RoR: Forum

That report comes only days after the news organization admitted to poorly editing the 911 call Zimmerman made on the night he shot and killed Trayvon Martin.

In the original edit of the call, Zimmerman reportedly said "This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black."

But this week, the network admitted it had accidentally edited out a key part of the conversation which actually went

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: Okay, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/george-zimmerman-racist-phone-records-back-claim-article-1.1057407#ixzz1rHjbHDdD

Busted. The press is shameless.
(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 4/06, 11:11am)

Post 21

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 - 5:45am

The press and the administration see an increase in racial tensions as helpful to Obama's election. It will increase the percentage of blacks that turn out to vote instead of staying home - and that made a difference in the last presidential election. Also, anything racial is raw meat for the far left - it energizes his base and it implies that any opponents are racists (typical liberal non-think). It is a moral argument (to the degree anything that irrational can be called an argument) and moral arguments trump policy arguments.

Post 22

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 - 7:56am

Steve:

Yes, that's why Cain had to be lynched at all costs; the Left would have been apoplectic if the GOP put up Cain.

And now, ABC 'enhanced' the police station video, showing the injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head...but overwhelmed all that in the same broadcast with some random expert claiming that, in his opinion, Zimmerman was fine, not staggering around, not covered in blood.

In other words, when the camera video is blurred, you can believe your own lying eyes, but not when the camera video is enhanced and backs up both Zimmerman's claim and the written police report.

The media is shameless.

Post 23

Tuesday, April 10, 2012 - 8:14pm

Fred,

The media is shameless.

Oh yeah? Well, get this. I was watching one of our "state-controlled" networks (either CNN or MSNBC) and the story wasn't even about this case (it was one of those rare times when the media wasn't focusing on it) and do you know what the scrolling news line at the bottom read? It read something very much like this:

Whites, republicans tired of all the coverage of the Trayvon Martin case.

How's that for shameless propaganda? Rush Limbaugh learned of this tactic during his show, when his sidekick "Bo Snerdly" pointed it out to him. He just shrugged it off as if it is to be expected in our country nowadays. He's the one always saying we have "state-controlled" media.

Ed

Post 24

Friday, April 13, 2012 - 8:39am

Ed:

Shameless. Whites and Republicans will read that and laugh. Non-Whites and Democrats will read that and laugh. None of the above will be moved by the sentiment one way or the other at all.

But, are there really these things called 'independents' who see something like that and actually bob their heads to it, say "Hmmmmm! I did not know that. Thank you for sharing."

Where is the accountability -- from any source -- for the verity of what is placed on those crawls? That wild, wild West fact of broadcast life, I would think, makes the temptation too great not to abuse it. Stay away from profanity is about it, everything else seems to go...

regards,
Fred

Post 25

Friday, April 20, 2012 - 5:01am

There is now a third possibility introduced into this, according to ZImmerman.

Up until now, I've thought that the key fact would come down to who introduced violence first; did ZImmerman brandish his weapon first at Martin, and Martin stood his ground, or did Martin assault Zimmerman first, and did Zimmerman then expose his weapon and respond?

I don't have the article in front of me, but yesterday I read some of Zimmerman's account, as follows, paraphrased:  he reached for his cell phone, and while doing so, Martin noticed that Zimmerman was carrying a weapon, and Martin and Zimmerman then struggled.

This introduces the third possibility; ZImmerman did not purposely brandish his weapon at Martin, but Martin became aware that Zimmerman had a weapon and was afraid for his life.

If this is what happened, then under Florida's concealed carry laws, the responsibility is Zimmerman's.    Concealed carry is concealed carry, not open carry.    There is an obligation under that law to responsibly carry concealed.   The justification for exposing in public is self defense.

So, ZImmerman, according to Zimmermans account, negligently exposed the fact that he was carrying a weapon, which caused Martin to fear for his life in those circumstances.

But, here is where the prosecutor might be over-reaching with 2nd degree murder, because at most, this now sounds like manslaughter.

Zimmerman does not have to prove that something did not happen in order to prove his innocence(which already exists.)   The state must prove that something did happen in order to establish his guilt.       In the scenario above, for 2nd degree murder, that something would be, Zimmerman deliberately exposed his weapon to Martin before the struggle.    If the state cannot prove that, then I don't see how they convict him of second degree murder.   But by his own admission, IMO, he is guilt of manslaughter via negligence.     The cause and effect, by his description, points to him negligently exposing his concealed weapon while retrieving his cell phone.

Post 26

Friday, April 20, 2012 - 5:58pm

Interesting, Fred.

Saturday, April 21, 2012 - 7:24am

And now, last night, I heard a talking head claim(they are probably correct)that proving 'intent' isn't necessary in Florida for 2nd degree murder, only 'ill will.'

Ill will? That is much flimsier than 'intent.' In other words, the decision is up to a jury, period. So he could well be convicted of 2nd degree murder.

Is actively insuring that your neighbors aren't being robbed or burglarized 'ill will' after a spate of same? This is the Jan Valjean/L'es Miserables prosecution; Zimmerman as overzealous Jalvert.

Is arming oneself for self defense 'ill will?' This is the Karl Marx prosecution.

Is reaching for your cell phone 'ill will?' Er...no. Just no.

Is responding with force to violence 'ill will?' This is a repeat of the Karl Marx prosecution.

Let's not be coy; the political undertones of this is exactly that anyone who is carrying a firearm is guilty of 'ill will' because they are unwilling to yield any demand imaginable to any imaginable perfect stranger. This is a third example of the Karl Marx prosecution. And, it is not even the underlying objection to an armed to the teeth America. The real Karl Marx based objection is that a 'politics' based on forced association in a political context based on individual freedom and liberty is never going to ultimately go down smoothly in a populace armed to the teeth. That is exactly the underlying issue beneath all of these 2nd Amendment issues, but it is never directly expressed by the gun control apparatchiks; they are selling Nerf lined Gulags, you see. Just relax, get in line, all you hillbillies, and do a line dance to totalitarianville.

I think, based on Zimmerman's account of reaching for his cell phone and inadvertently exposing the fact to Martin that he was armed, that Zimmerman is responsible for the outcome; Martin acted under Fla law (he stood his ground and responded with force while afraid for his life under the threat of violence in a confrontational situation), they struggled, then Zimmerman was afraid for his life and shot Martin. But that sequence of events was caused by Zimmerman, by negligently exposing the fact that he had a weapon. Under Fla concealed carry laws, I think he is at fault.

But if loosey-goosey 'ill will' is in that court room and a jury gets to get out its 'ill will' meter and decide, Zimmerman could well be convicted of 2nd degree murder.

It is clearly a crap shoot, and is up to the skill of the lawyers and the mind set of the chosen jury and the influence of the judge, more or less guided by a set of laws prepared before the fact. That is how our system works; it is as good as it gets, because none of us are emperors.

It could go either way. But if Zimmerman is acquitted, there likely will be riots. If he is convicted, then likely not. And that is going to reinforce where we are as a nation politically, never too far away from insane mob rule by uneducated S4Bs.

regards,
Fred

Post 28

Saturday, April 21, 2012 - 8:09pm