Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Homeowners could be sued in Trayvon Martin case

A forum for discussion of regional topics including oil depletion but also government, society, and the future.

Re: Homeowners could be sued in Trayvon Martin case

Unread postby Loki » Sat 31 Mar 2012, 15:21:01

Sixstrings wrote:Bottom line, black folks have a point here. If there were a white kid walking home with ice tea and skittles and an older black man chased him and shot him dead -- you can damn well bet the black man would be arrested. We ALL know that.

I hate to sully this two minutes of self hate with facts, but Zimmerman is not white. He's Hispanic mestizo. If folks are gonna race bait they should at least get the race right.

I keep hearing this "white man killed a black man" bullshit from the black lynch mobbers, you'd think they'd at least bother to Google an image of Zimmerman. Maybe they just assume he's Jewish based on his surname? Has Jesse Jackson trotted out the "hymie" reference yet?

Maybe Zimmerman should be prosecuted, maybe he shouldn't, there's way too much willful misrepresentation to tell at this point. But I have a hard time taking the NAACP/Sharpton/Jackson's claim of racism seriously given their history of open racism, and the virulent racism being espoused by the current lynch mob.

The NAACP should have disbanded in shame, and Sharpton and Jackson should have slunk away never to be seen in public again after the Duke fiasco. Did they ever apologize for that? I'm gonna guess not.
A garden will make your rations go further.
User avatar
Loki
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Oregon

Re: Homeowners could be sued in Trayvon Martin case

Unread postby Sixstrings » Sat 31 Mar 2012, 15:42:21

Cog wrote:Defense of property using lethal force is allowed in Texas and both the perps had extensive criminal records. Something you failed to mention Six.


Their criminal record is irrelevant. They're human beings. After listening to that tape, I'm far more bothered by what Joe Horn sounded like than two burglars taking something from the neighbor's woodshed.

Here's the question.. is it unreasonable to expect citizen vigilantes to do the same as police and NOT shoot first? I know maybe that takes some training, but maybe therefore gun owners should be required to take some classes if they're going to be this aggressive.

George Zimmerman wanted to be a cop but was turned down. From what I heard on TV news, apparently he has assault on a police officer on his record. Also domestic violence. He was only allowed a concealed weapons permit because for some reason the officer assault didn't wind up counting as a felony.

So we have a state of law here wherein citizens who couldn't get hired on to the police force are free to take the law into their own hands. "I'm gonna be honest with you, I ain't gonna let them get away with this" -- that's what Joe Horn told the 911 dispatcher. That, my friend, is premeditated intent. It means that no matter what happens, ole Joe "ain't gonna let them get away with this."

And George Zimmerman too -- "they always get away," he said -- sounds like intent to me, "they always get away" and neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman wasn't going to let them this time. "Are you chasing him?" the dispatcher asks incredulously, George answers "ya" then the dispatcher says "we don't need you to do that." George doesn't answer that, cuz well like he said, "they always get away" and he wasn't going to let that happen regardless of the dispatcher's advice.

The worst part of the Joe Horn call is what he said at the end as he fired, I won't even type it again it's so disgusting. If you're a Christian that's supposed to mean something, Dirty Harry is FICTION there's something wrong with someone who talks like that for real and shoots first.

We don't allow police officers to carry on like that, and we can't allow citizen vigilantes either.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Homeowners could be sued in Trayvon Martin case

Unread postby Cog » Sat 31 Mar 2012, 17:02:31

You weep tears for the criminals who take other's hard-earned property but have no sympathy for those who worked hard to purchase said property.

Why doesn't it suprise me that you support government hand-outs and taxes on the rich?

When a burgular or rapist breaks into your abode show them your Obama hoodie. That should satisfy them.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Homeowners could be sued in Trayvon Martin case

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sat 31 Mar 2012, 18:43:53

Sixstrings wrote:That cartoon looks white supremacist to me.


I think you are missing the point.

The media and the Trayvon supporters constantly show pictures of Trayvon taken 5 years ago when he was a little boy of 12 years old. He was a cute kid----he looked like he might be Obama's son, if Obama had a son.

BUT there are plenty of pictures of Trayvon taken shortly before his unfortunate demise at 17 years old, but the MSM won't show them. Similary, the MSM won't discuss Trayvon's drug use, drug dealing, multiple suspensions from high school etc.

Obviously the MSM is trying to deceptively present Trayvon as a sweet little kid rather than as someone who was involved with drugs and liked to tweet about "swinging on" people.

Image
Trayvon boasted about "swinging on' people shortly before he was sent to an untimely demise after he swung on Mr. Zimmerman.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26619
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Homeowners could be sued in Trayvon Martin case

Unread postby Sixstrings » Sat 31 Mar 2012, 18:55:14

Cog wrote:You weep tears for the criminals who take other's hard-earned property but have no sympathy for those who worked hard to purchase said property.


I agree with the 911 dispatcher:

"Nope, don't do that - ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?" the dispatcher responded.


This is just trouble all around, for one thing it makes law enforcement's job harder. If they roll up and someone is shooting, how are the cops to know the shooter is the victim?

Taking the law into one's own hands could wind up getting one shot by mistake. It's just not wise. A responsible gun owner should do all he can to *avoid* using that weapon. The burglars were running, Horn pursued and shot them in the back. I wonder what they stole? A TV, maybe? If you're a Christian, do you want that on your conscience, taking a life to get your TV set back?

How far do we extend this, Cog? Should a shopkeeper be free to shoot a teenager who steals from the store?

The biggest problem here is he could have at least fired a shot in the air and yelled "don't move!" Instead he said "hello, you're dead" and immediately shot them in the back. *Unnecessarily pursuing criminals on your own and firing off your weapon just puts yourself in danger, when there was no danger if Joe Horn and Zimmerman had listened to the dispatcher and not proactively pursued.*

P.S. I'm not sympathetic to any kind of criminals, but THIS IS NOT IRAN we don't have the death penalty for everything, if a teenager steals some candy from a store I'm sorry but I don't think a shopkeeper should be right to open fire. We can't have cops and a justice system operating on one set of rules and then anything goes for "stand your ground" civilians.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Homeowners could be sued in Trayvon Martin case

Unread postby Sixstrings » Sat 31 Mar 2012, 21:35:05

Loki wrote:You are seriously suggesting “responsible gun owners” should shoot warning shots into the air? Utterly moronic. Ever heard the phrase “what goes up must come down”? :roll:


Let's say it's 4am. Some Mexican illegal is in the woodshed. So the gun owner goes out there with his gun. Is it really necessary to shoot him dead? Is there no other option?

Let's say he runs.. is it really necessary to shoot running people in the back?

My point is just why can't responsible gun owners have some kind of rules of engagement giving the person a chance to throw their hands up and surrender. That's what police do. I'm not even talking about inside the home, I mean someone out on the property or out in the neighborhood (that was the case with Horn and Zimmerman).

P.S. how is a shot in the air more dangerous than a shot in the back? I'm just throwing ideas out here, if we're back to the Wild West days, well didn't they do that back then, shoot in the air to give a warning?
Last edited by Sixstrings on Sat 31 Mar 2012, 22:13:23, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Homeowners could be sued in Trayvon Martin case

Unread postby Oneaboveall » Sat 31 Mar 2012, 21:45:53

Loki wrote:I hate to sully this two minutes of self hate with facts, but Zimmerman is not white. He's Hispanic mestizo. If folks are gonna race bait they should at least get the race right.

I keep hearing this "white man killed a black man" bullshit from the black lynch mobbers, you'd think they'd at least bother to Google an image of Zimmerman. Maybe they just assume he's Jewish based on his surname? Has Jesse Jackson trotted out the "hymie" reference yet?

Maybe Zimmerman should be prosecuted, maybe he shouldn't, there's way too much willful misrepresentation to tell at this point. But I have a hard time taking the NAACP/Sharpton/Jackson's claim of racism seriously given their history of open racism, and the virulent racism being espoused by the current lynch mob.

The NAACP should have disbanded in shame, and Sharpton and Jackson should have slunk away never to be seen in public again after the Duke fiasco. Did they ever apologize for that? I'm gonna guess not.

THANKS YOU!!! FINALLY!!! I'm still wondering how white people got dragged into a hispanic killing a black dude.
When the banksters want something, our policymakers move with the speed of Mercury and the determination of Ares. It’s only when the rest of us need something that there is paralysis.

How free are we today with the dominance of globalist capital and militarized security apparatus?
Oneaboveall
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 631
Joined: Mon 01 Nov 2010, 17:56:45

Re: Homeowners could be sued in Trayvon Martin case

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sat 31 Mar 2012, 22:07:19

Sixstrings wrote:
My point is just why can't responsible gun owners have some kind of rules of engagement giving the person a chance to throw their hands up and surrender. That's what police do.


Haven't you heard the 911 recording?

Travon was sitting on top of Zimmerman and pounding his head into the ground while Zimmerman screamed "Help Help Someone please help me".

Under those circumstances its unreasonable to expect Zimmerman to draw his gun, give Travon a verbal warning, and then fire a warning shot into the air. :roll:
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26619
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Homeowners could be sued in Trayvon Martin case

Unread postby Sixstrings » Sat 31 Mar 2012, 22:25:58

Plantagenet wrote:Under those circumstances its unreasonable to expect Zimmerman to draw his gun, give Travon a verbal warning, and then fire a warning shot into the air. :roll:


What would have helped there is if Zimmerman had worn a holster and the weapon visible, or had some sort of identification so Trayvon would have known he's neighborhood watch. All the kid knew was that a white man was chasing him. You can hear on the 911 call, Zimmerman is talking and acting like a cop -- with no kind of uniform on, of course that would be threatening, someone like Zimmerman chasing you.

17 year old young men, of any race, aren't always prudent. I bet if you chase a redneck in Texas he may turn around and punch you too -- or worse. But if only Zimmerman had worn some kind of uniform to identify himself, if only his being armed was clear for all to see, then I doubt there would have been a fight in the first place.

(I'll have to listen to that video again, when I heard it on TV it sounded like a kid screaming)
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Homeowners could be sued in Trayvon Martin case

Unread postby Loki » Sat 31 Mar 2012, 22:33:43

Firing warning shots is illegal in many jurisdictions, and many police departments ban it, for good reason. Warning shots are considered bad policy by most firearms experts. A man in New Hampshire recently followed your advice, and is now facing criminal charges that may put him in prison for as long as the burglar he apprehended.

My county's sheriff just announced that patrolling deputies will probably be reduced to four. Four total, which means only one or two will be patrolling at any given time, down from three right now. That's for a county nearly the size of Connecticut.

The sheriff describes the public safety situation in rural parts of my county as “catastrophic” (a direct quote from last month) and says the sheriff's department won't respond to any but the most dire situations.

In other words, we rural Oregonians are on our own. Welcome to post-peak America. Better be prepared.

I keep a 12-gauge and Glock ready to go at all times---warning shots won't be an option.
A garden will make your rations go further.
User avatar
Loki
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3509
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Oregon

Re: Homeowners could be sued in Trayvon Martin case

Unread postby Fishman » Sat 31 Mar 2012, 22:53:12

Even MSNBC admits now that Zimmerman has evidence of abrasions on the back of his head. Cop report at the time correlates this evidence. Whether he was prudent or not doubtful he will be convicted of anything. If this goes to court and he is found not guilty expect LA like rioting in every major city. Six, I recommend you get your Concealed Carry Permit soon.
Obama, the FUBAR presidency gets scraped off the boot
User avatar
Fishman
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2137
Joined: Thu 11 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Carolina de Norte

Re: Homeowners could be sued in Trayvon Martin case

Unread postby rangerone314 » Sat 31 Mar 2012, 23:57:18

Sixstrings wrote:
Loki wrote:You are seriously suggesting “responsible gun owners” should shoot warning shots into the air? Utterly moronic. Ever heard the phrase “what goes up must come down”? :roll:


Let's say it's 4am. Some Mexican illegal is in the woodshed. So the gun owner goes out there with his gun. Is it really necessary to shoot him dead? Is there no other option?

Let's say he runs.. is it really necessary to shoot running people in the back?

My point is just why can't responsible gun owners have some kind of rules of engagement giving the person a chance to throw their hands up and surrender. That's what police do. I'm not even talking about inside the home, I mean someone out on the property or out in the neighborhood (that was the case with Horn and Zimmerman).

P.S. how is a shot in the air more dangerous than a shot in the back? I'm just throwing ideas out here, if we're back to the Wild West days, well didn't they do that back then, shoot in the air to give a warning?

Maybe let illegal Mexican in the shed go, then he knows what to expect, comes back a week later and manages to ambush you first, kill you, then rob your shed, then rape your wife.

Gonna be lord of the flies post-civilization... a few people are ahead of the curve.
An ideology is by definition not a search for TRUTH-but a search for PROOF that its point of view is right

Equals barter and negotiate-people with power just take

You cant defend freedom by eliminating it-unknown

Our elected reps should wear sponsor patches on their suits so we know who they represent-like Nascar-Roy
User avatar
rangerone314
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4105
Joined: Wed 03 Dec 2008, 04:00:00
Location: Maryland

Re: Homeowners could be sued in Trayvon Martin case

Unread postby Sixstrings » Sun 01 Apr 2012, 08:58:58

Fishman wrote:If this goes to court and he is found not guilty expect LA like rioting in every major city.


Well.. I'm glad I don't live in Sanford. There could be a riot, but if there is it's people coming from outside. If we have riots over this, that's going to spook suburbanite voters. My prediction: Obama will play a low profile on this here on out, you won't hear him saying much if anything, it's politically very dangerous and that's why Republicans are playing it up.

*This whole race angle* by the way, interestingly, the city manager in Sanford is black. Zimmerman himself has a black friend who's been speaking on his behalf. I think there are black families in that Retreat gated community. I think there were some black officers who were there when Zimmerman was detained.

It's not necessarily a white-on-black thing, but rather young black men in hoodies may just look suspicious. I read UK papers, they're obsessed over guys in hoodies there too. A lot of their hoodie wearers are white yobs and anarchists, they wear the hoodie so they can't be identified. So really I'm on the middle with all this, I can see black folks' point about how oppressive racial profiling is, on the other hand what's with members of Congress wearing a hoodie, state legislators wearing a hoodie, everyone's wearing a hoodie now. I'm white, but if I chose to dress in certain ways I would draw suspicion. That's just human nature.

The rage here doesn't have to be from a racial angle, the central problem was Zimmerman had a cop-complex he'd wanted to be a cop and was turned down and he took this neighborhood watch captain stuff way too seriously. You hear it on the 911 tape, he sounds like a cop "they always get away," the dispatcher is *shocked* he's chasing Trayvon -- this is against all the rules of the national neighborhood watch organization, they're not supposed to be armed and they're just supposed to be eyes and ears not confront and not chase.

When civilians go patrolling around acting like a cop, they're going to find trouble but they don't have the training nor the authority nor the backing of the city / county to do that job. They don't have the liability insurance to be doing something so dangerous, it's nuts to go volunteer for patrol with nobody backing you.

If you're interested in survival, it's smart to mind your own business and stay out of trouble. I've known guys like that, they play the hero and get involved in random things -- that's dangerous and a thankless job. Don't be a hero, use caution and protect yourself #1 if you help others in emergency situations. If there's violence, look for an escape route rather than sticking your nose in the middle of it. That's just some good survivalist advice for ya.

Six, I recommend you get your Concealed Carry Permit soon.


Only thing I notice where I live, threats-wise, are the panhandlers. I really hate that. It's because *you never know* which one may be a carjacker or if the panhandling is a mugging. You're vulnerable when you get in your vehicle, fishing around for keys maybe a cart of groceries, you have your back turned.

It happens now and then, sure enough, some bum comes walking up to me. I can smell trouble a mile away, I don't allow them to get close to me. Last time this happened, I back away from my vehicle and he kept approaching while asking for money, I'd already said my usual line I don't have any, *but he kept approaching* and then I forcefully said something I guess I sounded mad but I'm just getting sick and tired of this.

So the bum is like "Jesus Christ man, relax, what's your problem." :roll: As if I'm the scary one. He's the one asking for money and kept coming at me even after I made it clear I didn't want his company as I got in my truck!

Anyhow I don't want a concealed weapon. Something like one of those handheld shockers would be good though, one touch of that and they're on the ground for 5 minutes. But I don't have even that. I find that street sense, being aware of your surroundings, *being able to sniff out trouble and keeping your distance*, and how you carry yourself is what's most important.

Most people are like deer in headlights they don't think that way. They're polite when they shouldn't be, you should *never* allow someone suspicious to panhandle you right at your car door. Those youtube videos of fights in Denny's and whatnot, everyone just sits in their seat watching. Me, I get the hell out when things get crazy.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Homeowners could be sued in Trayvon Martin case

Unread postby Cloud9 » Sun 01 Apr 2012, 09:35:39

Considering the fact that there are over a million concealed permits in Florida, it would be wise to assume that there is a distinct possibility that the Floridian you are interacting with is armed. Consequently it makes no sense to escalate an encounter to the point of violence. Never, never frighten someone; they may shoot you. Bottom line, be polite even if the other guy is an asshole.
User avatar
Cloud9
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Homeowners could be sued in Trayvon Martin case

Unread postby dinopello » Sun 01 Apr 2012, 09:40:29

Cloud9 wrote:Considering the fact that there are over a million concealed permits in Florida, it would be wise to assume that there is a distinct possibility that the Floridian you are interacting with is armed. Consequently it makes no sense to escalate an encounter to the point of violence. Never, never frighten someone; they may shoot you. Bottom line, be polite even if the other guy is an asshole.


Or, the lesson could be that in a confrontation, to be the one that shoots first and survives to claim self-defense.
User avatar
dinopello
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6088
Joined: Fri 13 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: The Urban Village

Re: Homeowners could be sued in Trayvon Martin case

Unread postby Sixstrings » Sun 01 Apr 2012, 09:53:35

Cloud9 wrote:Never, never frighten someone; they may shoot you. Bottom line, be polite even if the other guy is an asshole.


Well that's a good point. But I felt threatened when he kept coming up to me even after I said no. If you're not armed, which I'm not, and you're not a physically violent person, which I'm not, other than words how else are you supposed to look out for yourself?

The guy was a street person, sitting in front of CVS. All I did was forcefully ask him to keep his distance (can't remember what I said exactly) -- this was AFTER I politely said I don't have any money and he kept coming.

I've been mugged before (they didn't get my money though) so I may be more paranoid than most. I won't allow shady looking people to come up on me when I'm getting in my car. That's the most vulnerable point an average person is in, in the parking lot at your vehicle with your hands and attention busy on fishing for keys and whatnot.

EDIT: you are right though, I know, but I can't be somebody's psychologist on the spot and know in a few seconds what words or attitude may set them off.. asking a panhandler for space while you get in your vehicle should not be fighting words, but ya you never know.. panhandlers are really getting pushy they take offense if you don't let them come right up to you so they can tell their sob story but thing is, that's dangerous, reacting fast and keeping distance is the only way to avoid a car jack or mugging.

I'm actually a very nice person, other than road ragers that panhandler at the CVS is probably the only stranger who's gotten mad at me in public like that -- I did nothing wrong other than nonviolently prevent him from getting up in my face to continue asking for money, I mean once I've said no why was he still coming up on me that would spook anybody. I think I did tell him "sorry, I just don't have any money." I guess it's my non-friendly attitude that bothers them but I've been mugged before and this panhandling isn't rare what am I supposed to do be a one man Salvation Army for the homeless -- I can't really afford to give money out even if it were safe to do so, that's the truth.
Last edited by Sixstrings on Sun 01 Apr 2012, 10:20:56, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Homeowners could be sued in Trayvon Martin case

Unread postby Cloud9 » Sun 01 Apr 2012, 09:58:49

You might want to ask Donald Montanez how that worked out. If memory serves me he got thirty years for following your suggestion. Walking around with a gun in your pocket carries an onerous responsibility. To show the gun is a felony. To introduce it in an argument is aggravated assault.
User avatar
Cloud9
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Homeowners could be sued in Trayvon Martin case

Unread postby Sixstrings » Sun 01 Apr 2012, 10:43:41

Getting back on topic..

Voice experts say the screams on the 911 tape could not have been Zimmerman:

Trayvon Martin Shooting: Voice Experts Claim Teen's Cries, Not Zimmerman's, Can Be Heard On 911 Call

One expert, Tom Owen, used voice identification software to rule out Zimmerman as the source. From the Sentinel:

"I took all of the screams and put those together, and cut out everything else," Owen says.
The software compared that audio to Zimmerman's voice. It returned a 48 percent match. Owen said to reach a positive match with audio of this quality, he'd expect higher than 90 percent.

"As a result of that, you can say with reasonable scientific certainty that it's not Zimmerman," Owen says, stressing that he cannot confirm the voice as Trayvon's, because he didn't have a sample of the teen's voice to compare.

Another analyst came to a similar conclusion using different technology.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/31/trayvon-martin-shooting-911-call-screams_n_1394224.html


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XSFbdZRb0dc

If you listen to that video, it sounds like a black kid screaming. The screams go on for a while, just one person screaming, and then the gunshot.

If it is Zimmerman, then those screams go on so long that's justifiable self defense. All comes down to who it is screaming. To my ears it really sounds like a kid, if I knew nothing about this and heard that tape I would say it was a kid.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Homeowners could be sued in Trayvon Martin case

Unread postby Cloud9 » Sun 01 Apr 2012, 11:29:20

Ever been in litigation? Both sides hire experts to support their point of view. Don't take experts for hire too litteraly.

Marshalling facts to support your position is one thing. Selectively editing out those facts that don’t support your position is sophistry. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/eri ... ml?hpid=z6
User avatar
Cloud9
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed 26 Jul 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Homeowners could be sued in Trayvon Martin case

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sun 01 Apr 2012, 12:27:12

Liberals like Al Sharpton, Jess Jackson and our own "Six" have been wrongly claiming that Zimmerman is a racist who racially profiled and followed Zimmerman because he was black.

BUT, Liberal MSM member NBC has just admitted that it doctored the 911 call from Zimmerman to make him appear as though he was following Travon because he was black. In the actual 911 call from Zimmerman this didn't happen.

----------------------------------------------------------------

A statement from NBC:

“We have launched an internal investigation into the editorial process surrounding this particular story.”
Great news right there. As exposed by Fox News and media watchdog site NewsBusters, NBC took this approach to a key part of the dispatcher call: Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

Here’s how the actual conversation went down:

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.

The difference between what NBC put on its air and the actual tape? Complete: In the NBC version, Zimmerman volunteered that this person “looks black,” a sequence of events that would more readily paint Zimmerman as a racial profiler. In reality’s version, Zimmerman simply answered a question about the race of the person whom he was reporting to the police. Nothing prejudicial at all in responding to such an inquiry. ---from the WaPo
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26619
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

PreviousNext

Return to North America Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests