http://twitchy.com/2013/07/14/awesome-g ... e-editing/ (http://twitchy.com/2013/07/14/awesome-george-zimmerman-to-resume-lawsuit-against-nbc-for-deceptive-editing/)
QuoteReaders may recall that NBC edited the audio recording to make it sound as if Zimmerman suggested race first:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black.
But the full audio showed it was the dispatcher who proactively asked Zimmerman about race:
Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
Twitchy is a ground-breaking Twitter curation site powered by a kinetic staff of social media junkies. We mine Twitter to bring you "who said what" in U.S. politics, global news, sports, entertainment, media, and breaking news 24/7. If it's news, we're on it. If it should be news, we're ahead of it. Get Twitchy and stay connected to our twire — the news wire of the 21st century.
Owner, Founder, and Chief Executive Officer: Michelle Malkin
:rollin:
Good. its about time the press get its teeth kicked in.
this trial by media shit has to stop. and purposely manipulating the recording is even worse.
the media wants money from high ratings and is willing to sensationalize everything.
now its time to pay the fiddler.
How did I know that Malkin would be one of your heroes.
Quote from: "Jmpty"Twitchy is a ground-breaking Twitter curation site powered by a kinetic staff of social media junkies. We mine Twitter to bring you "who said what" in U.S. politics, global news, sports, entertainment, media, and breaking news 24/7. If it's news, we're on it. If it should be news, we're ahead of it. Get Twitchy and stay connected to our twire — the news wire of the 21st century.
Owner, Founder, and Chief Executive Officer: Michelle Malkin
:rollin:
Are you suggesting that this report is false?
And just so we are clear, I have no idea who Michelle Malkin is and I have never read Twitchy before. It was simply at the top of the search results when I googled "Zimmerman to sue NBC", which I googled because someone mentioned it to me.
Quote from: "Jmpty"Twitchy is a ground-breaking Twitter curation site powered by a kinetic staff of social media junkies. We mine Twitter to bring you "who said what" in U.S. politics, global news, sports, entertainment, media, and breaking news 24/7. If it's news, we're on it. If it should be news, we're ahead of it. Get Twitchy and stay connected to our twire — the news wire of the 21st century.
Owner, Founder, and Chief Executive Officer: Michelle Malkin
:rollin:
I've seen this story on the Huffington post too.
Zimmerman is going to sue.
frankly I think anybody accused of a crime who gets their name plastered on TV, should sue.
make it too costly to cover peoples private affairs.
As far as I'm concerned the names of the accused and their faces should be censored until after a guilty verdict is rendered.
otherwise, I support lawsuits that takes the press to the cleaners.
Quote from: "Jmpty"How did I know that Malkin would be one of your heroes.
you talkin to me? She's not my hero.
Good luck. When Malkin and Ann Coulter are your cheerleaders, you are going to need it.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "Jmpty"Twitchy is a ground-breaking Twitter curation site powered by a kinetic staff of social media junkies. We mine Twitter to bring you "who said what" in U.S. politics, global news, sports, entertainment, media, and breaking news 24/7. If it's news, we're on it. If it should be news, we're ahead of it. Get Twitchy and stay connected to our twire — the news wire of the 21st century.
Owner, Founder, and Chief Executive Officer: Michelle Malkin
:rollin:
Are you suggesting that this report is false?
And just so we are clear, I have no idea who Michelle Malkin is and I have never read Twitchy before. It was simply at the top of the search results when I googled "Zimmerman to sue NBC", which I googled because someone mentioned it to me.
Did you see anything in my fucking post that suggested that I was saying it was false?
No Hillbilly, not you.
Quote from: "Jmpty"Did you see anything in my fucking post that suggested that I was saying it was false?
If you didn't think it was false then why did you go out of your way to trash the source?
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "Jmpty"Did you see anything in my fucking post that suggested that I was saying it was false?
If you didn't think it was false then why did you go out of your way to trash the source?
How did I trash the source? I merely identified it. Hypersensitive much?
Quote from: "Jmpty"Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "Jmpty"Did you see anything in my fucking post that suggested that I was saying it was false?
If you didn't think it was false then why did you go out of your way to trash the source?
How did I trash the source? I merely identified it. Hypersensitive much?
WHy bother identifying it then? And whats with the rofl emoticon?
No you know what? I dont give a shit. You know what you did and why.
Here's the deal. something is not true or false because Ann Coulter or Malkin agrees with it.
I don't know about you but I'm a free thinker. I come to my own conclusions. if on occasion, Ann Coulter comes to a similar conclusion, my response, is "So what?"
the frenzy of this case was spoonfed by the local media.
If you say so... I think with Ann Coulter, Ted Nugent and Newt Gingrich are cheering for a position, you really should re-evaluate that position.
Actually, lets just say all of Fox News...
Quotethe frenzy of this case was spoonfed by the local media.
And thats for the best; it's good to know that if someone kills all the witnesses, they are therefor innocent.
This is a case of defamation. I assume nobody here is enough of a fucking dickbag to support defamation just because it is being done to someone they don't like.
I agree, actually. I just don't see it going anywhere.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"This is a case of defamation. I assume nobody here is enough of a fucking dickbag to support defamation just because it is being done to someone they don't like.
I would like to agree with you, but there are people out there (not necessarily on AF) who think it is perfectly ok to defame a dickbag.
Quote from: "Shiranu"And thats for the best; it's good to know that if someone kills all the witnesses, they are therefor innocent.
your issue should be with the six jurors who heard all the evidence, all the testimony and ruled as such. Did you actually follow this case with the same intensity that they did?
Quote...your issue should be with the six jurors who heard all the evidence, all the testimony and ruled as such.
But... that IS who I am upset with?
I really don't think Zimmerman was a bad man, I don't really care what happened to him one way or another because I don't know him. What I don't like is the precedent that it sets, and that is what I have said from the beginning... that this sets a really bad example; get in a fight, and if you murder the only other witness you can just claim self defense!
but they did exactly what they had to do shir, the prosecution didn't have enough to convict the guy and they knew that one year ago.
Quote from: "aitm"but they did exactly what they had to do shir, the prosecution didn't have enough to convict the guy and they knew that one year ago.
Here is my problem with that:
http://www.alternet.org/stand-your-grou ... e-standard (http://www.alternet.org/stand-your-ground-double-standard)
QuoteA woman in Florida shoots the wall to scare off an abusive husband, harming nobody. Guess which one was acquitted? Guess which one was convicted?
On Aug. 1, 2010, Marissa Alexander, a 31-year-old mother of three, with a Master's degree and no criminal record, was working for a payroll software company in Jacksonville. She was estranged from her abusive husband, Rico Gray, and had a restraining order against him. Thinking he was not at home, she went to their former house to get some belongings. The two got into an argument. Alexander says that Gray threatened her and she feared for her life. Gray corroborates Alexander's story: "I was in a rage. I called her a whore and bitch and .?.?. I told her... if I can't have you, nobody going to have you," he said, in a deposition. When Alexander retreated into the bathroom, Gray tried to break the door. She ran into the garage, but couldn't leave because it was locked. She came back, he said, with a registered gun, which she legally owned, and yelled at him to leave. Gray recalls, "I told her... I ain't going nowhere, and so I started walking toward her...I was cursing and all that... and she shot in the air." Even Gray understands why Alexander fired the warning shot: "If my kids wouldn't have been there, I probably would have put my hand on her. Probably hit her. I got five baby mommas and I put my hands on every last one of them, except for one .... I honestly think she just didn't want me to put my hands on her anymore so she did what she feel like she have to do to make sure she wouldn't get hurt, you know. You know, she did what she had to do." And Gray admits Alexander was acting in self-defense, intending to scare and stop but not harm him: "The gun was never actually pointed at me... The fact is, you know .?.?. she never been violent toward me. I was always the one starting it." Ultimately nobody was hurt. Nobody died. On May 12, 2012, it took a jury 12 minutes to find Alexander guilty of aggravated assault. She was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
THIS is self-defense. She gets 20 years in jail after 12 minutes of discussion from the jury.
THIS is why this case pisses me the fuck off; if you are someone the jury likes, you can get away with murder. If you are someone the jury doesn't... even if you DIDN'T EVEN KILL ANYONE... congrats, you just earned yourself 20 years in jail. For LEGITIMATE self-defense.
Florida has terrible case after terrible case after terrible case from juries that, bluntly, vote based on race.
Quote from: "aitm"but they did exactly what they had to do shir, the prosecution didn't have enough to convict the guy and they knew that one year ago.
It's easy not to have enough evidence when you can't be bothered to collect it.
Quote from: "aileron"Quote from: "aitm"but they did exactly what they had to do shir, the prosecution didn't have enough to convict the guy and they knew that one year ago.
It's easy not to have enough evidence when you can't be bothered to collect it.
Much easier when the only other witness was the guy you killed.
But all that said, I blame the prosecution far more than I do lack of evidence or anything like that. And again it seems there are just two different sets of mind...
Quote from: "aitm"but they did exactly what they had to do shir, the prosecution didn't have enough to convict the guy and they knew that one year ago.
They didn't need any. The claim was self defense, an affirmative defense, so the burden of proof was on the defense. All the prosecution had to do was show up in court. That was NOT explained to the jury. (Check the transcript.) (When you assert an affirmative defense, you're guilty until proven innocent.)
Quote from: "Colanth"(When you assert an affirmative defense, you're guilty until proven innocent.)
It's true that an affirmative defense places a burden of evidence on the defense, but in a self-defense claim it's not a burden of proof. It's a lesser burden. For a self-defense claim to succeed, the defense needs to show only that there's reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was justified in using deadly force.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Marissa Alexander, a 31-year-old mother of three, with a Master's degree and no criminal record, was working for a payroll software company in Jacksonville .... (Gray the husband:) "I ain't going nowhere .... If my kids wouldn't have been there, I probably would have put my hand on her .... I got five baby mommas .... she did what she feel like she have to do .... she never been violent toward me."
Okay, sorry to sidetrack, but
what?? Ms. Alexander is a professional with a Master's, and she married...
this guy? :lol: There's no accounting for taste, I guess. :-& Can I indulge in a little victim-blaming here, please, and you won't hold it against me? The chick got involved with a moron, one who beats women and has knocked up five people, and she thought it could end well?
Also, this case is kinda opposite to your assertion that juries vote based on how likable the defendant is. In this case the defendant was a woman, a respectable productive citizen, and a mother. The "victim" was a man, a confessed beater, a dumbass, and a deadbeat dad. All the biases should have been in the lady's favor but she got convicted anyway.
But all is not lost:
QuoteAlexander's story resurfaced because it was a Stand Your Ground case, as was brought up in the Zimmerman case. Many protests by the public and by activists took place in Florida during Alexander's trial, and after, but were to no avail. Now, thanks to the Zimmerman case, there is renewed attention and hope for Alexander. A group of attorneys have come together to appeal for a another trial, along with a new petition, which is gaining momentum.
//http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/07/15/1223903/-A-Letter-From-Marissa-Alexander-The-Battered-Woman-Serving-20-Years-For-Firing-A-Warning-Shot
Good. Poor lady. Jesus. I'd bust her out of prison myself if I could.
QuoteThe chick got involved with a moron, one who beats women and has knocked up five people, and she thought it could end well?
Women do it all the time, just like men marry gold diggers all the time. Humans are pathetic when it comes to who we fall for.
QuoteAlso, this case is kinda opposite to your assertion that juries vote based on how likable the defendant is. In this case the defendant was a woman, a respectable productive citizen, and a mother. The "victim" was a man, a confessed beater, a dumbass, and a deadbeat dad. All the biases should have been in the lady's favor but she got convicted anyway.
Likable the suspect is, not necessarily the defendant. She was a productive citizen, but... she was black.
(And yes, race is still a HUGE issue with the American justice system and American culture as a whole).
QuoteAlexander's story resurfaced because it was a Stand Your Ground case, as was brought up in the Zimmerman case.
See HBA and aitm (I believe was the other)... the media making huge trials ARE useful.
If the media reports on an unfair guilty verdict I'm okay with that.
I'm not okay with the media reporting the names and faces of people accused of crimes, Or those who are declared innocent.
If you're accused of a crime that you didn't do and win in court and they let you go but the sensationalist media gets a hold of the story, then your life is ruined.
I'd rather a few guilty people be protected in their privacy than even one innocent persons name drug through the mud.
Now if a person stands trial and is declared guilty, and the media thinks its unfair, I'm okay with that because it might free said innocent person.
Today our media is all about sensationalism because it's Only about ratings. And it's ALL about ratings because it's only about money. Pure and simple....... Integrity and news reporting stopped holding hands during my lifetime. I watched it happen.
Your ratings in news - whether it is newsprint, internet or television will either land you the TIDE account or they won't.
Period.
its all the more reason I'm for stuff like PBS. They have good music shows and news.
I was just thinking today about it and in my perfect world shows like Nancy Grace would be banned.
We all agree that certain things like screaming fire in a theatre are bad and cross the line.
I think the media giving details of a private citizens trial is one of those harmful things.
what if one day you're in the wrong place at the wrong time and get accused of raping some kid and killing him. then Nancy Grace and other scumbags spend the evenings convincing half the country you are raging pedophile.
then you have your day in court and they clear you of all charges.
now half the country thinks you're a raging pedophile who killed and raped a kid and got away with it.
which means your whole life is ruined.
I'm sorry but free speech has its limits and this is the line for me.
Unless and until a person has been adjudged to be guilty, then their name and face should be censored from the public, just as we do with rape victims today.
That way if they turn out to be innocent and are cleared of all charges, they don't suffer anyway for the rest of their lives, hiding from vigilantes.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"its all the more reason I'm for stuff like PBS. They have good music shows and news.
I was just thinking today about it and in my perfect world shows like Nancy Grace would be banned.
We all agree that certain things like screaming fire in a theatre are bad and cross the line.
I think the media giving details of a private citizens trial is one of those harmful things.
what if one day you're in the wrong place at the wrong time and get accused of raping some kid and killing him. then Nancy Grace and other scumbags spend the evenings convincing half the country you are raging pedophile.
then you have your day in court and they clear you of all charges.
now half the country thinks you're a raging pedophile who killed and raped a kid and got away with it.
which means your whole life is ruined.
I'm sorry but free speech has its limits and this is the line for me.
Unless and until a person has been adjudged to be guilty, then their name and face should be censored from the public, just as we do with rape victims today.
That way if they turn out to be innocent and are cleared of all charges, they don't suffer anyway for the rest of their lives, hiding from vigilantes.
I make a yearly donation to help fund PBS. And have done so since 1980.
Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Integrity and news reporting stopped holding hands during my lifetime.
Lemme fix that for ya: Integrity and news reporting stopped holding hands during the lifetime of the Cro-Magnon.
Quote from: "Titania"Quote from: "WitchSabrina"Integrity and news reporting stopped holding hands during my lifetime.
Lemme fix that for ya: Integrity and news reporting stopped holding hands during the lifetime of the Cro-Magnon.
And which TV station did they have?
*groan*
:rollin:
No........ back long ago and far away your average TV news was something you could trust. And the newspapers? Ahh - there used to be editorials (opinion based of course) that studied the opposite view and THEN gave commentary. Not just half-cocked sensationalism bent on political agenda.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"its all the more reason I'm for stuff like PBS. They have good music shows and news.
I was just thinking today about it and in my perfect world shows like Nancy Grace would be banned.
We all agree that certain things like screaming fire in a theatre are bad and cross the line.
I think the media giving details of a private citizens trial is one of those harmful things.
what if one day you're in the wrong place at the wrong time and get accused of raping some kid and killing him. then Nancy Grace and other scumbags spend the evenings convincing half the country you are raging pedophile.
then you have your day in court and they clear you of all charges.
now half the country thinks you're a raging pedophile who killed and raped a kid and got away with it.
which means your whole life is ruined.
I'm sorry but free speech has its limits and this is the line for me.
Unless and until a person has been adjudged to be guilty, then their name and face should be censored from the public, just as we do with rape victims today.
That way if they turn out to be innocent and are cleared of all charges, they don't suffer anyway for the rest of their lives, hiding from vigilantes.
I like this post. I wish I could find the "thank a person" button to click on. I've looked a few times. I don't see it.
The media gets all high and mighty about their free speech rights. While I agree with free speech, 99 times out of 100, the media just hides behind it as an excuse print whatever slop will get it ratings, no matter how negatively it affects people's lives or the country as a whole.
the thank button is above the quote button at the bottom of each post. the tiny yellow thumbs up icon on the right in that row of tiny icons.
glad you agree.
I hope more people wake up to this and that we eventually pass laws to end this shit.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"the thank button is above the quote button at the bottom of each post. the tiny yellow thumbs up icon on the right in that row of tiny icons.
Well, I'll be damned! :-D
Quote from: "SGOS"Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"its all the more reason I'm for stuff like PBS. They have good music shows and news.
I was just thinking today about it and in my perfect world shows like Nancy Grace would be banned.
We all agree that certain things like screaming fire in a theatre are bad and cross the line.
I think the media giving details of a private citizens trial is one of those harmful things.
what if one day you're in the wrong place at the wrong time and get accused of raping some kid and killing him. then Nancy Grace and other scumbags spend the evenings convincing half the country you are raging pedophile.
then you have your day in court and they clear you of all charges.
now half the country thinks you're a raging pedophile who killed and raped a kid and got away with it.
which means your whole life is ruined.
I'm sorry but free speech has its limits and this is the line for me.
Unless and until a person has been adjudged to be guilty, then their name and face should be censored from the public, just as we do with rape victims today.
That way if they turn out to be innocent and are cleared of all charges, they don't suffer anyway for the rest of their lives, hiding from vigilantes.
I like this post. I wish I could find the "thank a person" button to click on. I've looked a few times. I don't see it.
The media gets all high and mighty about their free speech rights. While I agree with free speech, 99 times out of 100, the media just hides behind it as an excuse print whatever slop will get it ratings, no matter how negatively it affects people's lives or the country as a whole.
Not for nothing - but I didn't have the 'thank you' yellow star (lower right hand corner of post) on my tablet until I selected "See Full Site" as an option. (Which I didn't notice when using my tablet - for the longest time).
The "thank you" yellow star has always been visible on my laptop (like now) but not on my tablet. Maybe it has something to do with what equipment you use, the general settings on that equipment and what choices available?
I dunno.
Just know that I only located "See Full Site" yesterday...........and finally the site looks the same on my tablet as it does on my laptop.
derrr
I'm computer illiterate remember? lol :rollin:
I finally found it. It was there all the time. I figured it was, but it's not like it jumps out at you. Even after Hillbilly told me where to look, I didn't see it right away. I was looking at one of my own posts because I thought that was the most likely place (respond and thank), probably within the editor itself, but all I saw was a "report abuse" icon. Well, it only shows up under someone else's posts, which does make sense, unless you feel the need to thank yourself for your own posts. :-D
Once again.. I don't care. Imagine that.
This could be nothing more than a race issue.
While I agree in principle regarding the media, and the sensationalization (Is that a word?) of these kind of things, I think I'd be a little more concerned about arrests and trials carried out in secret. That would be bad.
At the very least, I think in some other countries the name of a suspect is withheld until "he" is actually indicted. This would help some. Its bad enough being accused and then making bail and still loose your job and house and who knows what else because you are at this time just "accused".
99% of all trials are never heard of. People go to prison all the time with not one word of press coverage. This one was picked up by the wire services because it made for good theatrics and the national press picked up on it. End stop.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"99% of all trials are never heard of.
Yep, if every one of these were reported, we would soon get bored. It's been cherry picked for emotional appeal and to manipulate our emotional responses. But it's not like a murder trial only happens once every three years.
Quote from: "Jmpty"While I agree in principle regarding the media, and the sensationalization (Is that a word?) of these kind of things, I think I'd be a little more concerned about arrests and trials carried out in secret. That would be bad.
I dunno. Whats worse? The chance of a corrupted trail process in a private proceeding, or the certainty of a corrupted process in the court of media controlled public opinion? In this case if the media hadn't gotten a hardon over the prospect of stirring shit up for ratings, there might not have even been a trial. Instead, despite being found not guilty in a proper trial Zimmerman will still be seen as a racist murderer to millions of people. So he still has been dealt an enormous penalty despite submitting to the justice system and being exonerated.
To me, thats wrong and it is completely the fault of the media. Even if you win, you lose. Even if you aren't guilty, you're still guilty. Forever.
And some of you might not have a problem with it because you think Zimmerman should be in prison right now. But what happens next time when the media does this to someone you don't believe is guilty?
Quote from: "aitm"At the very least, I think in some other countries the name of a suspect is withheld until "he" is actually indicted. This would help some. Its bad enough being accused and then making bail and still loose your job and house and who knows what else because you are at this time just "accused".
I've had an education from being a member here reading about people getting their lives ruined in bad press. I'd never given that the weight before but reading opinions here (over several months+) has given me pause and helped me realize that sometimes it's grossly unfair how people's lives are ruined.
[spoil:9mo1ii3h]although I still want Paula Deen batter dipped and deep fried. Some deserve the bad press they get.[/spoil:9mo1ii3h]
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "Jmpty"While I agree in principle regarding the media, and the sensationalization (Is that a word?) of these kind of things, I think I'd be a little more concerned about arrests and trials carried out in secret. That would be bad.
I dunno. Whats worse? The chance of a corrupted trail process in a private proceeding, or the certainty of a corrupted process in the court of media controlled public opinion? In this case if the media hadn't gotten a hardon over the prospect of stirring shit up for ratings, there might not have even been a trial. Instead, despite being found not guilty in a proper trial Zimmerman will still be seen as a racist murderer to millions of people. So he still has been dealt an enormous penalty despite submitting to the justice system and being exonerated.
To me, thats wrong and it is completely the fault of the media. Even if you win, you lose. Even if you aren't guilty, you're still guilty. Forever.
And some of you might not have a problem with it because you think Zimmerman should be in prison right now. But what happens next time when the media does this to someone you don't believe is guilty?
I don't think that I would want to live somewhere where someone could be charged, tried, convicted, and imprisoned without anyone knowing about it. I would be concerned if people just started disappearing.
Quote from: "Jmpty"Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "Jmpty"While I agree in principle regarding the media, and the sensationalization (Is that a word?) of these kind of things, I think I'd be a little more concerned about arrests and trials carried out in secret. That would be bad.
I dunno. Whats worse? The chance of a corrupted trail process in a private proceeding, or the certainty of a corrupted process in the court of media controlled public opinion? In this case if the media hadn't gotten a hardon over the prospect of stirring shit up for ratings, there might not have even been a trial. Instead, despite being found not guilty in a proper trial Zimmerman will still be seen as a racist murderer to millions of people. So he still has been dealt an enormous penalty despite submitting to the justice system and being exonerated.
To me, thats wrong and it is completely the fault of the media. Even if you win, you lose. Even if you aren't guilty, you're still guilty. Forever.
And some of you might not have a problem with it because you think Zimmerman should be in prison right now. But what happens next time when the media does this to someone you don't believe is guilty?
I don't think that I would want to live somewhere where someone could be charged, tried, convicted, and imprisoned without anyone knowing about it. I would be concerned if people just started disappearing.
Heh yeah well its currently legal for the government to disappear American citizens but thats another discussion.
Virtually 100% of all cases are tried outside of the media spotlight. What I think would be for the best is if e got rid of the 'virtually' part. I wasn't advocating private trials really, I was advocating keeping the media the fuck out of proceedings, keeping information from them for at least as long as it takes for the record to be set straight in order to prevent them from reporting their fabrications as facts, etc. In essence, trials open to the public but not the media.
How would we accomplish this? Not really sure but I feel its a goal to strive for.
Quote from: "Jmpty"Twitchy is a ground-breaking Twitter curation site powered by a kinetic staff of social media junkies. We mine Twitter to bring you "who said what" in U.S. politics, global news, sports, entertainment, media, and breaking news 24/7. If it's news, we're on it. If it should be news, we're ahead of it. Get Twitchy and stay connected to our twire — the news wire of the 21st century.
Owner, Founder, and Chief Executive Officer: Michelle Malkin
:rollin:
Okay. But is the story
false?
Quote from: "Nonsensei"WHy bother identifying it then? And whats with the rofl emoticon?
No you know what? I dont give a shit. You know what you did and why.
Yes, he does, and that's what gives the rest of us a bad name. Attacking the source because they're an icon of a diametrically opposed viewpoint
does not necessarily make the content they provided invalid. It's like saying, just because Bill O'Reilly or Jon Stewart said it, since I disagree with either/or/both, therefore everything they say is wrong. And the fact he backed away when called on it really captures the essence of what he was doing.
Anyway, back to the topic, I don't know personally if this is all true or if Zimmerman actually was guilty, but I'm really torn on this whole issue because a very young person was killed. I know that it would upset me greatly if it was someone I knew personally, to know that the child was struck down by a lone gunman for no truly obvious reason. On the other hand, the social media turned on the sensationalistic propaganda machine to destroy Zimmerman, and I know that I can't let my emotional response to the videos and testimonies sway my understanding of the law(s). And if there's one thing I know about the law, it's that we don't teach "guilty until proven innocent" in school.
You know what? I think I'm okay with this outcome. Yeah, Zimmerman had his name dragged through the mud, even though he was innocent of murder, blah blah blah...
BUT...
Zimmerman has shown himself to be a stupid fuck by disobeying the police dispatcher (who knows something about how law enforcement should work) and turning a black guy going through a neighborhood into a dead body. That was horrendously poor judgement on Zimmerman's part, and he deserves a ruined reputation on account of that stupid decision alone.
And here's the thing: it's ONLY his reputation. It's not his life. If only Martin was so lucky.
Anything Zimmerman wins from NBC will probably end up with the Martin family. He was found not guilty of murder, but he still has to be found not guilty of wrongful death, and that's not going to be so easy. This is where all of his bad choices during the episode will cease to be red herrings, as they have actual relevance to the charge of wrongful death.
Quote from: "SGOS"Anything Zimmerman wins from NBC will probably end up with the Martin family. He was found not guilty of murder, but he still has to be found not guilty of wrongful death, and that's not going to be so easy. This is where all of his bad choices during the episode will cease to be red herrings, as they have actual relevance to the charge of wrongful death.
The fact that Martin initiated physical violence is going to be a major barrier to any wrongful death suit. Under the law, Martin is the one most responsible for his own demise.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "SGOS"Anything Zimmerman wins from NBC will probably end up with the Martin family. He was found not guilty of murder, but he still has to be found not guilty of wrongful death, and that's not going to be so easy. This is where all of his bad choices during the episode will cease to be red herrings, as they have actual relevance to the charge of wrongful death.
The fact that Martin initiated physical violence is going to be a major barrier to any wrongful death suit. Under the law, Martin is the one most responsible for his own demise.
That evidence will still come into play, but it's my understanding that wrongful death requires a lesser burden of proof, which was one of the prosecution's big hurdles with the murder charge. I'm hardly a legal expert, and I am continually surprised by many trials. I might make a friendly bet on a wrongful death trial, but I wouldn't wager much.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"This is a case of defamation. I assume nobody here is enough of a fucking dickbag to support defamation just because it is being done to someone they don't like.
LMFAO - are you kidding me!? That is ALL that has happened in this case.
No one can even fucking clearly elucidate exactly what it is they want Zimmerman found guilty of, but by god, they want him declared guilty of something, regardless of what the law says. Why should this be be any different?
I have little knowledge of civil lawsuits, but I think pretty much everything is on the table and nothing is off limits. If Martin was not on a "route" to the house, they will probably suggest he was casing houses due to other "questionable" material found on his phone. And all of zimm's past is fair game. Could be interesting if one is to follow it, which I won't, but probably a grand exercise in futility.
Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "SGOS"Anything Zimmerman wins from NBC will probably end up with the Martin family. He was found not guilty of murder, but he still has to be found not guilty of wrongful death, and that's not going to be so easy. This is where all of his bad choices during the episode will cease to be red herrings, as they have actual relevance to the charge of wrongful death.
The fact that Martin initiated physical violence is going to be a major barrier to any wrongful death suit. Under the law, Martin is the one most responsible for his own demise.
Also, the rules of evidence aren't the same, either. There is the distinct possibility that a lot of evidence that was disallowed in the criminal trial will be allowed in a civil wrongful death trial.
Specifically, the fact that Martin had been sent by his mom to live with his dad because she had no control over him, he was known to smoke pot, got in trouble at school, and was prone to getting into fights, etc. This goes to character - and combined with the physical evidence of assault, makes for a very difficult argument that Zimmerman was to blame.
It cuts both ways.
Quote from: "Seabear"Quote from: "Nonsensei"Quote from: "SGOS"Anything Zimmerman wins from NBC will probably end up with the Martin family. He was found not guilty of murder, but he still has to be found not guilty of wrongful death, and that's not going to be so easy. This is where all of his bad choices during the episode will cease to be red herrings, as they have actual relevance to the charge of wrongful death.
The fact that Martin initiated physical violence is going to be a major barrier to any wrongful death suit. Under the law, Martin is the one most responsible for his own demise.
Also, the rules of evidence aren't the same, either. There is the distinct possibility that a lot of evidence that was disallowed in the criminal trial will be allowed in a civil wrongful death trial.
Specifically, the fact that Martin had been sent by his mom to live with his dad because she had no control over him, he was known to smoke pot, got in trouble at school, and was prone to getting into fights, etc. This goes to character - and combined with the physical evidence of assault, makes for a very difficult argument that Zimmerman was to blame.
It cuts both ways.
Ugh, I am not going to try and get into this hit because I know all Im going to do is rage. However, I know a ton of kids who smoke weed and get into trouble. If I knew Trayvon I probably wouldn't even like him. But because he smoked weed and made mistakes did he deserve to be followed by Zimmerman (Zimmerman doesn't even know this at the time)? Did he deserve to be confronted by a strange man? Did he deserve to DIE? If he gets arrested for weed fine, but at that moment he was fucking walking home. Trayvon couldn't kill that dude, and I have seen older pics of guy he is skinny. Zimmerman should of stayed in the car, and of story. Would you chase a bear?
Quote from: "Triple Nine"Ugh, I am not going to try and get into this hit because I know all Im going to do is rage. However, I know a ton of kids who smoke weed and get into trouble. If I knew Trayvon I probably wouldn't even like him. But because he smoked weed and made mistakes did he deserve to be followed by Zimmerman (Zimmerman doesn't even know this at the time)? Did he deserve to be confronted by a strange man? Did he deserve to DIE? If he gets arrested for weed fine, but at that moment he was fucking walking home. Trayvon couldn't kill that dude, and I have seen older pics of guy he is skinny. Zimmerman should of stayed in the car, and of story.
End of story, my ass. Of course he didn't deserve to die. But Zimmerman didn't deserve to get his nose broken and his head smashed on the sidewalk, either. You Trayvon apologists ALWAYS conveniently leave that little "assault" detail out. Want "end of story"? Martin should have kept his fucking hands to himself, end of story.
QuoteWould you chase a bear?
What are you implying here? Are you equating Trayvon to a wild animal?
QuoteEnd of story, my ass. Of course he didn't deserve to die. But Zimmerman didn't deserve to get his nose broken and his head smashed on the sidewalk, either. You Trayvon apologists ALWAYS conveniently leave that little "assault" detail out. Want "end of story"? Martin should have kept his fucking hands to himself, end of story.
Actually, we don't. And by Florida's stand your ground laws, Treyvon was in the right. And sorry, but it is end of story; you can say, "Oh, Treyvon shouldn't have gone to the store", but is that really the world that you want to live in... a world where your too afraid to go to the store because someone might provoke a fight with you and kill you?
If Zimmerman had not gotten out of his truck, Treyvon would be alive. Period. That is the thing that started this entire situation.
Quote from: "Seabear"Quote from: "Triple Nine"Ugh, I am not going to try and get into this hit because I know all Im going to do is rage. However, I know a ton of kids who smoke weed and get into trouble. If I knew Trayvon I probably wouldn't even like him. But because he smoked weed and made mistakes did he deserve to be followed by Zimmerman (Zimmerman doesn't even know this at the time)? Did he deserve to be confronted by a strange man? Did he deserve to DIE? If he gets arrested for weed fine, but at that moment he was fucking walking home. Trayvon couldn't kill that dude, and I have seen older pics of guy he is skinny. Zimmerman should of stayed in the car, and of story.
End of story, my ass. Of course he didn't deserve to die. But Zimmerman didn't deserve to get his nose broken and his head smashed on the sidewalk, either. You Trayvon apologists ALWAYS conveniently leave that little "assault" detail out. Want "end of story"? Martin should have kept his fucking hands to himself, end of story.
QuoteWould you chase a bear?
What are you implying here? Are you equating Trayvon to a wild animal?
This is one of the most fucked up posts I have ever seen; Christians included. Seriously? Do you even think before you type, or just randomly blurt shit out?
1: If George came at me with his what are you doing around here shit, he would have gotten the same response that Trayvon gave him. It would have ended a little differently though, as I'm no kid.
2: How can there be Trayvon apologists. what are we supposed to apologize for? His death?
3: What "little assault detail?" You know as a fact that Martin attacked him unprovoked? How do you know this?
4 "equating Trayvon with a wild animal?" Seriously? Absurd. Deflect much?
Quote from: "Seabear"Quote from: "Triple Nine"Would you chase a bear?
What are you implying here? Are you equating Trayvon to a wild animal?
If Zimmerman was in fear of his life AND he was the neighborhood watch coordinator he should have stayed in his car. He wasn't afraid, he was trying to be a vigilante by not letting "them" get away. When he called 911 multiple times before who were the people he was reporting on again? Apparently Trayvon didn't have the right to defend himself either based on what you said.
Quote from: "Jmpty"This is one of the most fucked up posts I have ever seen; Christians included. Seriously? Do you even think before you type, or just randomly blurt shit out?
LOL, the religion of St. Trayvon, how dare we question it... You're fucking funny when you're butthurt.
Allow me address your questions individually:
Quote1: If George came at me with his what are you doing around here shit, he would have gotten the same response that Trayvon gave him. It would have ended a little differently though, as I'm no kid.
Wow, what a bullet-proof bad-ass you must be, tough guy. And you would still be guilty of assault.
Quote2: How can there be Trayvon apologists. what are we supposed to apologize for? His death?
No, you are supposed to be fucking RATIONAL instead of using special pleadings, double standards, and arguments from emotion.
Quote3: What "little assault detail?" You know as a fact that Martin attacked him unprovoked? How do you know this?
LOL, pot meet kettle. How do _I_ know it!? How do you know it didn't? It's called evidence, Perry Mason. It plays a small role in legal proceedings. You might want to look it up. Because you don't have any. Hint: conjecture and speculation don't count.
Quote4 "equating Trayvon with a wild animal?" Seriously? Absurd. Deflect much
I was only asking for clarification on what someone else wrote. Go fucking pester them about it.
QuoteWow, what a bullet-proof bad-ass you must be, tough guy. And you would still be guilty of assault.
Nope, not by Florida law he wouldn't be.
QuoteLOL, pot meet kettle. How do _I_ know it!? How do you know it didn't? It's called evidence, Perry Mason. It plays a small role in legal proceedings. You might want to look it up. Because you don't have any. Hint: conjecture and speculation don't count.
Wait... so it's okay when you assume it, but its hypocrisy when other's do it...
hmmmmm...
Quote from: "Seabear"you are supposed to be fucking RATIONAL instead of using special pleadings, double standards
Double standards? Zimmerman is allowed to defend himself against what HE perceives as a deadly threat but Martin isn't allowed to return what HE perceives as potential lethal force with non-lethal force? Zimmerman isn't required to retreat - even though he was told to by the police dispatcher - but Martin is?
Whose double standards are we talking about?
Quote from: "Seabear"Quote2: How can there be Trayvon apologists. what are we supposed to apologize for? His death?
No, you are supposed to be fucking RATIONAL instead of using special pleadings, double standards, and arguments from emotion.
The only special pleading here is that you're taking a case of two people overreacting and saying that not did only one of them overreact, but that the person in question (Trayvon Martin) isn't even the one who created the situation. At least I can understand where your opposite number is coming from; but I can't see how you can construe the situation in any way to say that Martin is solely at fault for events of his death.