In Haste to Cast Zimmerman as Racist, CNN Went Against Internal Recommendations
Some reporters have been so determined to prove that George Zimmerman's shooting of Trayvon Martin on February 26 was due to racism that they've been willing to go to virtually any length to find evidence that supports their claim, even against the recommendations of fellow journalists not wanting to rush beyond the evidence.
The case of CNN's rush to promote the idea that Zimmerman had uttered a racial slur during the call is perhaps the best example of this.
Ignoring the rest of the four-minute 9-11- call, Gary Tuchman first turned to Rick Sierra, whom the newsman described as “one of the best audio experts in the business,” on March 21.
However, even after the “enhancement” of the tape, Tuchman and Sierra said that while it sounded like Zimmerman said “fu--ing coon” as he followed Martin two minutes and 22 seconds into the conversation, “you just can't be sure” that was what he said.
Video of Tuchman's report is below:
Two weeks later, Tuchman turned to Brian Stone, another audio expert, who used “a higher-tech method” to further enhance the sound in the 911 call.
After several repetitions of the phrase, Tuchman and Stone agreed that the first word was indeed the expletive Zimmerman was accused of saying, but the second word “doesn't sound like that slur anymore.”
The investigation continued until April 5, when an article written by the “CNN Wire Staff” stated that even though several members of the network's editorial staff repeatedly reviewed the tape, they couldn't agree on whether Zimmerman had said coons.
That information led the blogger at the Ace of Spades Website to ask why the cable news network ran a defamatory report when members of its own staff "could reach no consensus on whether Zimmerman used a slur."
Hey CNN—that's not a good position to stake out for yourselves in a defamation lawsuit. If you ran this report, ginning up the “racial hatred” storyline while behind the scenes you doubted it, that is pretty much “malice” right there.
But in the same report, the news network turned to yet another audio expert:
Tom Owen of Owen Forensic Services, which is a company that specializes in audio enhancement and audio improvement, and he was able to isolate the interference, remove it, slow it down.
After playing the new version of the audio a few times, the report indicated that Zimmerman clearly used the word “punks” and not a racial slur.
Given the great murkiness around the allegation even from the beginning, CNN's airing of it is the exact sort of spectulation reporting that it routinely condemns in the blogosphere.
While CNN has at least admitted on the air that it wasn't likely Zimmerman used the word and has refrained subsequently from alleging this, the unfortunate reality is that damage has already been done to Zimmerman's reputation. Unless CNN makes a habit of correcting viewers who came across the false allegation, it's very likely that people not paying attention will have missed the retraction, especially since the original report on its site includes no disclamer that it does not believe the allegation.
- Randy Hall's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
If we had
Submitted by fivestring_assassin on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 1:47pm.
a real FCC perhaps stuff like this would be investigated and dealt with in an appropriate manner
This pertains mainly to NBC because of the blatant dishonesty of that network
To blazes with the FCC... how about a REAL ATTORNEY GENERAL?
Submitted by gopcongress on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 2:44pm.
I don't even have to create the long list of federal felonies that Eric Holder's office has conveniently ignored in their drive to promote "Obama's son" as the persona of
"America's victim." Certainly, there are crimes involved in manipulating state-released evidence and presenting them in a clearly false manner, which IS a federal felony if a prosecutor wishes to pursue it.
Of course, when million dollar bounties are offered in violation of several laws and are completely ignored by a willfully neglectful AG, we have major problems.
"The news and truth are not the same thing." -Walter Lippmann (1889-1974) FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER
Now that justice is taking its course.....
Submitted by thescoots on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 1:41pm.
I am fully confident that the Crusaders for the Downtrodden and Disenfranchised are IMMEDIATELY turning their attention to the case of Daniel Adkins...the mentally-handicapped, UNARMED, young HISPANIC man that was shot by a BLACK MALE in Arizona on April 4th.
I fully expect that ERIC HOLDER, AL SHARPTON, JESSE JACKSON, THE NEW BLACK PANTHERS , MSNBC, CNN and the members of the HISPANIC CAUCUS in the House of Representatives will be making loud and bold statements post-haste about JUSTICE being needed in this case...and demanding an immediate arrest of the shooter who KILLED Daniel.
We know that our friends on the left are color-blind, yet seek racial justice whenever an injustice is done and race is a component...They show NO FAVORITISM where CIVIL RIGHTS and RACIAL EQUALITY are concerned...So any minute now....the airwaves will be sounding loud and constant about the need to press charges against the shooter...a BLACK MALE>
Interesting case
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 5:41pm.
Except there are key differences.
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/crime/taco-bell-shooting-victim-was...
"The investigation is still ongoing."
http://www.rippdemup.com/2012/04/daniel-adkins-left-wing-media-the-arizo...
"He swung his fist towards the driver window, and at some point the driver shot him,” says Phoenix Police Sgt. Tommy Thompson. “Just because we don’t book a person immediately does not mean we don’t charge a person at a later date.”
What a lot of people on this board are missing is that this story erupted because the original DA did not want to charge Zimmerman, based on the Stand Your Ground law. Phoenix Police sounds ready to make a charge, in time. Hopefully, justice gets done.
In the meantime, this story does not have any racial tones to it.
But why bother talking about race? The left wing takeaway on these cases is that "Stand Your Ground" sounds an awful lot like "Kill at Will."
The left wing takeaway, as usual, is ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 8:31pm.
leftwing; that is, non credible - because when it comes to anything said about either race or weapons it is tainted by their BS viewpoint.
MD
After all that's been learned,
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 8:38pm.
you still can't comprehend this incident without an overarching racial motive. Try, really hard and just imagine both parties were gray. Is Zimmerman without a doubt guilty?
Ah never mind, I don't think you can put race aside. Typical of progressives though; without dividing people into little groups, the tone and tenor of your multiple and competing messages is lost.
BK, I like you
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 9:04pm.
Unlike MD, who insists that 'Lefties are stupid because theyre stuuuuuuupiid' and other such nonsense.
If both parties were grey, I would have serious questions about this case. Questions that can be cleared up with a trial. Which is what will happen, I'm happy to add.
I do believe race has a lot to do with why Zimmerman called police in the first police. Just like his friend said, and as you said, the area was subject to B & E's , supposedly perpetrated by young black males. So, when Zimmerman saw a young black male, he immediately became suspicious. No matter how you spin it, his initial suspicion of Martin is racist. There is nothing on the police call that indicates Martin was committing a crime. Just because Zimmerman didn't volunteer Martin's race without being asked, it doesn't answer why he made the call in the first place. "He looks like he's up to no good," is just too vague of a reason to call the police, in my opinion. Maybe Zimmerman is just a bad judge of character, or likes to waste police resources on petty issues. But reports are circulating that every time Zimmerman called the police to report a suspicious person, that person was black. You want me to accept its coincidence? Why is that?
I never said Zimmerman was guilty. I said he deserved to be arrested and brougth to trial.
Jeb Bush, the Gov who signed the Stand Your Ground Law, said it doesn't apply in this case. The call proves that Zimmerman followed Martin. You have insisted that Zimmerman stopped following Martin after the dispatcher told him not to. But you don't know that. No one knows that. You are taking Zimmerman's word for it, and you are giving it equal weight with what we know as a fact: Zimmerman pursued Martin.
Ever occur to you, VD, that ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 9:17pm.
it is entirely possible that each time Zimmerman called the police to report suspicious activity and it turned out the suspect was black ---
was because the person engaged in suspicious activity was black?
Always with the "you are making assumptions", but what "we" know is fact.
Your argumentative ability sucks on a level with your discernment of human nature.
If I ever get the impression that you "like" me, I will consider myself a failure, as you are a bona fide putz.
MD
What was suspicious about Martin?
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:28pm.
Answer me that, then we can discuss it.
Van
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 9:30pm.
I think the difference between you and I is that I don't view suspicion as racism. If you saw someone going through the window of your neighbor's house, would you call the police? And wouldn't it be possible that the person was a visiting relative without a key and inadvertently locked out? Now, if it was a 96 year old lady, you'd probably not be too concerned, or at least not concerned enough about your own safety to approach her and say, "Excuse me ma'am, can I help you?" But if it was a fairly young white male, would you ignore it? Keep in mind the context that your neighborhood had experienced a spate of break-ins.
No, Martin wasn't breaking into a home when Zimmerman saw him. But he was still an unknown in a small gated community that had a spate of recent break-ins. If he attacked Martin out of racism, why not just run him over in his SUV? Why call the police? Why not stalk him and hunt him down like a dog (though I'm not sure why that one particular black congresswoman(?) used that phrase since to my knowledge, it's illegal to hunt dogs)? Why? Because he was concerned about the neighborhood, not the color of the subject's skin. This isn't that hard - unless of course, you need it to be racism for some reason or another.
I said from the get go that I didn't think there would be enough evidence to support charges, based on what has been reported. I've looked at it from many different angles, listened to -and read all the available transcripts, and watched as one side had been dutifully presented by the media.
Well, now that 2nd degree murder charges have been filed, guess what new evidence emerged that has persuaded this elected State's Attorney to push forward with such a stiff filing?
Come on. Guess.
Mom saying it was her son's voice in the on recorded 911 call.
Yep. According to Alan Dershowitz, that's it. Don't keep your hopes up for a trial. (Watch the whole clip, please.)
Suspicion does not equal racism
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:26pm.
But if a man just happens to be suspicious of people who just happen to be black, would you still say racism is not a factor?
You seem to be elevating the standard of racism to vehicular homicide. I believe that making a judgement about someone, based on that persons skin color, is racism. I believe that Martin was profiled. I don't imagine Zimmerman was calling police for every person in the area that he did not personally know. If you have evidence of that, I'd be glad to see it. Again, reports say that every time Zimmerman called the police to report a suspicious individual, that individual was black.
Charges were brought because we know for a fact that Zimmerman persued Martin. I do believe there is more evidence that will come out. We will see.
Do you not remember the 911 tapes?
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:31pm.
Zimmerman wasn't following Martin because he was black, he sounded unsure of Martin's race when he called. People like you who have jumped to conclusions have turned this into a race issue, making it probable we will now never know what happened.
He was unsure
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:34pm.
But he had a sneaking suspicion....
"But he had a sneaking suspicion...." ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:46pm.
channeling Zimmerman now, are we?
You are starting to appear feeble-minded, there, VD; your posts have no vibrancy, no joie de vrie, no snap, no pop.
Merely the plodding dullness of a one trick pony, that trick being flicking the race card, who has worn out the trick completely.
Grab a dictionary and check out the proper spelling of "persue" - meaning to chase after.
Dolt.
MD
Sounds to me like VD is profiling Zimmerman
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:47pm.
White guy, going after black teen...
What is Joie De Vrie?
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:56pm.
Is it anything like Joie De Vivre?
You aren't the Spelling Police, Matt.
Actually, VD, I AM the ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:42pm.
Spelling Police.
Far be it from you, apparently, to understand either colloquialisms, argot, or the most obvious fact that I screwed the French words, as sarcasm.
I could have went with Joey de Vree, I suppose; but that would have been just as far over your thick head.
Putz.
MD
VD
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 12:03am.
Your comprehension of french is as bad as your english.
"the joy of to live" is what you said
"joy of life" is "joie de vie"
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
braindamage, you a clairvoyant?
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:46pm.
Did you consult a crystal ball? A mind reader perhaps? And just how in the hell DO YOU KNOW he had a "sneaking suspicion"???
Again, you truly are a JACKASS!!!!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
If he didnt, why did he call the police?
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:58pm.
Still, no one can tell me why he called the cops. The only explanation is that Martin was "unknown." If Zimmerman called the police for unknown white males, then maybe he's not a racist; just a paranoid jerk.
But reports say that all the calls reporting unknown individuals were black males. So...what am i to believe?
Really??? PROVE IT!!!!
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:04pm.
"reports say".....I call BS!! Links??? Again, you DO NOT KNOW what was in Zimmermans mind, FOOL!!!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
So tell me why Zimmerman profiled Martin
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:26pm.
What was Martin doing that was suspicious?
You tell me Mr. Clairvoyant........
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:35pm.
I wasn't there, and NEITHER were YOU!!!!
EDIT: Again, you are a JACKASS!!!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
He doesn't have to tell me
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 12:37am.
He'll have to tell a judge.
DUH!!!
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 12:44am.
EDIT: It will be when ALL the facts are known, If it gets through the preliminary hearing.....If a Judge doesn't DISMISS IT!!!......RIGHT? IF, IF, IF!!!!!
JACKASS!!!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
I'm not sure where this anger is coming from
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 12:50am.
I'm not the only one with opinions on this case. Why don't you harass Radical and BK?
I have seen this over, and over..........
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 1:06am.
Rad, and bk, echo my sentiments! Check my bio, and get a clue! I'm sick and tired of this BS! I have dealt with it far too long! There is a reckoning coming, and it is long over due!! I fear it, I really do, but it is coming. I'm TIRED of innocent people being RAILROADED for political expedience, I have seen ENOUGH of it!!..........I live in a big CORRUPT city, I was a county sheriff, and have seen too much, people being sacrificed for political reasons, and I was a witness to it all! I thank God am retired now......I have been through riots, bank robberies, everything you could possibly imagine.....And I have had it!!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
Oh I see
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 10:01am.
You weren't there, but you get to comment about why you think Zimmerman is innocent because you're very angry. Good to know.
VD
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 10:26am.
You're lack of reading comprehension is showing again! None of us are saying Zimmerman is innocent of a crime. What we are objecting to is that you, and the race baiters, are insisting that he is, without being privy to the evidence. When the police interrogated Zimmerman after the shooting I would assume, based on the occurances, that they asked Z why Martin was "acting suspiciously". Based on the evidence they had until the special prosecutor was appointed, there was not enough evidence to convict Z. They were still investigating. But the race baiters got involved, so we had a special prosecutor who surprise surprise, made an arrest. If she hadn't Holder sure would have had.
That is our objection and I'm sure at this point you know. Justice does not come from public opinion or a mob. It comes from the law. I doubt it's being followed this time.
Are you willfully not reading the posts I respond to?
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 7:49pm.
Begrunt pitches a fit that "
I'm TIRED of innocent people being RAILROADED for political expedience, I have seen ENOUGH of it!!......."
What am I supposed to glean from that?
And where did I say Zimmerman is guilty? You keep putting words in my mouth, and then judging me for those words.
You are still getting the timeline wrong. Police wanted to charge Zimmerman, and the original DA did not want to press charges because he felt the charges would not stand. Then the community (or, in your parlance, "race-baiters") got involved and demanded that the case be looked at again. Yes, Government bowed to public pressure. Isn't that what the Tea Party was about?
Why are you so quick to assume the law was being followed before, and not being followed now?
Why do you think Zimmerman should not have been arrested?
What's the charge?
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 8:13pm.
Why do YOU think Zimmerman should have been arrested?
You can't seem to get this through your very thick skull - probably made thick by the megatons of white guilt you have - but the cops cannot arrest anyone without something called a "charge". This according to something called the Constitution. Um, Dainbramaged, a charge is - forget it. The Constitution is - forget it.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
You really are braindamaged!!
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 11:54am.
You ask me why I'm angry, so I tell you, and relate what I HAVE SEEN, AND EXPERIENCED in my years in law enforcement and the law in general. That had NOTHING to do with whether or not Zimmerman is guilty or not. Your as thick as a brick, and a simpleton. What LAW EXPERIENCE do you have??? All you do is spout Kos talking points. Your a neophyte, trying to be relevant around others who know what the hell we are talking about.......your a mind numbing DOLT!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
Z-man arrested, charged, held w/o bail, Lynchmo STILL yapping
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 1:23pm.
Wasn't that "all you really wanted"?
No, it wasn't. Your real goal was always to convince us that Zimmerman is a murdering racist and that St. Skittles slinking around at night in the rain where he had no business being in a neighborhood that has frequent break-ins is just another example of unjust racial profiling.
In 50,000 words here, you haven't convinced one single person of anything. Not one. Epic fail.
No business?
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 7:48pm.
He had family there. He wasn't trespassing.
What is "Just" racial profiling, in your mind?
The profiler whining about profiling.
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 8:17pm.
Well, Dainbramaged, it is clear to all of us here that you simply refuse to consider people as individuals. Individuality, in your mind, is a stupid, idiotic, outmoded concept that needs to be crushed and destroyed once and for all.
YOU profile constantly. You simply cannot see people as individuals. You look at people's gender, skin color, sexual orientation, and immediately classify them into groups and make your judgments based on that.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Does anyone have a layout
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 8:26pm.
Of the grounds where this happened? Ya know, like where Zim's car was, the shooting location, any modest landmarks? I am starting to wonder why the media hasnt been coloring all of these details considering the effort put forth on this story?
You LUNKHEAD
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 1:42pm.
Nobody said he's innocent. We said don't rush to judgement. If you have a dog get one of his fleas to explain it to you. Then again your intelligence is too far below that of the flea for you to understand.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Cocodrie:
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 1:49pm.
I may be wrong, but I get the distinct feeling that our boy Lynchmo here is not a pet-person.
PETA? Very possibly.
SoL
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 1:54pm.
Your post indicates to me you think he may be somebody's pet.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
Where did I rush to judgment?
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 7:49pm.
Where did I say Zimmerman is guilty?
VD
Submitted by Radical1979 on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 10:29am.
What's the matter, is the pressure to much for you? You have to try to get Begrunt to go after someone else because you can't defend your position?
Boo hoo.
Again Van, you're ignoring the facts as have been reported
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:27pm.
It's not like Zimmerman was on foot when he saw Martin. It's likely he was not in the neighborhood at all, but happened to see someone he didn't recognize entering a neighborhood that he regularly patrolled; a neighborhood that had a spate of recent home invasions. It was dark and raining so it's likely Zimmerman didn't have his windows down, and probably had his wipers on. And when the road is wet just after dusk, you get a lot of reflection from street and property lights.
I've got $20 that says Zimmerman profiled the hoodie and not the kid's skin color. He probably couldn't see his skin color since the only skin that would have been exposed was his face and possibly hands. If he was walking away from Zimmerman when first seen, race couldn't have been determined. But let's say Zimmerman did suspect Martin was black. His actual quote to the 911 dispatcher was "He looks black" and it was said in such a way that indicated he wasn't entirely sure.
But be that as it may, let's as I said, assume Zimmerman thought or knew Martin was black. That still doesn't change the fact that Martin was an unknown in a neighborhood Zimmerman routinely patrolled, walking about looking like he was on drugs or something. That's not racism. What if Zimmerman knew Martin? Would the events still have transpired? If he was a racist, you'd have to assume he was targeting Martin because of his skin color. How many other black people has Zimmerman killed?
Being suspicious of a black guy does not make you racist. Refusing to report someone who was -in the mind of a Neighborhood Watchman- acting suspicious, walking about looking like he was on drugs or something because he was black is either misplaced guilt or political correctness run amok.
How far did Zimmerman pursue Martin? And for how long? How long after the 911 call ended, did the shooting take place? How long after the 911 call ended did the first neighbor call 911? How long after Zimmerman told the 911 dispatcher he lost sight of Martin did the two of them meet up? Why did Zimmerman report Martin was running along Twin Trees toward the other entrance of the community -which is close to where he was staying- and the incident occurred approximately 250 feet north, closer to Zimmerman's position when he made the call and his vehicle? Why did Martin double back? It would be nice if you took the time to look though this webpage before replying back to me. Again, try to look at as though you weren't already convinced he was racist by the media.
You probably won't answer any of these questions, but not because there isn't sufficiently reported details about them, but because you refuse to explore any other option outside of a racial motive. I laid out a pretty plausible scenario here. It's a lot more analytical and dispassionate than a mother saying "that sounds like my dead son" on the recording. You're either replete with white guilt (assuming you're white), or so concerned with political correctness you're judgment is un-filterable. Be careful not to cut off your nose.
Outstanding!!!
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:38pm.
Another great synopsis bk!!!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
Does Zimmerman call police for White guys in hoodies?
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:51pm.
If so, then you have a valid point. A hoodie alone does not a criminal make, BK.
How does someone "look like they're on drugs"? What does that mean, exactly? Maybe you don't agree, but I find that to be a very vague statement. I'm still not sure what reason Zimmerman had to be suspicious of Martin. I do believe Martin was targeting for his skin color; and we have already discussed this. Again, you are elevating the standard of racism; this time to "past murders of black people."
Your links rely heavily on Zimmerman's account, and takes them as face value. That is not something I'm willing to do, BK.
Mrs. Martin's testimony is not the reason for probable cause, and you know that. There is more to the affidavit than just that.
Again, Mr. Clairvoyant........
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:57pm.
You DONT know, and are guessing, and trying to climb into the mind of Zimmerman.......KNOCK IT OFF!! YOU DO NOT KNOW!!! All of this is conjecture on your part, and NOT based on fact!!
JACKASS!!!!!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
What exactly are you taking issue with?
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 12:01am.
Tell me, and then we can discuss it.
Ok Mr. Clairvoyant......
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 12:15am.
"He looks like he is on drugs"......SO??? That makes Zimmerman a "racist".....PLEASE! Your reaching, and extrapolating.......YOU DONT KNOW what was in the mans head!!!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
Well, I don't know how many times he's called the police on
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 12:14am.
White people, but there were something like 50 calls over the last year or so; are you thinking they were all over black people? If so, what evidence do you have of that?
Why do you continue to ignore his mentoring of a black family?
The hoodie is symbolic of gang fashion. Certainly not everyone who wears a hoodie is in a gang, but they are common among gangs since they offer a quick way to hide ones description in a pinch. My son wears them. He looks like a thug when he does. He's white, by the way.
And no, its not likely the SA has more, at least according to Dershowitz. I suspect he has a pretty good read on this given his stature.
The calls havent been released
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 12:32am.
but the man that Dershowitz was talking to, the bald man that fills in for Chris Matthews, last week on Hardball did say he heard the calls, and that 7 or 8 of the calls were about suspicious individuals , and all were black males. I don't know if those calls will be released. One could argue they are irrelevant to this case. Just as irrelevant as his black family mentoring.
Do you really think wearing a hoodie in the rain is unreasonable? I own and wear hoodies, and I'm not in a gang. I know many people who wear hoodies who are not in gangs, BK. Geraldo got panned for this, and now you're taking up his torch.
I heard the full 911 call. Zimmerman might not be so sure he's black right away, but he does offer "he's a black male" shortly afterwards.
Dershowitz agrees with you, but Baez and Toobin and Geragos don't. You have your experts, I have mine. Expert opinions are just expert opinions.
AFTER, Zimmerman was ASKED
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 12:50am.
What the suspect looked like!!!!!
JACKASS!!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
Actually, BK,
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 11:26am.
I've read reports now that Zimmerman's calls were over a far longer time frame, up to possibly 6 years for the 50 calls. But, that won't matter to VD. Zimmerman would be a racist if he'd only called once or twice. Because, you know, Martin was black.
I gotta agree with Dershowitz on this one, Mr. Keyser...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 3:42am.
Even though it was expressly stated that it was not intended to constitute the complete and comprehensive factual basis for the second degree murder charge against Zimmerman, the affidavit presented by the prosecutor was pathetic.
From Mediate:
You’ve seen the affidavit of probable cause. What do you make of it,” Smerconish asked.
“It won’t suffice,” Dershowitz replied without hesitation. “Most affidavits of probable cause are very thin. This is so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge,” Dershowitz said. “There’s simply nothing in there that would justify second degree murder.”
Dershowitz said that the elements that would constitute that crime are non-existent in the affidavit. “It’s not only thin, it’s irresponsible,” said Dershowitz. Dershowitz went on to strongly criticize Corey’s decision to move forward with the case against Zimmerman. “I think what you have here is an elected public official who made a campaign speech last night for reelection when she gave her presentation and overcharged. This case will not – if the evidence is no stronger than what appears in the probable cause affidavit – this case will result in an acquittal.”
Smerconish identified the total lack of any mention of the supposed fight that occurred between Martin and Zimmerman prior to Martin being shot. He said he was disappointed that he did not see any mention of that conflict that led to Martin’s murder.
“But it’s worse than that,” said Dershowitz. “It’s irresponsible and unethical in not including material that favors the defendant.” “This affidavit does not even make it to probable cause,” Dershowitz concluded. “everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense. Everything.”
Still, there are important pieces to this puzzle which are either missing or are unknown to the general public or are contorted by conflicting narratives. For example, if I understand you correctly, we both assumed that the back entrance referenced by Zimmerman was the one near to and south of the townhouse in which Martin was staying. [In fact, I have wondered why Zimmerman didn't instruct the police to enter the subdivision at that location inasmuch as it would more likely enable the interception of Martin.] However, according to the folks at the website [Wagist] you have linked on several occasions, Zimmerman continued in an easterly direction--past the walkway leading down to Martin's temporary residence--until he was near the property line adjacent to Retreat View Circle. It is asserted that Zimmerman remained at that point--which, according to their version, was the back entrance Zimmerman actually had in mind--while completing his 911 call, after which he began backtracking to his vehicle.
Also, there is no direct evidence that Martin ran or walked all the way to his townhouse. It has only been established that he probably had sufficient time to do so. Accordingly, the claim that he "doubled back" is simply conjecture. Furthermore, the accusation [by some, not you], at least by insinuation, that Martin surprised, confronted and physically assaulted Zimmerman at and on the walkway via which the latter was returning to his truck doesn't stand up well in the face of what has been reported thus far. Regardless of who spotted and yelled at whom, there was clearly a heated verbal exchange antecedent to the physical altercation which occurred behind the second townhome south of the path Zimmerman was traversing.
That said, Martin may very well have thrown the first punch. [And, yes, I've been hit--hard and on more than one occasion--in the face, but I was never knocked out and there is no evidence Zimmerman was rendered unconscious either.] True, Martin was taller than Zimmerman, but, contrary to your assertion on the other thread, he was not "larger" than Zimmerman. Even if Martin's weight was at the upper end of the range which has been the subject of wildly varying accounts, it was still considerably less than Zimmerman's. You indicated Martin may have cold-cocked Zimmerman and then stood over him ready to deliver the coup de grace, at which point Zimmerman, screaming for help and in fear for his life, drew his 9mm and blew Martin away. That's a possible scenario, but it doesn't comport with the account of the eye witness who purportedly saw most of the incident (although not the actual shooting). However, "John" does corroborate Zimmerman's depiction of the altercation in several respects, the most significant being the relative position of both parties during key moments of the struggle: Martin on top; Zimmerman on the bottom getting the shit kicked out of him. Again, either FoxNews or Wagist described it in terms of Zimmerman being "pinned" to the ground. This, in turn, triggered my questions on the other thread relating to when and how Zimmerman was able to unholster his weapon.
In closing [for now], Bob...please eighty-six the nonsense about "race" clouding my judgment. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Jer
You're smarter than that, Jer. "Race" clouds ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 4:50pm.
everyone's judgment.
MD
Matthew..You're smart enough to read what provoked my reaction
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 8:27pm.
before criticizing it.
Jer
I made a statement, Jer, that I believe to be ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 11:37pm.
a statement of fact.
If you see it as criticism, because you happen to consider yourself an expert in racial matters or a maven on proper conduct governing inter-racial discussions, that's your problem.
MD
Are you going to parse this to bits, too, Matthew?
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 11:49pm.
I'm neither an expert in racial matters nor a maven on proper conduct. But I can draw reasonable inferences from plain English. And if you think "criticizing" was an inappropriate characterization, that's your problem.
Jer
Sure, Jer, as parsin' be ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 04/14/2012 - 2:43am.
fun.
Legal, too.
"But I can draw
liberalreasonable inferences from plain English."As far as criticizing - like the grunts said in Nam - "Don't mean nuthin".
Incoming bothers me not at all; outgoing - just another way to rattle your cage. :o)
MD
Jer
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 4:51pm.
I, personally, don't think what Zimmerman did was criminal. That's based on what I've read, seen and heard about this case from the time it became national news. And as you well know, the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman committed "unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual."
I think it was self defense. I don't know the intricacies of Florida's Stand Your Ground Law, nor do I care because I don't think it's needed to prove self defense. I think I've presented a viable scenario for self defense based on what I know of young adult males in 2012 in general, young black males in general, and subsequent information including the twitter and facebook feeds of Martin and the reported mentoring by Zimmerman. I think it will be awfully difficult to convince an impartial jury that Zimmerman targeted or hunted this kid down simply because of his race, or that Zimmerman posed any sort of threat to Martin before removing his weapon. If Zimmerman was struck before he had his weapon out, it's self defense clear as day. And even if Zimmerman was persuing Martin, it is unlikely he could have caught him as Martin was less than 100 yards from absolute safety and surely more athletic than Zimmerman. Another scenario only adds to the doubt, it doesn't remove it.
I'm also smart enough -or maybe just jaded enough- to see a naked political ploy when it's presented to me. I now that what the media did was push an agenda through false advertising. I know what the family of Martin did -beyond their legitimate and necessary greiving, was latch onto the words of black "leaders" in an effort to drive the narrative about their son as entirely a victim. They don't know what happened any more than I do, yet they scream from the hilltops their son was targeted. They're doing this because they believe it will somehow benefit them. They have that right, but they're not righteous.
Now, we agree that the statement of probable cause is exceedingly weak. And you surely know that if there was more, it would be on that document; maybe not in minute detail, but it surely wouldn't be omitted from the first filing in the case. So based on the investigation by police and the State's Attorney's office, the best they could come up with to charge Zimmerman is the testimony of the victim's mother about a muffled voice recorded from a telephone conversation that was separated from the incident by the exterior structure of a house, and some measurable distance. We both know this should never suffice for charges to go forward, though we can't now predict whether the new judge will have the courage to stand on principle given how the left has already reacted in this case. He/she could allow it to move forward letting a jury decide the outcome and remove all pressure from his/her shoulders, or he/she could risk goons at his front door if he throws it out. The current climate is ripe for intimidation. We'll see.
Lastly, I don't think I insinuated that you (Jer) were clouded by race in this case. If I did, I apologize and it was inadvertant since I've not seen you take that position.
bk...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 8:17pm.
Based upon the evidence released thus far, including the accounts of eye and ear witnesses, Zimmerman would most likely be acquitted by a completely impartial jury (assuming the case even reached a jury). Unfortunately for the prosecution, the witness who would have been in the most advantageous position to contradict and refute the allegations of the accused--and undermine his claim of self-defense-- happens to be dead. And if justifiable homicide is defined and applied as liberally as it was in the Michigan case cited by UpNorth elsewhere on this thread--a prosecutorial decision to nol pros which I frankly found shocking--the state of Florida will have an exceedingly difficult task in obtaining a conviction. That said, there remain crucial evidentiary matters which are unknown or at least haven't been fully publicized which could still reshape the legal dynamics, and, as we all know, the notion of "completely impartial" juries is mostly myth. This has the potential for a Rodney King Redux or Bernard Goetz II. Hope not.
By the way, this was your closing remark in your reply to my comment on the other thread:
See, you continue to fall into the "Yeah, he probably profiled Martin because he was black; he probably had shooting this guy on his mind from the moment he saw him" trap. It's clouding your judgement and has probably clouded the prosecutor's judgement as well.
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-sheffield/2012/04/11/open-thread-no...
Apology accepted. Thanks.
Jer
Jer.....I commend....
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 8:53pm.
your reasoned response. I agree.....this does have a potential for unrest if things dont go the way (Jackson, Sharpton, et.al.) want it to. I believe that is what they want, as sick as that sounds. I was in the middle of the "Rodney King Riots" in L.A., so I know full well what may happen. My hope, and I dont know if you agree here, is that Holder doesn't try a trumped up civil rights violation to satisfy the mobs, if the jury is hung, or an acquittal, like they did here in L.A. That smacked of double jeopardy big time. I believe if the officers had the finances, and appealed to the Supreme Court, the second trial would have been thrown out....IMHO.. Although they had more latitude, using "color of authority" etc., and they cant use that against Zimmerman.
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
Hmm...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 4:32am.
http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/the-missing-230-and-deedees-testi...
The above link is to another article at Wagist posted April 4 which I had overlooked.
More twists and turns...
Once again underscoring the hazards of premature speculation.
Jer
If a man is suspicious of black men
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 4:25pm.
regardless of what they're doing, he's a bigot. If he commits an act that impedes that man's individual freedom based solely on his bigotry, he's employing racism. To me they're not one in the same as one is internal and not necessarily obvious, while the other is obvious and borne from the former.
There is hate crime legislation in this country based on overt racism (which is ridiculous, in my opinion since motive should only help prove the commission, not add to the sentence) but what you seem to be saying is that bigotry, as I define it, should be a hate crime. That if Zimmerman disliked Martin because he was black, that should somehow be punishable. That's advocacy for thought police. I'm not surprised you feel this way because that's a typical manifestation in liberals. It is, however, anti-American in every way, shape and form.
"DA did not want to charge Zimmerman".
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 8:56pm.
And, I'm sure that the original State's Attorney is at the top of the defense's list of witnesses. I'm sure they can't wait to have him explain to the jury why he didn't sign off on charges against Zimmerman. That will make the trial all about the differing philosophies of two State's Attorneys.
What is it about the Adkins case that says to you that a "continuing investigation" is fine, but in the Zimmerman case, it was a dereliction of duty, an insult to the community, and something tearing at the very fabric of the nation?
If you don't see "any racial tones" in the Adkins story, you're either blind, or willfully ignorant. And, which is it, are the police going to "make a charge", or is it the State's Attorney, or District Attorney? Never mind, you've already demonstrated your colossal ignorance as to how the law works.
And, "the left wing takeaway on these cases" is that you want the victims of a crime helpless, unable to defend themselves. Just admit it, it'll save a whole lot of bandwidth.
Ok, then
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 9:12pm.
I'm not sure what the point of your first paragraph is, so I'll just sidestep it.
The sources I read made it sound like a charge was coming in the Adkins case. The original DA of the Zimmerman case did not want to press charged, citing Stand Your Ground, which many legal experts, and former Gov. Jeb Bush, disagreed with. It incensed the community because of the evidence that exists that makes Stand Your Ground irrelevant in this case. If you disagree with the new DA's decision, please tell me why. Don't just mock it.
Laws work very differently in every state, every county, and every town. I don't know who is in charge to make an arrest in Arizona, and maybe they aren't arresting this guy quickly enough, but the quote I provided did sound like they were close to making an arrest.
Please, enlighten me why the Adkin's story is obviously racial.
Why are you obsessed with trying to get me to admit your conservative talking points? Clearly, being allowed to shoot people and claim self defense is a large loophole to walk through if you are trigger-happy. I shouldn't have to explain that to you. I dont want people unable to defend themselves,but I do want those who use deadly force for no reason to be brought to justice.
Enlighten you, VD? Impossible; as you are a ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 9:20pm.
liberal bonehead.
MD
OMG, will someone please smite this thing?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 9:22pm.
It's worse than the worse zombie movie.
X 1000
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 9:23pm.
.
No reason? That's your interpretation.
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 9:32pm.
And, more than enough people have also stated that this case could and probably will be about self defense, not stand your ground. Here's a hint for you, use the search engine of your choice and enter head punched death, there's about 42 million entries in most of them. Quite a few are about people who were punched in the head and subsequently died.
The point of my first paragraph is that this could end up as a case of dueling philosophies between State's Attorneys. And you did end up unable to sidestep that first paragraph. Don't forget one salient point, the prosecution has to convince 12 people of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense has to convince one person that there is a reasonable doubt.
Yet again, you use your values to opine that it's merely an assault, nothing that would require deadly force. When there are plenty of instances when a punch to the head has ended in death. That would make it something where deadly force can be used with good reason. It basically comes down to the state of mind of the shooter. Me, being fully aware of the possibility of death from a punch, or several punches to the head, would choose to be able to defend myself. If you don't want to do that, best wishes in the ICU if it happens to you.
Now, toddle on back to DU or Kos, or wherever you came from. You're tiresome, and boring, as others have already noted.
Up, and Beg and Van
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 9:42pm.
Did you see the charging document? This is embarrassing. I had Lance Corporals on my MP Watch that could write a better statment than this.
****VAN--- It is important to note here that so much was made early on about the supposed racial slur used by Zimmerman and how that proved his racial motives. It clearly was a large factor in the ensuing uproar. Well, apparently the nutjob prosecutor doesn't think he said anything racist.
This is just.........
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 9:46pm.
Well, hell, I can't find the words to describe the insufficiency of the elements of the crime charged, supporting facts, and corroborating witnesses. I've seen first year assistant Prosecutors who have done a far better job of laying out a crime than this. Hell, I've done a better job than that, writing out the facts for an arrest warrant for a prosecutor.
And, the crowning touch is mom's statement? After two "experts" have stated that they couldn't state with certainty who was screaming on the tape? She's certainly an unbiased, impartial witness./sarc(just for VD)
➚Wow, Bob!
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 9:54pm.
Her indictment states Z-man "disregarded" the 911 operator? This is what her entire case hinges on. It has to.
If he broke off following, "Stand Your Ground" reattaches.
Cool and Up
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 9:59pm.
Did you see the link in my 9:30 reply to Van?
I did, and Dershowitz nailed it, IMO.
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:23pm.
There is a dearth of facts presented, and there are salient facts omitted. And, from the time I heard what the charge would be, I've thought this was an instance of over-charging to facilitate a plea bargain.
➚ Shaky so far
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:09pm.
Possibly it's a gamble the jurors will return a guilty verdict rather than honestly evaluate the evidence. The only question to be answered is "Why is that gun smoking?"
CA
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:13pm.
Well the OJ case was decided on the basis of race, surely this will be as well. God help Zimmerman if he's innocent.
bk, I saw that earlier....
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:15pm.
Talk about extrapolation into the ridiculous. I'm surprised they didnt include space aliens intervening in this case!!! All I can say is ACQUITTAL if that is what they are going on. He (Zimmerman) "profiled" Martin upon leaving his car.........REALLY????????? Good god on little toothpicks!!! In all my 20 plus years in the Sheriff's Department, have I ever seen a document so full of infamous falsehoods, and distortions on a scale SO HUGE, I never thought a prosecutor would ever try to push such a fantasy!!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
I was making a broad point about stand your ground
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 9:55pm.
I was in no way implying that punches to the head can't result in death. I don't know for a fact that anyone was punched in the head. So I'm not sure why you're lecturing me on this.
Stand Your Ground, as I understand it, gives license to shoot anyone who threatens you, with the "threat" being very broad. I'm not sure why someone was threatened by Adkins or Martin. I understand what Zimmerman's story is, but I'm not sure I believe he was in such danger that he had to shoot Martin. We will find out in the trial.
OK clod......
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 9:35pm.
Why are you obsessed with trying to GET US to admit to your leftist talking points!
Let the facts come out CLOD before you jump to conclusions!! There is a lot of evidence that still has not been revealed, but you want Zimmerman hung. You truly are a JACKASS!!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
I didnt ask you to admit anything
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 9:57pm.
yet you keep fantasizing about what you think I want to happen to Zimmerman. Stop telling me what I want.
Advice -
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:34pm.
When you stop telling us what you want, we'll stop repeating it back to you.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Zzzzzzzzz ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:48pm.
---ing.
MD
Source that I said I wanted Zimmerman executed
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:29pm.
Or hung. Or else stop lying about me.
Quit whining
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 04/16/2012 - 9:22pm.
You refuse to give Zimmerman ANY benefit of the doubt. What do you want me to conclude?
Don't blame me for YOUR working overtime to form the perception I have of you. It's childish whining and you should stop it.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
You're right!
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 7:54pm.
Why should I give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt?
Because he sustained injuries
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 7:57pm.
At the hands of another, thats why!
➚ You shouldn't.
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 8:06pm.
I was just about to answer your post asking where you rushed to judgment, and came across this post where you rush to judgment.
You're too easy.
Thank you.
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 8:24pm.
Now shut up. On that statement alone you indicate that you believe Zimmerman is guilty. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if you think the cops should have summarily executed Zimmerman simply for "Looking At Mr. Martin Wrong".
Quit your whining. You're just a Leftist overwhelmed with white guilt who is aching, ACHING, for the complete Balkanization of America. Above all, quit being such a racist and start evaluating people as individuals.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Is this how, "you win"
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Thu, 04/19/2012 - 11:35am.
the argument? You return nearly a week later to add comments to look like your winning the argument? You really are a pathetic gasbag! Spin this all you want, if the law is applied FAIRLY, Zimmermen will probably walk, then what? Even Alan Dershowitz agrees with that assessment.......You going to riot with the rest of the uninformed tools?.........JACKASS!!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
Hey Van?
Submitted by bkeyser on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 9:33am.
New evidence has surfaced. Second look at Zimmerman? This photo was taken three minutes after the shooting. ABC has the story.
I'm not sure if you did or not, but remember how so many people jumped all over the police surveillence video seemingly showing no injury to the back of Zimmerman's head? Remember how so many people claimed this was proof Martin was hunted down like a dog? Or that Zimmerman was actually the bigger man on top of the terrified Martin? Remember how many people used that video as proof that Zimmerman was lying about the details of altercation and didn't deserve the benefit of the doubt? Or that Sanford police were complicit or incompetent? Remember how some people said more evidence would come out prooving Zimmerman's guilt and surely the prosecution was just holding some back for trial?
The prosecution has seen this picture. The prosecution has been destroyed by some well known legal analysts for their drastic overreach -even based on the known evidence. I can't wait to see they're follow up analysis once this picture goes viral.
Did you ever consider the fact that if this goes to trial, the defense will suponea many of the people from Martin's actual home town near Miami and depose them or put them on the stand to testify what Martin was really like? That the media's attempt to drive the narrative that Martin was just a sweet kid who wouldn't hurt a fly might be in jeopardy once those Facebook rants and twitter feeds were read to a jury?
This thing never goes to trial.
Self-defense
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 9:35pm.
Clearly, being allowed to shoot people and claim self defense is a large loophole to walk through if you are trigger-happy. I shouldn't have to explain that to you. I dont want people unable to defend themselves,but I do want those who use deadly force for no reason to be brought to justice. Ah. Our little group rights advocate is back.
In 1995, in a road rage incident, an assailant decided to attack an apparently offending driver. The assailant got out of his vehicle after some fender bender or some such thing and threw a fist through the other driver's window. What the assailant did not know, though, was that the driver he was hell-bent on attacking had a newly issued TX CHL. So the assailant caught some bullets from that driver. Killed him.
What did the cops do? Took a statement and left.
I can't say I blame that driver in Dallas for blowing the dude away. I would have done the same thing. I also frequently drive around armed for reasons such as that.
Clearly you do have a problem with the concept of self-defense.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
You have your idea of just desserts
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:00pm.
And I have mine. I can't speak for the driver in Dallas. I don't know enough details.
Did his fist go through the window, breaking the glass? Clearly a bizarre act. I thought you had to stand your ground if your life was in danger, not because someone punched you. I could be wrong, though.
Again, you say "group rights." I 'm not sure what makes you say that.
Interesting
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:04pm.
How does one differentiate a punch which endangers one's life and one which does not?
If someone is being assaulted, would you deny them self defense?
If someone is being assaulted, would you deny them self defense
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:12pm.
Rad, I know that we all know the answer to that. VD can't differentiate the difference between a punch that has the ability to kill and one that has the ability to fatten a lip. But, Zimmerman, on a dark night, in the rain, confronted by a man younger than he, who punched him, and apparently knocked him to the ground, should have been able to know that it wasn't a life-threatening punch.
VD has proven that, if he is ever called for jury duty, he should ask to be excused, because he can not process facts and has preconceived notions of guilt and innocence, based on race.
Just desserts
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:21pm.
Your idea of "just desserts" is wait for the cops to come along, they solve everything. Don't worry, they take good chalk outlines!
We have a similar thing in TX. Only we say "you have no duty to retreat." Why would you fire on someone? Easy - to stop people. If someone threw a punch at me, according to the law, I can fire back - no duty to retreat.
Funny how you don't have enough information here to make a judgment on the first time a TX CHL was applied in a situation, yet with less information than that, you are essentially demanding that Zimmerman be hanged since the cops didn't summarily execute Zimmerman.
"Group rights" - start here. You don't see individuals. At all. You ONLY see groups of people.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Uns, we have a similar law in Michigan.
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:29pm.
No one has the obligation to retreat from a place where they have a legal right to be. It played out in Grand Rapids a while back, one guy decided to have it out with another guy in a gas station,and after picking up a plastic garbage can lid, got shot.
The family of the dead one insisted that the shooter could have left and "diffused" the situation. The Prosecutor said nope, he didn't have to.
So, you want to defend against plastic garbage can lids?
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:45pm.
You want to shoot people who pick up plastic lids?
I understand self defense...but seriously?
You, VD, are a seriously ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:50pm.
stupid individual.
MD
Good evening MD
Submitted by cocodrie on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:21pm.
Kinda stating the obvious there.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
➚He coulda' said it better
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:25pm.
"Severely stupid individual" would have been a nice touch.
Cool ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:51pm.
Also true. :o)
MD
cocodrie ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:47pm.
True. :o)
MD
Did you even read the story? Before you answer,
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 11:44am.
let me say, I sincerely doubt it. The prosecutor said that Tett was legally entitled to be where he was, and was entitled to defend himself from wrongful assault. The fact that the moron picked up a plastic lid is not why he was shot. "Unfortunately for the Rodriguez family, he's the one who bent down and started to assault him. Unfortunately he assaulted someone who had a gun." He placed himself in a position of being the aggressor. But, you fixate on something that is not even relevant to the reasoning behind the prosecutor's decision.
Tett was perfectly justified in defending himself. Every time you are offered a chance to get away from being an idiot, you rush right back to being one.
So, why did the moron get shot, again?
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 7:57pm.
Because he almost hit a guy with a piece of plastic?
I could be wrong, but I thought self defense was justified if you thought your life was in danger. But you seem to be suggesting that any kind of unwanted touching from someone else can lead you to legally shoot that person dead. Is that really ok with you?
If someone's head is being bashed into
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 8:17pm.
the pavement, then yup, he can kill the guy doing the bashing.
I didn't say I wanted him hanged
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:52pm.
If you can't source it, then stop lying about me.
I thought the law was that your life had to be in danger to use deadly force. Are you suggesting any simple assault can be countered by a fatal shooting?
➚ Van Vichy
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:57pm.
At what point does the continual bashing of one's head into the concrete become life threatening?
I'd just like to know in case we ever meet and you're packing.
Apparently, it's when you
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:57pm.
Apparently, it's when you pass out. THEN I bet he would think it's justified......
➚ Just when i start to think . . .
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:02pm.
Just when I start to think he can't be that stupid, he proves me wrong.
That hasn't been proven yet
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 12:04am.
But you state it as fact. Interesting.
➚Van Lynchmo
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 9:08pm.
I did not "state it as fact".
I asked an obviously rhetorical question and followed with my reasoning for asking it.
You are lying again.
So you're admitting that
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:59pm.
So you're admitting that Martin was assaulting Zimmerman?
➚ Hey Cop
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:05pm.
I'm thinking VanRacist was also on the OJ jury.
It would certainly explain
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:08pm.
It would certainly explain the verdict.
➚Ladies and gentlemen of the jury
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:12pm.
The defendant, OJ Simpson, is accused of manufacturing PEZ dispensers without a license.
Yeah, NC, but ol' VD is going with ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:06pm.
"simple" assault now.
Unsure if that means any number of blows to the head less than three equates to simple; or if the difference between contusions and lacerations is what defines 'simple'.
Whichever - allowing for the fact, of course, that VD is a simpleton.
MD
➚ Notice how quickly
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:18pm.
Notice how quickly VanRacist hides behind Obama's "that's above my pay grade" line. Couple of posts lower, he's surrendering with "that's not my job"
I admitted no such thing.
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:31pm.
Please read the posts I respond to.
I am discussing all these other cases that people are bringing up, where assaults are ended by gunshots.
➚Isn't that the Chicago Way?
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:41pm.
The President says you should bring a gun to a knife fight.
Yet you said this......
Submitted by NC Cop on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 12:24pm.
"I dont want people unable to defend themselves,but I do want those who use deadly force for no reason to be brought to justice."
So you have already determined that deadly force was used for "no reason", correct?
These are your words, are they not?
If we're talking about plastic garbage can lids,
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 8:00pm.
then I would say thats "no reason."
I have yet to see evidence that there was a reason that Trayvon had to die.
➚ Van Lynchmo
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 8:10pm.
Physics 2331 and Anatomy 1301?
➚ Put simply
Submitted by Cool Arrow on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 8:52pm.
Irresistible force - Immovable object?
Is it coming back to you yet?
Hey, Lynchmo, the garbage can lid
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 10:24pm.
weighed four pounds, that's 64 ounces. How much do you think a Louisville Slugger weighs? Hint: most weigh around 20-22 ounces. So, that lid could do some serious damage, but I guess the shooter should have waited to get hit with it, before he fired? How many times should he let himself be hit, Lynchmo? How many times would ease your liberal guilt?
As for Trayvon, you're so dense that you compare favorably with lead. It's been pointed out, ad nauseum, why this may have gone down the way it did, you won't look at anything, other than your tunnel vision view of it.
UpNorth...I believe you are about 10 oz too light on your
Submitted by Jer on Thu, 04/19/2012 - 2:01am.
estimated bat weight.
Regardless, I'm willing to go out on a limb and bet that deaths or critical injuries by a ball bat exceed those inflicted by a plastic trash can lid by maybe a million to one--and one may be an overestimation.
I read your linked Michigan case the other day and all the associated material. I thought the decision not to file any charges was pretty shocking. However, there was evidence that the deceased had made prior threats of violence with respect to the shooter, and that apparently was a factor in the determination. Even so, I believe the established facts warranted a felony count.
Jer
OK, Jer, the Slugger may be 32 ounces, BFD.
Submitted by UpNorth on Thu, 04/19/2012 - 10:47am.
So, what felony count was warranted? Justifiable homicide? Self defense?
In all your linking, did you read the applicable law? MCL 780.972. Under that law, “[a]n individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat” provided that “[t]he individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual” or “sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual” or “he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.”
That seems to cover the situation quite well, at least to my, admittedly non-lawyer, eyes. Apparently, it also covered it quite well to Mr. Forsyth and his trained eyes. Especially the "imminent unlawful use of force by another individual".
Yes, UpNorth...I read that, too.
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 1:15am.
Justifiable homicide and self defense are not felony counts. I think the circumstances would have supported a manslaughter charge. That's not to say a conviction would have been a slam dunk. The trial judge would instruct the jury on the law, including the statute you quote, and the jury would decide whether the factual evidence was enough to convict the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. If not, he's acquitted.
Viewing the actual surveillance video of the incident might change my opinion, but based on everything I read, it seemed to me that firing a bullet to the brain of a guy wielding a plastic trash receptacle lid created a sufficient basis for having a jury decide the issue of justifiability.
Jer
Ask, and you shall receive, Jer.
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 7:33pm.
Although this is a very short, edited version of what has been shown. I can't find the video the other two stations in the area ran.
As for charges, and not knowing all of the thoughts of the prosecutor, I can speculate that, 1. It was his job to prove all of the elements of a crime, whether 2nd degree murder, or manslaughter. 2. He didn't think, given the law in effect, that he could do so. 3. Tett was fully justified in defending himself. 4. The law covered this situation and he applied the law. 5. The prosecutor thought that Tett couldn't know that the lid was plastic.
#5 specifically, ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 7:46pm.
and that said - there are any number of items that may not appear to be a threat, that when wielded by someone in anger, aimed at another person's head, could prove to be lethal weapons if contact is made.
MD
Thank you, UpNorth...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 11:17pm.
Having now watched the video several times, including stop action, I am even more surprised by the failure to charge. Unless the shooter is the fastest draw in the history of the world, the gun was already unholstered, or at least in hand, and was being raised even as the man grabbed the trash lid. As the latter was pulling the lid back behind him, the shooter leveled his weapon directly at the man's head. The tape ends at that point, but, if I recall correctly, the prosecutor indicated the victim's hand was coming forward when the fatal shot was fired.
Again, I'm not suggesting a conviction would have been a foregone conclusion, but, despite evidence of a previous threat, the case for justifiable homicide here appears far weaker than Zimmerman's.
Jer
Again, I don't know what happened or was said
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 04/20/2012 - 11:45pm.
prior to the gross stupidity of taking a garbage can lid to a gun fight. But, seriously, in light of what the law actually says about " the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual”, I'm not at all surprised that no charges were made. Note that the law itself makes no mention of felonious assault or aggravated assault, only "the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual". In the GRPD, any case like this is investigated, then taken to the prosecutor for determination of charges, if any. The prosecutor apparently found that Tett was fully within the law in "meeting force with deadly force, defending himself from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual".
I don't know what you find surprising. A victim no longer has to retreat, nor take the first blow, or several blows, to justify the use of force. And, as I mentioned in #5 in my previous post, perhaps the prosecutor didn't think that Tett had to determine whether or not the lid was plastic.
As for the "fastest draw in the history of the world", a gun does not do the carrier of it any good in the holster, especially if you have a history with your aggressor.
UpNorth...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 12:49am.
How about an argument over a parking spot escalating to where one of the participants draws back his fist and says "I'm going to punch your face in". The other guy immediately grabs his Glock from inside his jacket and responds with a round right between the eyes of his would-be assailant. He informs the police he feared the imminent infliction of serious bodily harm upon himself and was therefore entitled to stand his ground and protect himself with deadly force. Justifiable homicide?
Look, we could go back and forth on this all day. The prosecutor made the call in the Michigan case and I understand his reasoning. Based upon the facts--and the law--with which I'm familiar, I would have made a different call. That said, he obviously is more familiar with more facts than am I.
Jer
True, Jer. Forsyth made the call.
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 9:38pm.
I happen to agree with him. That said, I do believe he had access to info on what had transpired between these two, prior to the shooting. There was a history between them.
For your example given in the opening of your post, that would depend on the apparent ability of the aggressor to, in fact, punch the guy's face in. Under Michigan law, until it might be changed, the man with the Glock has no obligation to retreat.
And, I missed out on a great reply to your "fastest draw" comment upthread. Have you ever seen a slow shooting?
It Is Coming For Us All
Submitted by Unsane on Sun, 04/22/2012 - 12:53am.
He had to one day, whether 17 or 71. I hate to break it to you, Dainbramage, but we ALL have to die.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
It's quite obvious, VD, that emotion rules your mind, not facts.
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 12:12pm.
The Florida "stand your ground" law states, in para. 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". That would be Florida law, 776.013, if you'd care to educate yourself.
Please note, VD, the part of the law that states, "great bodily harm". That goes back to what I said, that this case may hinge on the state of Zimmerman's mind, when he was being assaulted by Martin. And, the idea that Zimmerman was being assaulted is far more credible than the idea that he wasn't. There is a witness to that.
Dainbramage, just stop. It's pathetic.
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 04/16/2012 - 9:30pm.
Try getting out of CT sometime. Try taking a CHL class here in TX. That will answer all your stupid questions.
Again, if someone throws a punch at me, I do not know what he intends to do. Nor do i know if he is armed or not. (And neither do you, so shut up.) So according to the law, I have a right to self-defense, and no duty to retreat.
I have no idea what else you want me to conclude other than you are very angry that Zimmerman wasn't either summarily executed or subject to an interrogation so severe that Beria would cringe. Maybe you have sexual fantasies of stuffing Zimmerman's testicles in a file drawer and then slamming the drawer shut over and over and over again, all the while screaming at Zimmerman to confess, who knows? Like it or not, this is the perception you are giving here, and you need to learn to stop whining about it.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
So, everytime someone takes a swing at you
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 8:02pm.
You shoot them dead. end of story?
Think, dainbramage (maybe too much to ask)
Submitted by Unsane on Wed, 04/18/2012 - 8:32pm.
If I'm at a place where I have a legal right to be. Cops show up, investigate, take a statement, and if they find my story holds water, I walk.
Get out into the real world. If someone throws a punch at me, dummy, I have no freaking clue what he is about. I know northerners like you get really uptight about things, but here in TX, it isn't very common that people just randomly assault each other.
Nor am I going to just say "Shoot! I can't pull out my gun until he does! I'll be a gentleman and swing back only!" What, dainbramage? If someone pulls out a knife, I can't respond except with a knife? If someone pulls out a golf club, I can't respond unless I have a golf club?
What a delusional world you live in.
You wonder why crime in TX has fallen since CHLs were instituted? Why, because now, the bad guys and stupid people that you hold in such high regard have to THINK: "Gee, before I pick a fight with X, I wonder: is he armed?" It's called "deterrence". Dainbramage, "deterrence" is - forget it.
I like knowing that if I am out and about, there are lines people cannot cross. If that concept bothers you so much, just stay up in CT. Don't visit TX. Sure as all hell stay the hell away from AK.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Don't know about Unsane
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 1:28am.
(Although I have to think he might agree with me, fellow Texan and all), but yes. I'm getting too old to take an ass whipping, from anyone, anywhere.
Even from a little old lady thrashing you with her purse?
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 04/21/2012 - 1:43am.
"Chew on some lead, granny!"
:-)
Jer
That is considered breaking & entering in Texas.
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 04/16/2012 - 9:42pm.
Texas law considers a motor vehicle to be the same as one's home with respect to the "castle" provision of self-defense laws. Breaking into someone's car, even on public roads, is the same as breaking into their home under that doctrine. The use of deadly force is permitted in Texas in self-defense in nearly every case. That means the idiot glass-breaking road rager would legally be considered the same as someone who entered your home without permission. Two barrels of a 12-gauge or a few rounds from a full clip. As long as the perpetrator is not shot while trying to exit the premises, e.g. in the back, it's legal and criminal and civil action are precluded as the individual was killed during the commission of a felony.
Most states have that same "castle" provision, meaning anyone who invades your home can legally be subjected to deadly force as the invasion is in and of itself a violent act and threatening to life and/or property.
That's the law even in the liberal Northeast.
"I dont want people unable to
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 9:46pm.
"I dont want people unable to defend themselves,but I do want those who use deadly force for no reason to be brought to justice."
Gosh, glad you waited to have all the facts before making your "judgement".
Judgement?
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:02pm.
Thats not my job.
Seems you've been doing the judging
Submitted by Radical1979 on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:05pm.
since this whole thing started.
PLEASE
Submitted by Unsane on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:21pm.
YOU are the one with ALL the answers in this case, and thus are very angry that the Sanford PD didn't summarily execute Zimmerman. You are THE most judgmental poster on this site!
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Disgusting language
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:47pm.
I write "arrest," and you read "execute." You don't care for facts, or for a discussion. You just want to be disgusting and inflammatory.
And you, VD, are looking for a ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:57pm.
discussion?
Your problem is you post your bullshit opinion and your personal beliefs as fact, then get your knickers in a twist because common sense and legalities are slapped upside your head by those who disagree with your crap.
You are quite the crybaby, as well.
MD
Tell me what you take issue with
Submitted by Vandamage2000 on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:33pm.
Then we can discuss it. Instead, you just hurl insults.
I hurl insults, VD, because you are a ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 11:59pm.
simple-minded liberal tool who is either too stupid to see the inanity inherent in your posts; or you are well aware of what you post as a means of being an irritant.
Rather than being the type of irritant, like a piece of sand in an oyster that eventually results in a gem known as a pearl; you are an irritant that is known as a hemorrhoid.
You are a pain in the ass, and my 'insults' are the typed equivalent of scratching for relief.
MD
Bwahahahahahahahahahaaaaa
Submitted by BEGRUNT on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 12:06am.
Well said MD!!! Well said!!
"A nation can suffer it's fool's, but cannot survive the traitor"
Cicero
Please
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 04/16/2012 - 9:36pm.
You are not remotely interested in real discussion anyway. Why do you think you merit any sort of respect here?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Here is what is at issue
Submitted by Trix Rabbit on Mon, 04/16/2012 - 9:50pm.
Here is what is at issue Venereal. No matter what anyone says or quotes, you take it upon yourself to astound and amaze us with your scant knowledge of police procedure and tort law.
Your attempts to show your mental dexterity only shows one thing: You are a white-guilt-ridden, candy-assed, phony.
For the MSM: In your pomp and all your glory, you're a poorer man than me. As you lick the boots of death born out of fear.
Ian Anderson "Wind up"
Dainbramage
Submitted by Unsane on Mon, 04/16/2012 - 9:37pm.
You write "arrest", and you MEAN execute. This is because YOU FAILED BASIC CIVICS.
The police cannot - CANNOT - arrest people willy-nilly. You simply cannot get that through your very think head. If the police arrest someone without charge, a lot of people are going to lose their jobs and licenses permanently, and the community to which the cops are attached will go to the poorhouse.
Quit whining about the perception we have of you.
And please STFU about being disgusting and inflammatory when that is your ENTIRE purpose for being on NB. Quit accusing other people of what you routinely do. You are aware that people in glass houses should not throw stones, are you not?
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Yet you continue to do
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 10:50pm.
Yet you continue to do it.
Sad.
MSM
Submitted by Jersey Girl on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 2:02pm.
All the msm takes it's cue from the racist in chief and his acolyte, al-sharpton.
It was just too good to pass up.
Submitted by NeoKong on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 2:29pm.
White racist guns down poor little black who was just skipping along with a bag of candy because of his hatred for black people.
Hurry up and get that on the airwaves.
They'll fill in the details later.
That's it, almost verbatim
Submitted by HockeyKid on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 4:02pm.
as a friend of mine related the story to me two weeks ago. It was the first I'd heard of it, and I was appalled (not to mention quite a bit suspicious that it could be so cut-and-dried).
Turns out I was right, eh?
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Stupid things like "truth"
Submitted by LinTaylor on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 3:00pm.
Stupid things like "truth" and "reality" don't matter; Zimmerman's actually of Latin descent? Irrelevant. He helps disadvantaged youths? Not important. Martin was apparently a pot-smoking, womanizing thug? Who cares? As far as Liberals are concerned, a snarling Klansman executed a cherubic black honor student then danced a jig on the boy's corpse. That's their story and they're sticking to it.
Undoctored vs Doctored
Submitted by ZuccoZoid on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 3:50pm.
This site compares the actual vs the MSM doctored info:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/04/05/update-6-trayvon-martin-t...
Wolf Blitzer Did "Coon" Report On April 03 - CNN Pulls Links
Submitted by zeestephen on Thu, 04/12/2012 - 4:16pm.
NewsBusters has focused completely on the 21 March CNN report by Gary Tuchman.
CNN doubled down on this story on 03 April when Wolf Blitzer, who I think was filling in for Anderson Cooper, did the same report with an audio engineer identified as a CNN employee.
Blitzer did this report AFTER the editing scandal broke at NBC.
CNN walked their story back just 36 hours after they doubled down with Blitzer.
I did a CNN site search for Blitzer's story two days later on 05 April.
There were multiple references to Tuchman's story on 21 March.
There were ZERO references to Blitzer's story on 03 April.
To my eye, this indicated that CNN was in full Lawsuit Avoidance mode just 36 hours after Blitzer's report.
Trayvon Martin and the New Black Panther Party
Submitted by berlet98 on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 2:26am.
Trayvon Martin and the New Black Panther Party
Now that Florida special prosecutor Angela Corey has met with and prayed with the family of Trayvon Martin followed by Corey’s decision to arrest George Zimmerman, jail him, and charge him with second degree murder, it would seem that the inflamed passions that have surrounded the case would come to an end, at least until Zimmerman is tried.
Don’t bet on it.
Thursday morning on the “Today” show, Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton, made her own, surprising announcement saying unequivocably, “I believe it was an accident, I believe that it just got out of control and he [Zimmerman] couldn’t turn the clock back.”
That was a fair enough assessment.
By Thursday afternoon, Fulton had retracted her statement and declared with an equivalent lack of equivocation on MSNBC-TV that “George Zimmerman stalked my son and murdered him in cold blood.”
An “accident” is a far cry from charges of stalking and cold-blooded murder.
That monumental reversal leads one to suspect Trayvon’s mother either experienced a sea change in her opinion over the course of a few hours or someone sat her down and told her to shut up about accidents if she wanted to hang Zimmerman and maybe earn a few bucks by suing him, the city of Sanford, the Sanford P.D., and anyone else even remotely connected with the case.
A cynic might think the latter scenarios were more probable rather than a considered reassessment of an accidental shooting.
Of course, even the lawless New Black Panther Party changes its mind.
Michelle Williams, the NBPP “chief of staff,” also reversed course in a matter of a few days. . . (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=21462.)
Berlet, mom "changing her mind" is reminiscent
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 9:41pm.
of Dad changing his mind about who he heard on the audio recording. He told the police that it was not his son screaming. Then after he left the PD, and, more than likely, conversed with the family lawyer, he changed his story. Sounds like the same advisor sat both of them down and told them to let the lawyer, or Jax-hmmmm or the guy in the pompadour hair do the talking.
UpNorth...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 10:41pm.
FYI, berlet does not reside here and will not interact with you. He only drops by to spam excerpts from his personal blog and bait the gullible to visit his website.
Jer
Was that a ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 11:41pm.
squawk?
MD
Thanks, Jer, I wasn't aware of that.
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 04/14/2012 - 8:39pm.
Along with the "like" button we need, could we get a font color for spammers? Or, here's a thought, why don't the mods ban them?
Sorta...and I almost added a PS to alert you.
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 04/13/2012 - 11:56pm.
I decided my obligation to provide a public service to UpNorth and the NewsBusters community superseded my stated intentions to squelch the squawking.
Jer
edit: Dang it, Matthew. I guess I'm destined to misplace posts for the rest of my life.
Jer ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 04/14/2012 - 2:27am.
You crack me up. :o)
MD
p.s
If life was fair, some days you get the bear; some days the bear gets you - but these doggone computers always win.