Travon Martin - Liberals versus Conservatives

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You have a rather warped perspective. The 911 tape where Zimmerman said Martin was black? Deceptively edited to remove the context. Zimmerman was asked a question about Martin's race, probably to help police identify him, and Zimmerman responded. By removing this context, the press (not the police) created an impression that Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin when the actual content of the call indicates nothing of the sort. ....

For the record, one source on one broadcast station is hardly the collective "press".

I was certainly aware of the whole exchange and didn't even recall that the 911 operator question was left out of any account. Lot's of other stuff was left out of the 911 recordings that were broadcast, but the operator's question wasn't typically left out.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

For the record, one source on one broadcast station is hardly the collective "press".

I call Bu... err... Bagdikian.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by aggle-rithm

This closely mirrors my own viewpoint. Here's how I reacted to the incident.

At first, I was outraged. The only thing I found more outrageous than GZ's actions was the failure of the authorities to arrest him.

Then, I looked a little more closely at the evidence. While I think GZ acted irresponsibly, I no longer think it's the open-and-shut case I thought it was.

The thing is, I HATE having to take GZ's side on this, because I really WANTED him to be guilty. Not because of any racial issues, but because he struck me as being the type of person I absolutely despise: The power-hungry control-freak bully.

Also, I don't want to be seen as having made a knee-jerk reaction in deciding which side to take. In my mind, I'm just accepting the most likely explanation based on the evidence at hand, which is that there isn't sufficient cause to charge GZ with a crime.
Others may have trouble seeing it that way.

This pretty much describes me to a tee too. Although technically we aren't really "taking GZ's side". Heck once all the evidence comes out I may think the caricature of him above is accurate after all.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Xulld

Are you trying to refute that the lack of details make this case more interesting to the media? Or that we have all the details? Or that the elements I presented are not factual? Or that I was making some claim of knowledge about the critical events revolving around the actual struggle? My only point was that with missing information this is a juicier story than with all of the information. Make a go of refuting that, it should be interesting.

As follows:

Originally Posted by Xulld

The lack of details is what makes this a good sell by the media, with more details it becomes pretty typical, dude is attacked cries for help, no one helps, he shoots attacker in struggle for gun. News at 11.

I look forward to the evidence you present for those claims, followed by another lecture on how we can't make any unsubstantiated assertions.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

A good example of the press on this issue is that almost every outlet in the country plastered the headlines and airwaves with "experts say voice screaming is not George Zimmerman". Not one of those outlets as far as I have seen contacted scientists to ask them if the claims of these experts were reputable. In fact most of them didn't even point out that some of the eyewitness testimony says otherwise.

Unlike some though, I don't think this has so much with the media presenting a "liberal" viewpoint as I think it has to do with the fact that the media sucks and above all else always seek to create controversy and inflammatory headlines. Which in turn equal dollars because that sells.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

A good example of the press on this issue is that almost every outlet in the country plastered the headlines and airwaves with "experts say voice screaming is not George Zimmerman". Not one of those outlets as far as I have seen contacted scientists to ask them if the claims of these experts were reputable. In fact most of them didn't even point out that some of the eyewitness testimony says otherwise.

Unlike some though, I don't think this has so much with the media presenting a "liberal" viewpoint as I think it has to do with the fact that the media sucks and above all else always seek to create controversy and inflammatory headlines. Which in turn equal dollars because that sells.

You make baby Hearst smile up in Heaven...

[The Greater Fool]

Originally Posted by Sabretooth

My opinion? Race shouldn't even come into play.

You have GZ, exiting his car against recommendation. This one step alone puts the responsibility onto GZ's shoulders.

Race aside, it was GZ's fault it reached the climax it did.


Does that make me a Liberal or Conservative?

(Bolding mine)

Had GZ ignored recomendation/instruction and exited his car, and events then transpired where TM killed GZ, would TM likewise be innocent because of GZs initial action? Of course not.

The instruction to stay in the car was the safest (legally for 911, and probably for GZ) that could be offered. That the suspect might disappear never to be found is likely, but better that the unlikely worst things that could happen, like one or both people getting hurt.

Like many of us, GZ ignored this "safest" suggestion for a more likely "better" outcome... being able to point out the suspect to police when they arrived. Had this likely outcome occurred, we wouldn't have heard a thing. Honestly, many of us don't take the "safest" out, we try to acheive the "best outcom" we can in reasonable caution, most times it works out, sometimes not.

There is another thread here where a fireman is being taken to task for NOT ingoring the most "safe" approach while (not) saving a mine shaft victim. Can't win either way.

GZ getting out of his car did not start an unstoppable chain of events that ended in TM's death. There were other decissions by both guys before the trigger was pulled, that made differently would have changed things. Perhaps if TM had simply run directly home the confrontation would have been avoided, so is it TMs fault for not running home?

Seems one draws the line where one wants to place guilt.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

...
Unlike some though, I don't think this has so much with the media presenting a "liberal" viewpoint as I think it has to do with the fact that the media sucks and above all else always seek to create controversy and inflammatory headlines. Which in turn equal dollars because that sells.

It's what information commodity sellers sell. Facts aren't nearly as valuable a commodity.

Unless one recognizes the value of publicly funded investigative journalism one should not expect to find it in Libertopia.

There are a number of really good indie media sources, btw. I donate to a couple of them on a regular basis. Democracy Now, Mother Jones and The Nation are good examples.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool

....
Seems one draws the line where one wants to place guilt.

Wants or perceives? I believe the latter is more applicable and precise.

[Xulld]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

As follows:


I look forward to the evidence you present for those claims, followed by another lecture on how we can't make any unsubstantiated assertions.

I made no claim about that narrative being any more factual than the one the media is presenting, my only claim was that less information makes for a better story.

Compare this to your posts, do we see conclusions and statements of knowledge being made?

Truth is its convenient to label anyone that does not agree with you as supporting Zimmerman, or even supporting a different narrative. I simply have not done that, and have said many times that conclusions are premature. The story itself is just not that compelling with all the facts, so media only gives you the juicy bits which create controversy. That the general media engages in this tactic is completely uncontroversial.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool

(Bolding mine)

Had GZ ignored recomendation/instruction and exited his car, and events then transpired where TM killed GZ, would TM likewise be innocent because of GZs initial action? Of course not.

The instruction to stay in the car was the safest (legally for 911, and probably for GZ) that could be offered. That the suspect might disappear never to be found is likely, but better that the unlikely worst things that could happen, like one or both people getting hurt.

Like many of us, GZ ignored this "safest" suggestion for a more likely "better" outcome... being able to point out the suspect to police when they arrived. Had this likely outcome occurred, we wouldn't have heard a thing. Honestly, many of us don't take the "safest" out, we try to acheive the "best outcom" we can in reasonable caution, most times it works out, sometimes not.

There is another thread here where a fireman is being taken to task for NOT ingoring the most "safe" approach while (not) saving a mine shaft victim. Can't win either way.

GZ getting out of his car did not start an unstoppable chain of events that ended in TM's death. There were other decissions by both guys before the trigger was pulled, that made differently would have changed things. Perhaps if TM had simply run directly home the confrontation would have been avoided, so is it TMs fault for not running home?

Seems one draws the line where one wants to place guilt.

Please stop inserting this type of flawless logic into the case .

I asked someone in the other thread if we kept every element identical but changed TM to HC (hardcore criminal) and HC attacked GZ and beat him and GZ shot him in self-defense (admittedly GZ's version of events), would he still be arguing it was all GZ's fault because he set the chain in motion by following. He said yes.

I then asked him if that means he thinks it's OK for HC to attack and beat GZ. He never answered that question, probably because at that point he realized that saying yes it's OK is the logical conclusion to that absurd argument. After all, if you say no it's not OK to attack*, it means you're admitting that GZ was not in fact responsible for everything that took place afterwards, even if he made a questionably decision at the beginning.

*Again I do not assert that GZ's version of being attacked is accurate, merely that IF it is, it's nonsensical to argue "well it's still all his fault because he set it all in motion".

[The Greater Fool]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Wants or perceives? I believe the latter is more applicable and precise.

Desire and perception in forming an opinion I don't believe are seperable.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

It's interesting but not surprising how most folks seem to be divided along political lines on this case. The majority of those convinced that GZ is a murderer and racist seem to be overwhelmingly liberal.

The majority of those calling for restraint and convinced all of the facts should be looked at and that GZ may not be who he is being made out to be seem to be overwhelmingly conservative.

Of course there are various shades of grey between those two opinions, but that's the way it seems to pretty much break down. I don't think the above is merely opinion, I think it could be easily quantified. All you need to do is look at how the various liberal and conservative publications are writing about the issue.

Anyhow, I wonder if the above breakdown is as constant on JREF? I'd be interested in know where people arguing in the big TM thread fall as far as their political affiliations and see how that coincides with their position.

I'll go first and welcome anyone else willing to volunteer. Most of my political positions would be considered strongly liberal and I've never voted for a Republican candidate in my life. Based on the very initial reports from the media I certainly fell into the "let's arrest this murdering racist now" category. But for me the turning point was when I started to see people post on Facebook asking their friends to sign petitions demanding GZ's arrest. At that point my feeling was "wait a minute, I'm willing to rant about this guy on Facebook, but I don't actually know enough to start demanding his arrest, they've hired a new DA now, let her do her work and complete her investigation".

From there I started to read more about the case and the more I read the more concerned I started to become about the narrative that was being spun based on little evidence. Now I don't feel as though I have enough information to know whether he should be charged, or what he should be charged with and am waiting for more evidence to come out.

Anyhow, I'd be interested in know where others fall in terms of their summary position and political affiliation, for those willing to share.

The correct answer is there isn't enough information. Barring discovery of a video or an eyewitness who saw the important part from end to end, there is no way to know for sure (and even then...)

Everything else is specuation. You don't want to auhorize a government to punish people based on speculation -- that hasn't worked out so well historically. So you don't even if there is an occasional miscarriage of justice.

Disclaimer: I am of a libertarian position, often inaccurately associated with political conservatism, but only because of an overlap in economics. However the economics are no arrived at because of conservative principal, but because of a concept of freedom, as the liberalest of the liberal accept in any realm except economics. I am not the confused one, dear reader.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Xulld

I made no claim about that narrative being any more factual than the one the media is presenting, my only claim was that less information makes for a better story.

Compare this to your posts, do we see conclusions and statements of knowledge being made?

Truth is its convenient to label anyone that does not agree with you as supporting Zimmerman, or even supporting a different narrative. I simply have not done that, and have said many times that conclusions are premature. The story itself is just not that compelling with all the facts, so media only gives you the juicy bits which create controversy. That the general media engages in this tactic is completely uncontroversial.

So instead of substation for your claims, you offer denial, deflection, and equivocation.

Suit yourself. The unsubstantiated claims you made are right there for all to read and draw their own conclusions about what biases they may indicate.

[Xulld]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

So instead of substation for your claims, you offer denial, deflection, and equivocation.

Suit yourself. The unsubstantiated claims you made are right there for all to read and draw their own conclusions about what biases they may indicate.

Yup they sure are. It is most assuredly true that you and everyone else for that matter will see what they want to see.

I was making a comparison between narratives and high-lighting why one is more attractive to the media. Take that as I offer it, or twist it to suite your agenda. It is your prerogative.

One thing you will not find, is me doing the same. Tell me what you mean, I dont care to play these games, thanks.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool

Desire and perception in forming an opinion I don't believe are seperable.

That's easy to disprove. I desire to win the lottery I perceive I will not.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool

There is another thread here where a fireman is being taken to task for NOT ingoring the most "safe" approach while (not) saving a mine shaft victim. Can't win either way.

Martin had not committed a crime. There was no clear and present danger. Please to explain how the two are analogous? If protecting life is the priority and the firefighter is a professional and Zimmerman isn't I just can't see your point.

[The Greater Fool]

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool

Desire and perception in forming an opinion I don't believe are seperable.

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

That's easy to disprove. I desire to win the lottery I perceive I will not.

Your perception, technically, is that you have not and probably will not [win].

Combining those two, your desire to win, and your percption that it is extremely unlikely, you have formed an opinion on playing. With similar conditions, people chose to play, others not.

You really want to argue that desire and perception don't both affect opinion?

[The Greater Fool]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Martin had not committed a crime. There was no clear and present danger. Please to explain how the two are analogous? If protecting life is the priority and the firefighter is a professional and Zimmerman isn't I just can't see your point.

A basic comparison:

GZ chose not to take the safest recommendation, and it ended in another person's death. People attack because he didn't take the safest option.

Fireman chose to take the safest recommendation, and it ended in another person's death. People attack because he did take the safest option.

If the comparison is not obvious, I've done my best.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool

A basic comparison:

Fails.

Quote:

GZ chose not to take the safest recommendation, and it ended in another person's death. People attack because he didn't take the safest option.

Weighing all factors Zimmerman should have taken the safest option.

• There was no likely harm due to taking the safest action.
• Zimmerman was not a professional and not trained to mitigate the harm of a confrontation.

Quote:

Fireman chose to take the safest recommendation, and it ended in another person's death. People attack because he did take the safest option.

Again, we need to weigh the factors.

• There WAS likely harm due to taking the safest action.
• The fireman WAS a professional.

Quote:

If the comparison is not obvious, I've done my best.

The comparison is absurd on its face.

[Xulld]

Quote:

Martin had not committed a crime. There was no clear and present danger.

Hindsight, its a wonderful tool, except when you forget that it is hindsight.

[The Greater Fool]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Fails.

Weighing all factors Zimmerman should have taken the safest option.

• There was no likely harm due to taking the safest action.
• Zimmerman was not a professional and not trained to mitigate the harm of a confrontation.

Again, we need to weigh the factors.

• There WAS likely harm due to taking the safest action.
• The fireman WAS a professional.

The comparison is absurd on its face.

I love your declarations of Fail and absurd. I'll note those OPINIONS, thank you for sharing.

It's simple to weigh the options knowing the results now. In GZ's case, I don't think a reasonable person (assuming I am one) would think trying to keep an eye on TM would have the results it did. In the vast majority of such situations, I imagine the result is the GZ-character would point out the TM-character when the Police arrived.

As for the fireman, they were not professional mine shaft extractors, so in this regard, they were NOT professionals at this task. Risking MORE death, likely untrained firemen, to save one person is poor math, and against that departments policy, apparently.

In GZ's estimation, life was not at risk when he started, so he acted in what he believed a cautious manner. In the fireman case, life was at risk, but action would have knowingly placed still more life at imminent risk. Yet, you discount them in the wrong direction.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool

In GZ's case, I don't think a reasonable person (assuming I am one) would think trying to keep an eye on TM would have the results it did.

• Zimmerman believed Martin was suspicious sufficiently to call the police.
• Zimmerman knew he (Zimmerman) was armed.

Reasonable person standard (assuming I am one) is that Zimmerman's actions were A.) Unnecessary. B.) Entailing some degree of risk. C.) Reckless.

Quote:

In GZ's estimation, life was not at risk...

Hence the need for a fire arm.

[The Greater Fool]

Originally Posted by RandFan

• Zimmerman believed Martin was suspicious sufficiently to call the police.
• Zimmerman knew he (Zimmerman) was armed.

Reasonable person standard (assuming I am one) is that Zimmerman's actions were A.) Unnecessary. B.) Entailing some degree of risk. C.) Reckless.

Hence the need for a fire arm.

I guess reasonable people can differ on what is reasonable.

The risk of keeping tabs on a suspicious person from a distance seems small to me. The flip side is that if I don't keep tabs, and it is a criminal, that they may harm someone else they encounter, or commit some other crime. Isn't neighborhood watch an "observe and report" thing, and is that not apparently what GZ set out to do?

I can't argue with the idea that GZ MAY have been bolder due to being armed. He may not have. However, you make it sound like GZ had his gun sitting in the seat, and he grabbed it then openned the door to find TM. I gather that GZ was already wearing the holstered gun, so it went where he went, without thought. So he had a gun trying to keep tabs on TM, and he had a gun when he told the little kids to stop running aroung the pool (or whatever trivial things he did), and managed not to shoot any of them wantonly.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool

A basic comparison:

GZ chose not to take the safest recommendation, and it ended in another person's death. People attack because he didn't take the safest option.

Fireman chose to take the safest recommendation, and it ended in another person's death. People attack because he did take the safest option.

If the comparison is not obvious, I've done my best.

Zimmerman didn't need to take any action. Martin had done nothing wrong except earn the unwarranted suspicion of some neighborhood watch bully.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool

Your perception, technically, is that you have not and probably will not [win].

Combining those two, your desire to win, and your percption that it is extremely unlikely, you have formed an opinion on playing. With similar conditions, people chose to play, others not.

You really want to argue that desire and perception don't both affect opinion?

You don't seem to recognize "want" has a voluntary component in it while "perceive" may or may not have a voluntary component. One's desires can indeed affect perception, but they are not the same and desire does not always affect perception.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool

I guess reasonable people can differ on what is reasonable.

The risk of keeping tabs on a suspicious person from a distance seems small to me. The flip side is that if I don't keep tabs, and it is a criminal, that they may harm someone else they encounter, or commit some other crime. Isn't neighborhood watch an "observe and report" thing, and is that not apparently what GZ set out to do?

People who have guns should bear some responsibility to understand the potential for harm in having a gun. If Zimmerman had any understanding at all about the rules of neighborhood watch then he ought to know he was violating their rules by having the gun in the first place. This is where I really have a problem. Zimmerman's defenders want to portray him as simply being a dutiful neighborhood watch volunteer. Never mind he ignored their rules.

Quote:

I can't argue with the idea that GZ MAY have been bolder due to being armed. He may not have. However, you make it sound like GZ had his gun sitting in the seat, and he grabbed it then openned the door to find TM. I gather that GZ was already wearing the holstered gun, so it went where he went, without thought. So he had a gun trying to keep tabs on TM, and he had a gun when he told the little kids to stop running aroung the pool (or whatever trivial things he did), and managed not to shoot any of them wantonly.

Being armed carries with it responsbility. One of those responsibilities is knowing you have a firearm. I don't claim that GZ grabbed his gun. I claim that GZ failed to understand the responsibility of being on a neighborhood watch and the responsibilities of having a firearm. I think he failed both big time.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Xulld

Hindsight, its a wonderful tool, except when you forget that it is hindsight.

Wrong. GZ did not observe TM commit any crime or do anything criminal. Having a belief that a young black male walking through a neighborhood could be up to something is not the same as believing he had committed a crime. No hindsight needed to know TM had not been seen committing a crime. Paranoia and profiling are not analogous to foresight.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by RandFan

People who have guns should bear some responsibility to understand the potential for harm in having a gun. ....

Being armed carries with it responsbility. ...

This ^. That's what the charge of reckless or negligent homicide is all about.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

This ^. That's what the charge of reckless or negligent homicide is all about.

Thank you. When we are talking about carrying a gun, hindsight shouldn't figure into it on such a basic level. You can't bring people back from the dead. Oops, I'm sorry doesn't **** ing cut it. Martin is dead. I'm damn sure Zimmerman is second guessing his decisions. He shouldn't have to. If you have a firearm and want to play superhero then fine, I can't stop you, but pleas for the love of all that is holy, take some time out of your busy self appointed gunslinger routine and find out how the hell to properly conduct yourself so you are less likely to kill someone who was not engaged in a crime. Is that too damn much to ask? I mean seriously. Look, even if GZ is entirely innocent of everything he is grossly guilty of public stupidity. Don't give me this hindsight is 20/20 apologetic bull ****. Martin is dead, "oops, my bad" doesn't god damn cut it. And I don't give a flying **** if TM was a 6'3" tall drug dealer.

[johnny karate]

So now we're comparing Zimmerman's actions to those of a firefighter? Really? Why? Did comparing him to an astronaut or a war hero seem a tad much?

Even in the best light, Zimmerman was a yahoo running around with a gun doing something he had no business doing. (And the fact that gun advocates defend him is laughable. It's guys like him that give them a bad name.)

To compare his actions to those of a firefighter is not only an insult to firefighters, it's an insult to rational thinking people.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You have a rather warped perspective. The 911 tape where Zimmerman said Martin was black? Deceptively edited to remove the context. Zimmerman was asked a question about Martin's race, probably to help police identify him, and Zimmerman responded. By removing this context, the press (not the police) created an impression that Zimmerman was racially profiling Martin when the actual content of the call indicates nothing of the sort. Even in regards to what Zimmerman knew, the call actually indicates that he did not know Martin's race definitively, but was only guessing it.

Regardless of whether or not he was asked, Zimmerman clearly offered that Martin was black. Chief Lee clearly stated that Zimmerman did not know what Martin's race was. Those are the plain facts. I don't see how "the press" screwed this one up, nor have I seen any evidence that they used lossy compression on much of anything.

[curi0us]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Thank you. When we are talking about carrying a gun, hindsight shouldn't figure into it on such a basic level. You can't bring people back from the dead. Oops, I'm sorry doesn't **** ing cut it. Martin is dead. I'm damn sure Zimmerman is second guessing his decisions. He shouldn't have to. If you have a firearm and want to play superhero then fine, I can't stop you, but pleas for the love of all that is holy, take some time out of your busy self appointed gunslinger routine and find out how the hell to properly conduct yourself so you are less likely to kill someone who was not engaged in a crime. Is that too damn much to ask? I mean seriously. Look, even if GZ is entirely innocent of everything he is grossly guilty of public stupidity.

No. Then George was the victim of a vicious assault and since he only used his weapon after screaming for help over a minute while being beaten it is incredibly sick to try to make this case a political football. Before people preached about guns or SYG they should have figured out what really happened.

George's words on the scene to the police were, "I kept yelling for help, but nobody would help me." The police have multiple witnesses supporting George's account and 911 backrground audio of the last 44 seconds of those screams. People only became emotionally invested in this case because they didn't realize that. There was a massive campaign of misinformation to twist the facts to make it look like the screams on the 911 call were Trayvon when they were really George. Along similar lines George was falsely stated to have used a racial slur and had his 911 call edited to make him look racist. In order to increase the anger directed at George a very obviously overly young photo was used to portray Trayvon as a "liitle boy" while George's size was increased to "250lbs" when fact Trayvon was significantly taller and probably had a larger lean body mass. All those lies were needed for a purpose, there is an agenda here. The meme that GZ may be "entirely innocent" but still deserves ridicule is in service to that agenda.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by curi0us

No. Then George was the victim of a vicious assault and since he only used his weapon after screaming for help over a minute while being beaten it is incredibly sick to try to make this case a political football. Before people preached about guns or SYG they should have figured out what really happened.

George's words on the scene to the police were, "I kept yelling for help, but nobody would help me." The police have multiple witnesses supporting George's account and 911 backrground audio of the last 44 seconds of those screams. People only became emotionally invested in this case because they didn't realize that. There was a massive campaign of misinformation to twist the facts to make it look like the screams on the 911 call were Trayvon when they were really George. Along similar lines George was falsely stated to have used a racial slur and had his 911 call edited to make him look racist. In order to increase the anger directed at George a very obviously overly young photo was used to portray Trayvon as a "liitle boy" while George's size was increased to "250lbs" when fact Trayvon was significantly taller and probably had a larger lean body mass. All those lies were needed for a purpose, there is an agenda here. The meme that GZ may be "entirely innocent" but still deserves ridicule is in service to that agenda.

So what did Martin do that made him deserving of being gunned down?

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by curi0us

No. Then George was the victim of a vicious assault and since he only used his weapon after screaming for help over a minute while being beaten it is incredibly sick to try to make this case a political football. Before people preached about guns or SYG they should have figured out what really happened.

George's words on the scene to the police were, "I kept yelling for help, but nobody would help me." The police have multiple witnesses supporting George's account and 911 backrground audio of the last 44 seconds of those screams. People only became emotionally invested in this case because they didn't realize that. There was a massive campaign of misinformation to twist the facts to make it look like the screams on the 911 call were Trayvon when they were really George. Along similar lines George was falsely stated to have used a racial slur and had his 911 call edited to make him look racist. In order to increase the anger directed at George a very obviously overly young photo was used to portray Trayvon as a "liitle boy" while George's size was increased to "250lbs" when fact Trayvon was significantly taller and probably had a larger lean body mass. All those lies were needed for a purpose, there is an agenda here. The meme that GZ may be "entirely innocent" but still deserves ridicule is in service to that agenda.

Well, there's no reason to believe Zimmerman was viciously attacked, and ample evidence that he provoked a fight, only one eyewitness even claims that he was yelling for help, Martin's height was reported as 6'3", and the family did release recent photos of Martin, which were widely circulated. The racial slur is still up for speculation (I never heard it), and very few people in the press described Martin as a "little boy". So yeah, everything you said is wrong.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by curi0us

No. Then George was the victim of a vicious assault and since he only used his weapon after screaming for help over a minute while being beaten it is incredibly sick to try to make this case a political football. Before people preached about guns or SYG they should have figured out what really happened.

George's words on the scene to the police were, "I kept yelling for help, but nobody would help me." The police have multiple witnesses supporting George's account and 911 backrground audio of the last 44 seconds of those screams. People only became emotionally invested in this case because they didn't realize that. There was a massive campaign of misinformation to twist the facts to make it look like the screams on the 911 call were Trayvon when they were really George. Along similar lines George was falsely stated to have used a racial slur and had his 911 call edited to make him look racist. In order to increase the anger directed at George a very obviously overly young photo was used to portray Trayvon as a "liitle boy" while George's size was increased to "250lbs" when fact Trayvon was significantly taller and probably had a larger lean body mass. All those lies were needed for a purpose, there is an agenda here. The meme that GZ may be "entirely innocent" but still deserves ridicule is in service to that agenda.

None of this has anything whatsoever to do with what I said. Even if we grant GZ's self serving story it doesn't change the fact that following TM was unnecessary, reckless and resulted in the death of TM. Blaming TM for what happened after the confrontation doesn't change the salient facts.

• GZ had a gun.
• No crime had been committed.
• There was no basis to believe that there was clear and present danger.
• The police had been called.
• Stay the **** in your vehicle or accept the consequences of your asinine decisions.

Don't give me this hindsight BS, you've got the gun. Accept some responsibility for crying in the dark.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

Regardless of whether or not he was asked, Zimmerman clearly offered that Martin was black.

What do you mean, regardless? He was specifically asked. And he responded that he looked black. Not that he was black, but that he looked black. Again, in response to a question that specifically asked him about Martin's ethnicity.

Quote:

Chief Lee clearly stated that Zimmerman did not know what Martin's race was. Those are the plain facts. I don't see how "the press" screwed this one up, nor have I seen any evidence that they used lossy compression on much of anything.

Of course you don't see how the press screwed it up, because you're determined not to look. The fact that he stated a guess about Martin's race in direct response to a question was deliberately hidden in a deceptively edited tape. NBC twisted the facts of the case to give the impression that Zimmerman was racist when there is no evidence for that. That doesn't anger you? As for the low quality video, if you haven't seen any evidence, then you simply haven't been paying attention. So start paying attention.

The screwups by the press don't prove that Zimmerman is innocent. But they do demonstrate that the case is far less cut and dried than the press originally presented it as, and they do prove that the press was massively negligent in its coverage. At least one person and NBC lost their job over the deceptive editing, and rightly so.

[crimresearch]

Well, apparently this 'Zimmerman defender' must be a neo-con, at least according to some of the ranting posters here.

Quote:

even a provocateur has the legal right to defend himself under Florida law if he can't escape and if he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, as Zimmerman claims he was.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/10/opinio...html?hpt=hp_c1

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Travis

So what did Martin do that made him deserving of being gunned down?

He ended up dead and can't mount a defense. The law favors the victor, not the victim. Had Martin been the victor (and for some white) then GZ would be deserving.

[curi0us]

Originally Posted by Travis

So what did Martin do that made him deserving of being gunned down?

If Zimmerman is "entirely innocent" then it really isn't fair to say Martin was gunned down. The circumstances of the shooting would be that the fight was started by Martin throwing a sucker punch and Zimmerman screaming for help for over a minute while losing the fight badly. Much of the fight takes place with Zimmerman on his back and Martin on top beating him. Zimmerman takes multiple blows to the head and by the time the gun is in play he is probably concussed and operating not just out of fear but also with diminished mental capacity.