So this kid gets shot dead under the "self defense" law....

@alk1975 Said

Ok, well the tape I was able to listen to the audio of the 911 operator asks George Zimmerman if he is following the kid. He answers yes. The operator tells him NOT to do that. Ok, if the kid retreated and was followed, then if he did have a gun, wouldn't he have been the one justified in using it. Being followed would make me fear for my life. I think it would MOST people. But Georgie Porgie followed this kid, so if his life was in danger, it was his own fault. How do you claim fear of someone who is running away from you?

@chisa96 Said

It's not really that it's upsetting. It just feels so repetitive. It's just another crappy story for people to fight about.

/derail though. Debate on all you who are well-informed.

@alk1975 Said

Ok, well the tape I was able to listen to the audio of the 911 operator asks George Zimmerman if he is following the kid. He answers yes. The operator tells him NOT to do that. Ok, if the kid retreated and was followed, then if he did have a gun, wouldn't he have been the one justified in using it. Being followed would make me fear for my life. I think it would MOST people. But Georgie Porgie followed this kid, so if his life was in danger, it was his own fault. How do you claim fear of someone who is running away from you?

@DorkySupergirl Said

May I ask, since you mention the 911 tape, did you hear like me and hear "f***ing c" on it. I heard it on Anderson Cooper last week and he said it might be offensive and to listen. I thought the "n" bomb was gonna be dropped but nope, I heard as plain as day for my ears, f***ing "c". I know some say they hear it and some say they do not hear it.

After it was played, Anderson said its alleged the slur was the f word and the c word then they played that part over and over with no background noise.

And I agree, if you are following someone they are not really a threat to you. I would not follow anyone I thought was a threat, I would run as fast as my short legs would allow.

@restoreone Said

Hey Alk what do you think of the Implicit association test?

Would this test work on this site?

@xLETHAL_VIXENx Said

I once saw a gangster who looked suspicious and was wondering around mine and other cars at our old apt lot, I called the cops. Once they arrived, they got out of their vehicles and followed him without him knowing, turns out he was going around stealing gas out of our cars, they then tackled him and arrested him.

Sometimes following someone suspicious is productive.

@alk1975 Said

The implicit association test is pretty cool. It's where you associate words like "good" and "bad" with pictures of people of different races. There are other forms as well, but the computer measures your response time and whether you choose good or bad words associated with different pictures and determines how much subconscious racist tendency you have. It is on it's own site, and I am sure you can link to it, but I'm not sure if you are asking about creating a copy of it within this website or what? Technology is really not my strong point.

As for the results of the test, I have gotten everything from no apparent preference in race to a slight preference to Caucasians. It is rare to find someone with "no preference" though. I'll go see if I can find a link.

@alk1975 Said

That should be left for the cops to do though. It's pretty stupid for joe schmoe to do it.

@alk1975 Said

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/selectatest.html

Quote:
Your Result
Your data suggest a slight automatic preference for Dark Skin compared to Light Skin.
The interpretation is described as 'automatic preference for Light Skin' if you responded faster when Light Skin faces and Good words were classified with the same key than when Dark Skin faces and Good words were classified with the same key. Depending on the magnitude of your result, your automatic preference may be described as 'slight', 'moderate', 'strong', or 'little to no preference'. Alternatively, you may have received feedback that 'there were too many errors to determine a result'.

Quote:
our Result Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between Gay People and Straight People. The interpretation is described as 'automatic preference for Straight People' if you responded faster when Straight people and Good words were classified with the same key than when Gay people and Good words were classified with the same key. Depending on the magnitude of your result, your automatic preference may be described as 'slight', 'moderate', 'strong', or 'little to no preference'. Alternatively, you may have received feedback that 'there were too many errors to determine a result'.]our Result Your data suggest little to no automatic preference between Gay People and Straight People. The interpretation is described as 'automatic preference for Straight People' if you responded faster when Straight people and Good words were classified with the same key than when Gay people and Good words were classified with the same key. Depending on the magnitude of your result, your automatic preference may be described as 'slight', 'moderate', 'strong', or 'little to no preference'. Alternatively, you may have received feedback that 'there were too many errors to determine a result'.