it's not corroborated by evidence or eyewitness testimony. We do, however, know that Z's version of the story was never discredited by evidence or eyewitness testimony. So, there is that.
And before you ask, no, there is no pattern of Z calling the cops every time he sees a black person.
You say "if Z hadn't followed M then none of this would have happened." I say, you sound so confident here. Where did Z go wrong, definitively? What action did Z take at what point in the evening that caused you to make that statement, and what should Z have done differently?
I'll also offer an alternate theory: if M would have just gone inside after he had lost Z, M would still be alive today.
I'm not asking you to like my attitude, but I do humbly request that you be straight and honest with me.
First you said:
We know that GZ was a bit of a busybody and decided, against the recommendations of 911, to follow the kid, which led towards the confrontation.
And when I asked how you know that GZ followed TM after the dispatcher said following TM was not needed, you replied with:
Based on the behavior of M up to this point (running away) and the way Z behaved up to this point (following M), Z then continued looking for M, found him and had the confrontation.
I'm sorry, but in my mind, your reasoning does not rise to the level of "knowing". It sounds much more probabilistic to me. More like a weather forecast than, say, a well-documented bit of history.
Based on your supporting information, I would have written your first quote as, "Based on my perception that M was running away and Z was following M, I hypothesize that Z might not have been truthful to the dispatcher. Dispatcher said following M was not needed, so Z responded 'Ok' and later in the conversation, Z committed to meet an officer at the clubhouse. I theorize that Z did not do as he said that he would, and instead of proceeding to the clubhouse to await the arrival of the officer, he resumed chasing M."
By the way, if M was "running away", as you say, once M was safely in his backyard, why did he not simply enter his home and phone the police to report Z for stalking? Why was M later observed by eyewitnesses pinning Z to the ground and smashing Z's head into the cement sidewalk over and over and over again? One plausible explanation for that is that M did not fear Z and elected to hunt Z down and cause severe bodily harm to Z, and the rest, as they say, is history.
So you'll have to forgive me; I'm a little late to the party. I only really started reading up on this fiasco yesterday.
Question: I read elsewhere that there were 4 minutes unaccounted for between when Zimmerman hung up with the dispatcher and when neighbors heard Zimmerman's cries for help and came out to observe Martin beating Zimmerman's head into the cement. However, the timeline in the linked-to photo has Z going over to the main road to get a street address and then walking back to his truck but being intercepted by M en route.
However, based on the transcript of Z's call to the police, Z was intending to go to the community's clubhouse to meet the officer. What I don't get is if Z was really walking back to the clubhouse to meet the officer, why would it take 4 minutes for M to intercept Z at the "T intersection"? Wouldn't Z have been at the clubhouse after 4 minutes?
I realize that the above is more of an academic question. While M was beating Z's head into the cement, Z was permitted to use deadly force per FL statute. A reasonable person would expect to suffer grave bodily injury due to repeated blows to the head causing the head to repeatedly impact the sidewalk. From what I read, this is pretty basic self-defense and would apply in other jurisdictions. Not just FL.
Anyway, I'm just curious if anyone has coughed up a plausible explanation of what happened during the unaccounted for 4 minutes.
We know that GZ was a bit of a busybody and decided, against the recommendations of 911, to follow the kid, which led towards the confrontation.
We don't actually know that. Listen to the tape of Zimmerman and the dispatcher.
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok.
Dispatcher: Alright sir what is your name?
Zimmerman: George... He ran.
And for the rest of the call, Zimmerman is just answering questions about where to meet the officer when he arrives.
To me, it sounds like Z did not follow M after D said it was unnecessary to follow M. M ran off and is not mentioned again in the call.
If you have evidence to the contrary, that Z did follow M after the dispatcher said it was unnecessary, please go ahead and present it. I'm already a little concerned that the "facts" that you're presenting with a "we know _______" are not as factual as you believe them to be. You may be relying on incorrect information.
By way of example, GZ never called 911 to report TM as a suspicious person. He called the local police non-emergency number. I know, it's a small difference, but it does suggest that your source of information might not be as rigorous with respect to what is "fact" as you'd probably like. After all, since this is /., I'm going to assume that you like to deal in truths rather than rumors. We tend to be a rigorous bunch around here.
we do know that the killer stalked the young man
Actually, I'm not sure we do know that. If memory serves, the defense claims that GZ called 911 and the operator asked him what TM looked like and which direction he went, so GZ got out of his truck to go find out and start following him, but the 911 operator said he didn't need to follow TM, so he said OK and headed back for his truck. That's when TM surprised GZ and attacked him.
I wasn't there, and I haven't really followed this trial at all, but anyway, I think that that's more or less what the defense claimed.
GZ: "You don't belong here leave or I will make you leave"
TM: "Fuck off"
GZ (Grabs TM): "Grumble Mumble!!"
As a short, middle-aged, fat, out-of-shape man, I'll just tell you right now that the chances that I would initiate a physical confrontation with a 6'2" football player are precisely 0%. To believe that GZ initiated physical confrontation, we'd need to get past the above point, as well as the fact that GZ called 911 before the altercation took place.
If GZ had designs on beating up and/or shooting TM, why did he call the cops first? All that would accomplish is to increase his chances of getting arrested and he'd also risk losing track of TM's whereabouts while on the phone with 911. That makes so sense to me, and I guess it made no sense to the jury, either.