TTQ B4U

You're my hero. The city jerked me around on one years back until I finally said fuck it.

From what I've read, Travon would approve. http://static.mazdas247.com/smilies/peepwall.gif

JC Whitney approves of this.

possible, especially with side to side but with AF Tracking the test is an oncoming object or one with erratic movement such as the dog jumping towards the camera. not sure what Nikon tests are like but Canon's tests include oncoming objects at 35mph and then 55mph at various apertures and the better lenses can nail it up much closer than kit lenses even wide open. if you're at C&C I'll show you what I mean when I use a non USM AF System lens. the camera will very notciablly slow down in terms of fps and the AF will be noticably slower. In sports the difference is 1 out of 3 or even 1 out of 5 vs 5 out 5 being nailed perfectly.

Fixed your last statement. Here's a very quick edit to convey a bit more motion. http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro/image/142343694/original.jpg

In Germany they pronounce it Porsch-uh just as in danke. However the rule of how we speak in America prevents the e from being spoken thus it's typically pronounced Porsch with out the e. To me it's obvious the German version is more authentic and correct but feel it should only be spoken by owners of actual Porche's or first generation Germans. Ask my wife and she pronounces it Penis.

There are three factors that come to mind in the dog jumping shots: Technique Shutter Speed Lens / AF System I would shoot that with your camera set to it's AF Setting that tracks moving subjects. Not sure what Nikon calls theirs. That will keep it on target (first shot looks to be back focused) Panning will also allow for a slower shutter speed like you've used. 1/500 is a bit slow if your holding the camera still and trying to stop the speed of a moving dog. 1/800 is the minimum you'll need with 1/1200 more likely. Here's a quick example of a static shot: http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro/image/111520504 Here's a fast motion run shot: http://www.pbase.com/timothylauro/image/111520502 Lastly, your kit lens AF System may be at play here too. Again, I am not familiar with it but with Canon and I'm sure Nikon is simliar, the speed of the lens in terms of AF is another reason I favor expensive glass. I can show you what I mean on Saturday at C&C. The dog jumping off the deck is a cool shot. Hit a few SCCA events with me this year and I'll help you with your panning technique. Nail that shot with a good panning technique and you'll add some nice motion blur to background.

Great link that I must have missed. It's from Sunday, but if I missed it perhaps others have too. Watch the video http://gma.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-shooter-told-cops-teenager-went-gun-030349812--abc-news.html

I'm in and may join the convoy if I see you rolling down 315 south.

White people be crazy

Just about everything in this argument is speculation. That's my point overall, there's reasonable doubt here that the M's attorney is going to have to try and remove from existence by finding facts. Who knows what really happened. Hell for all we know, Z tried to block M from leaving until he was happy or called the cops. Who knows. Let's just say that was the case, even if it was, M began to beat his ass and put Z in a position of fearing for his life. If he had to resort to physical defense, then do so but only to the point of being able to run away. You don't stick around and escalate an attempt to defend yourself by then turning to the aggressor. The story sure does read as if M pinned him down and was punching him. At least that's how it makes it sound being he was shot up close in the chest. I simply don't see Z saying "oh yeah, well since you're not going to stick around then I'm going to blast you" and then shooting him. Again, Z is the one who called the cops and even his history shows his M.O. is to speed dial them whenever he can. Aggressive acts like this don't appear to be part of his history. Besides, stories are clear that police say their evidence indicates it was Zimmerman screaming for help. On top of that news reports indicate that there's at least one witness, who has since talked to local television news reporters, told police he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Trayvon on top, pounding him — and was unequivocal that it was Zimmerman who was crying for help.

A verbal exchange is completely different than a physical one. You and I can have the most robust conversation in a bar we can muster, but the moment I walk away and tell you to fuck off, it's over and no crime is committed. I'm no longer involved. It absolutely works like that. I didn't contribute anything to your next move if said move involves physical contact. You too are no longer engaged and should stand down. Anything other than that and you are the aggressor. Should you go that route and put me in a position of using deadly force, the verbal exchange won't do anything but fill up message board space on CR. The real meat of your then being dead will have begun when you took the exchange physical. You're the one at fault for your being dead. I walked away after telling you to fuck off. Again, you're taking things to the next level is what will win me my case. Yes it does. If the argument is strictly verbal and I turn around offering no legal reason for you to lay hands on me, it's over. No threat to you is present. I agree with you that I doubt M & Z were engaged in a polite yet robust conversation. My guess is that it wasn't polite. However, whoever took it to the physical level is responsible. That level of responsibility doesn't automatically implicate them on the death. Again, even a bitch slap is just that. Once M put Z on the ground and continued to lay into him, game changed. This story should be about one of them simply being charged with assault. M should have been a bigger man and simply walked away or called the police himself. Why didn't he? Do you think perhaps he had more than just Skittles and Iced Tea in his possession? Why is it that if Z was out to engage in a physcial assult that he would have been the one on the phone with the police? That doesn't make sense. If he is the Billy Bad Ass some are making him out to be, he wouldn't have called the cops while still in his car. My guess is Z wasn't liking the way the conversation was going and M was going to walk away but when it became apparent Z was going to get the cops involved or investigate things further (correct or not in his doing so), M got mad and whacked him in the nose and proceeded to beat his ass.

So it looks like the Hispanic community has achieved a new milestone. Going from Hispanic to white.

it doesn't matter if Z confronted M with questions. at that point if only words are thrown, neither has a right to get physical. if I approach you, you get pissed and I never threaten you or make physical contact or try to detain you, then you should just walk away. in this case, why didn't or wasn't either one of them back on the phone with the cops? something happened to cause a fight to ensue. the one who started it is at fault for sure, but there's a difference between a street fight and an ass whooping and one where you feel the line was crossed and your life was in danger. If I provoke you to punch me and we slap the shit out of one another, that's assault. if you then pin me down, break my nose and start slamming my head to the ground, I would do just as Z did and match your move that took the fight to the next level which to me is fearing for my life and I too would shoot you dead. M should have walked away after laying him out.

I missed this entire debate while actually fucking working. Dammit! It's a good thing though as nothing new has really surfaced. They have however finally started to stop positioning Martin as some innocent kid and using only pre-pubecent photos of him. In leu of a 42 paragraph response, I'll say this....resonable doubt. Plenty of it. That's all Z needs if they charge him. I vote Z was overzealous and got in over his head. I also vote Martin prolly laid a beating on him to the point of Z needing to pull a gun and well, bad things happen when that happens. Could have gone differently on both sides really, but in the end, dead men tell no tales, so that and reasonable doubt will likely be on his side. Look, I've approach strangers in my neighborhood, albeit with a completely helpful and innocent approach, but with the intent of trying to size up who they are, what they are up to and if I need to call the cops. Many times I have just exchanged hellos and watched from a fart distance. Other times, I've done the same only added in a call to the police so they could do their job. I wouldn't give chase nor even begin a confrontation myself even if armed. Just not a good judgement call to make. If I felt that need, then I refer back to calling said police as I go home to get my camera for the pics of it all.

I think it was a case of Zimmerman feeling a little more brave than he was and likely more like a cop than a simple neighborhood watch dog. He should have called the cops to investigate the suspicious guy and not confronted him. Once the fight ensued, he likely had no skills, panic set in and he shot. I can't say I feel it was a butt-hurt Zimmerman that shot him. Point blank in the chest tells me he was likely on top of Zimmerman as described. Butt hurt and ego bruised wouldn't likely be that close. That's more of a 10' distance and a "fuck you" -bang, "your dead" situation.

It's all speculation except that there are screams for help on a 911 call, shots fired, and a kids is dead. We can agree to disagree on who fucked up. Time will tell. I do believe however, if evidence at the scene were that Zimmerman was a cold blooded killer that they would have arrested him. Something in the facts there allowed him to walk. The next time I get punch in the dick with a vagina and it's called rape, I'll call you. Again, story so far is there was a fight and a shooting, not just a guy shooting a kid walking down the street. The latest witness that appeared on TV was another 13yr old kid that confirmed Zimmerman was the one on the ground. Zimmerman's attorney is the one who confirmed his broken nose, injuries to the back of his head and the grass stains on his shirt. So while it's still speculation, I'll take the word of a witness and a lawyer stating facts like that in the public eye as at least more than likely being correct.

Ok, so he was incorrect in his initial assumption about a kid in a hoodie. However, what role/responsibility did the kid have in the matter? Did being confonted provide him a right to beat someone? Zimmerman didn't just pull out the gun and cap his ass. There was obviously a fight and last I read he has a broken nose. Somehow being wrong doesn't justify being attacked. In the end Martin was more wrong as he caused his own death by putting someone with a gun in fear for their life. Zimmerman didn't bring that situation upon himself.

Perhaps but so much is based on what we are hearing/reading but yet to be proven. A kid walking home with a bag of skittles in your eyes is a suspicious person to Zimmerman, thus was his nose in business that was perhaps his? It's a gated community and he felt the kid was out of place or suspicious. Sounds like he felt it was a justified exchange. Of course we all have opinions. Sure, if he had done nothing the kid wouldn't be dead. Just the same, if the kid wouldn't have beaten Zimmerman's ass he wouldn't be dead as a result of a self defensive gun shot by a legal CCW holder. I mean the fact that the situation escalated to a point where he needed to fire doesn't make Zimmerman guilty. As you put it the situation got "too real" for him. Isn't that perhaps why he carried? Hey, I have a CCW and walk armed quite a bit. Just because a guy attacking me isn't armed with a knife or a gun doesn't mean I can shoot his ass if I'm in fear for my life and being beaten while on the ground.

Irony is thick in this sentence. I wonder if she still drives? WTF was she going to the Apple store for anyway? I mean if she can't see a fucking wall with standard hieght safety stickers plastered across it, I doubt she's going to see the screen on an iPad.

IMO the whole race issue here is bullshit and an attempt to escalate issues blacks in the area have with the police and they are using the way they handled the shooter to amplify their beef. From what is coming out, the screams for help were from Zimmerman not the kid. Zimmerman was likely frustrated with the crime in the area, a little out-there in terms of playing the self appointed neighborhood patrolman, but if turns out that the kids attacked him as has been described then he got what was coming to him and long live the right to defend ones self. Armed or not, if the kid was beating him while on the ground, I say firing a gun into his chest was reasonable means to defend ones self. Does anyone else think it's ironic they keep showing the kid smiling and acting all innocent and nice and then the orange jumpsuit image of the shooter? How about they show Zimmerman smiling and the kid in a hoodie just once. Such bullshit goes both ways. Then you have the kids family trying to say the police are posturing the kids possession of weed. Hmmm....sounds to me like he made his own reputation. I'd like to hear more about it too. It will be interesting to see why such a story seems to have created such a wave in the news given it's one of many stories just like it that happen every day.

the impact of getting a parasite while living in a Third World Country.

^^ this.

IMO bump up to $1,500 budget and I'll buy you a cup of Joe at Cars and Coffee and share a few thoughts. What youll get will last you quite a long time with out a need to trade up. Just remember glass trumps bodies all day long. Canon has a much better selection of glass, especially for that budget range. Anyone in doubt is welcome to bring their gear with a kit lens and I'll mount my glass on Clays 12 year old Canon 6mp body and well let CR be the judge.

:lolguy: @ people :fuuuu: about spending $3