Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)

[Carolina Hustler]

The difference is, most of the people arguing for Zimmerman to be treated fairly, usually start off by saying "if"...Too many of the Zimmerman lynchers state things as facts which we have no idea of they are true.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

that works both ways christo jr. If you follow someone and engage them and it turns physical and you are armed and the person who you were following wasnt and you shoot them you go to jail. At least in MA. I dont know how it works down south in redneck central.

Please link this law specifically as it relates to what you said preceding that comment in italics. Also be sure to note the section where it states it doesn't matter which individual instigates the physical action first.

there`s this thing called google...knock yourself out

The old 'look it up on google if you don't believe me' response. Isn't the internet a grand place where folks can make things up in order to attempt to strengthen their position?

Voluntary Manslaughter Massachusetts statutory law does not define voluntary manslaughter. Instead, Massachusetts case law provides the definition: "The unlawful killing of another, intentionally caused from a sudden transport of passion or heat of blood: (1) upon a reasonable provocation and without malice or upon sudden combat; or (2) from the excessive use of force in self-defense."

Voluntary manslaughter is another form of intentional homicide; however, voluntary manslaughter involves a killing without malice, which separates the crime from murder. Under voluntary manslaughter, the defendant did intend to kill the victim or inflict serious bodily harm, but due to the existence of some mitigating circumstance(s), the law infers that the element of malice does not exist. Therefore, the crime is reduced from murder to voluntary manslaughter.

In what kinds of circumstances does this happen? Usually, when the killing occurs out of passion or the heat of the moment that results from a "reasonable provocation" or a spontaneous fight. Voluntary manslaughter applies when the defendant's actions occur because of an event that causes him, in essence, to lose control – the self-control that would be expected of an ordinary, reasonable person. The provocation or event that produces such passion, anger, or fear must occur within a certain, limited period of time prior to the killing. Generally, this is interpreted as an amount of time within which a reasonable person would not have been capable of "cooling off".

Exactly what is and is not "adequate provocation", is an objective test of whether an ordinary person would have been provoked by the situation in question. Under Massachusetts law, in general, words alone do not constitute a sufficient legal basis for adequate provocation. (However, there are exceptions to this.) At the same time, a shove, a light blow or trespass are not sufficient provocation, either. More classic tests for adequate provocation have involved learning of, or witnessing, a spouse in the act of infidelity or adultery. Case law generally holds that suspicion alone that a spouse is committing adultery does not constitute sufficient provocation to qualify for voluntary manslaughter. However, observing one's spouse in the act of sexual infidelity, or even hearing such acts, may constitute adequate provocation at law. Lastly, voluntary intoxication will not lower a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter.

Aside from provocation, a loss of control that negates malice, can also occur as the product of a spontaneous fight. Massachusetts law considers a killing that resulted from sudden combat as not intentional, therefore not malicious and not murder, but voluntary manslaughter. Finally, while Massachusetts law allows people to use force to defend themselves from imminent harm, they cannot use excessive force. If such excessive force results in the death of their assailant, the person defending himself can be charged with voluntary manslaughter. The maximum sentence for a voluntary manslaughter conviction in Massachusetts is 20 years imprisonment.

Thank you for posting this.While this is good information, it doesn't really equate to this situation as you laid it out no? In addition, I was responding to your statement that if they did this they would go to jail (whereas your bolded statement just says they 'could' be charged, not that they would always be charged nor would they always be convicted - I'd be curious on the percentage of those cases that resulted in convictions). That's all I was getting out.

There are a lot of things to consider with the given scenario "can I shoot an unarmed person if they want to fight me?" You have to decide what you want to do and be prepared for the consequences plain and simple.If you think doing 3 to 5 years hard time in a state penitentiary for manslaughter is no problem, then by all means shoot that unarmed guy who picked a fight with you because he feels you slighted him somehow.

State prison is full of people who made the wrong decision in when and under what circumstances to use their firearm. They aren't bad people, they just made a poor choice when they thought that using their gun would be on solid ground.

You can sit on the witness stand crying all day long saying how that scary looking guy who turned out was only two years younger than you and considered to be about average size and shape could have hit you in the temple and killed you... may have been able to strike you in the trachea and crush your larynx and all sorts of hypothetical outcomes until you are blue in the face. At the end of the day... the law and the courts "generally" frown on those who pull a gun and shoot an unarmed person who was foolish enough/drunk enough to pick a fight with someone they didn't know was armed.

Now, with that said, are there circumstances where shooting an unarmed person is excusable? Absolutely, but they are relatively rare and few in the numbers of situations. Your hypothetical explanations of "well he could have hit me here and that may have done this to me" is not going to be a satisfactory answer to a grand jury or a jury of your peers.

Getting a broken nose and some bruised ribs or a black eye or maybe a tooth knocked out is "generally" not considered to be a life threatening injury or even a serious crippling injury no matter how much you say that hypothetically you could have gotten a detached retina from the black eye, or you could have choked to death if you swallowed that broken tooth.

These are the facts... You have a gun! The other guy doesn't! You know you have a "stacked deck"... the other guy doesn't know you have a gun until you pull it out and shoot him with it! He believed he was fighting another unarmed guy!

Bullies, drunk or otherwise who like to fight people, don't pick fights with people they knew beforehand to have a gun! Therefore the prosecutor in the criminal case or the attorneys for his estate in the wrongful death case will argue the "unarmed victim" you killed may have been drunk, and may have been a bully... but he thought he was fighting a man "on common ground" and it did not warrant being shot down in a fixed and unfair fight! (May not be 1st degree murder, but probably good enough to send you away for a few years for involuntary manslaughter!)

The courts will hold you to a higher standard of care to avoid the situation, walk away and maybe even going to extrordanary means in not bringing your gun out even if the guy manages to hit you a few times.

Again, are there circumstances where shooting an unarmed person justifiable? YES! But you are on very shakey ground. If you are going to claim there was a "disparity of force" you should have some very compelling reasons that are clear and obvious to the court or grand jury. (Hypothetical explainations are really not going to be acceptable.) Disparity of Force is not just a loose term to throw out in court. You must be able to clearly show the factors that pertain to that disparity in order to convince a jury to excuse you for taking the life of an unarmed person. There has to be some accountability for taking someones life.

You never leave the door open to the possibility that this was not a mutually consensual confrontation.. Zimmerman could have very well been punched and knocked down and them mounted, and beat on.. At that point, there is less opportunity for escape. Maybe Zimmerman never tried to fight him, and was trapped under Trayvon, and getting his head bashed.. If that was the case, and if it was Zimmerman screaming for help in that audio recording, then he had every right to use deadly force.. You disagree?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

that works both ways christo jr. If you follow someone and engage them and it turns physical and you are armed and the person who you were following wasnt and you shoot them you go to jail. At least in MA. I dont know how it works down south in redneck central.

Please link this law specifically as it relates to what you said preceding that comment in italics. Also be sure to note the section where it states it doesn't matter which individual instigates the physical action first.

there`s this thing called google...knock yourself out

The old 'look it up on google if you don't believe me' response. Isn't the internet a grand place where folks can make things up in order to attempt to strengthen their position?

Voluntary Manslaughter Massachusetts statutory law does not define voluntary manslaughter. Instead, Massachusetts case law provides the definition: "The unlawful killing of another, intentionally caused from a sudden transport of passion or heat of blood: (1) upon a reasonable provocation and without malice or upon sudden combat; or (2) from the excessive use of force in self-defense."

Voluntary manslaughter is another form of intentional homicide; however, voluntary manslaughter involves a killing without malice, which separates the crime from murder. Under voluntary manslaughter, the defendant did intend to kill the victim or inflict serious bodily harm, but due to the existence of some mitigating circumstance(s), the law infers that the element of malice does not exist. Therefore, the crime is reduced from murder to voluntary manslaughter.

In what kinds of circumstances does this happen? Usually, when the killing occurs out of passion or the heat of the moment that results from a "reasonable provocation" or a spontaneous fight. Voluntary manslaughter applies when the defendant's actions occur because of an event that causes him, in essence, to lose control – the self-control that would be expected of an ordinary, reasonable person. The provocation or event that produces such passion, anger, or fear must occur within a certain, limited period of time prior to the killing. Generally, this is interpreted as an amount of time within which a reasonable person would not have been capable of "cooling off".

Exactly what is and is not "adequate provocation", is an objective test of whether an ordinary person would have been provoked by the situation in question. Under Massachusetts law, in general, words alone do not constitute a sufficient legal basis for adequate provocation. (However, there are exceptions to this.) At the same time, a shove, a light blow or trespass are not sufficient provocation, either. More classic tests for adequate provocation have involved learning of, or witnessing, a spouse in the act of infidelity or adultery. Case law generally holds that suspicion alone that a spouse is committing adultery does not constitute sufficient provocation to qualify for voluntary manslaughter. However, observing one's spouse in the act of sexual infidelity, or even hearing such acts, may constitute adequate provocation at law. Lastly, voluntary intoxication will not lower a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter.

Aside from provocation, a loss of control that negates malice, can also occur as the product of a spontaneous fight. Massachusetts law considers a killing that resulted from sudden combat as not intentional, therefore not malicious and not murder, but voluntary manslaughter. Finally, while Massachusetts law allows people to use force to defend themselves from imminent harm, they cannot use excessive force. If such excessive force results in the death of their assailant, the person defending himself can be charged with voluntary manslaughter. The maximum sentence for a voluntary manslaughter conviction in Massachusetts is 20 years imprisonment.

You're missing a step. There are occasions when it's not excessive to use deadly force.

Enlighten me.people may use force to defend themselves from imminent harm, if they use excessive force that results in the death of their attacker, they have committed voluntary manslaughter

Killing your attacker in self defense does not necessarily mean you used excessive force. That can be the case, but killing your attacker in self defense, armed or otherwise, is not the definition of excessive force..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

that works both ways christo jr. If you follow someone and engage them and it turns physical and you are armed and the person who you were following wasnt and you shoot them you go to jail. At least in MA. I dont know how it works down south in redneck central.

Please link this law specifically as it relates to what you said preceding that comment in italics. Also be sure to note the section where it states it doesn't matter which individual instigates the physical action first.

there`s this thing called google...knock yourself out

The old 'look it up on google if you don't believe me' response. Isn't the internet a grand place where folks can make things up in order to attempt to strengthen their position?

Voluntary Manslaughter Massachusetts statutory law does not define voluntary manslaughter. Instead, Massachusetts case law provides the definition: "The unlawful killing of another, intentionally caused from a sudden transport of passion or heat of blood: (1) upon a reasonable provocation and without malice or upon sudden combat; or (2) from the excessive use of force in self-defense."

Voluntary manslaughter is another form of intentional homicide; however, voluntary manslaughter involves a killing without malice, which separates the crime from murder. Under voluntary manslaughter, the defendant did intend to kill the victim or inflict serious bodily harm, but due to the existence of some mitigating circumstance(s), the law infers that the element of malice does not exist. Therefore, the crime is reduced from murder to voluntary manslaughter.

In what kinds of circumstances does this happen? Usually, when the killing occurs out of passion or the heat of the moment that results from a "reasonable provocation" or a spontaneous fight. Voluntary manslaughter applies when the defendant's actions occur because of an event that causes him, in essence, to lose control – the self-control that would be expected of an ordinary, reasonable person. The provocation or event that produces such passion, anger, or fear must occur within a certain, limited period of time prior to the killing. Generally, this is interpreted as an amount of time within which a reasonable person would not have been capable of "cooling off".

Exactly what is and is not "adequate provocation", is an objective test of whether an ordinary person would have been provoked by the situation in question. Under Massachusetts law, in general, words alone do not constitute a sufficient legal basis for adequate provocation. (However, there are exceptions to this.) At the same time, a shove, a light blow or trespass are not sufficient provocation, either. More classic tests for adequate provocation have involved learning of, or witnessing, a spouse in the act of infidelity or adultery. Case law generally holds that suspicion alone that a spouse is committing adultery does not constitute sufficient provocation to qualify for voluntary manslaughter. However, observing one's spouse in the act of sexual infidelity, or even hearing such acts, may constitute adequate provocation at law. Lastly, voluntary intoxication will not lower a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter.

Aside from provocation, a loss of control that negates malice, can also occur as the product of a spontaneous fight. Massachusetts law considers a killing that resulted from sudden combat as not intentional, therefore not malicious and not murder, but voluntary manslaughter. Finally, while Massachusetts law allows people to use force to defend themselves from imminent harm, they cannot use excessive force. If such excessive force results in the death of their assailant, the person defending himself can be charged with voluntary manslaughter. The maximum sentence for a voluntary manslaughter conviction in Massachusetts is 20 years imprisonment.

You're missing a step. There are occasions when it's not excessive to use deadly force.

Enlighten me.people may use force to defend themselves from imminent harm, if they use excessive force that results in the death of their attacker, they have committed voluntary manslaughter

If the death of the attacker was caused by force that was not excessive they have not committed manslaughter.

ok, and how that pertains to this case is beyond me at least witz is staying on point.

Because, as you've trumpeted many times, when it's convenient to your argument, We do not know what happened, so you can not definitively say this was excessive force and warrants manslaughter..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Did they have him pinned down, bouncing his head off the concrete?

Nice to see you fellas have agreed only to discuss the facts which have been absolutely proven and not concerning yourselves with baseless speculation.

It's the counterbalance.. You speculate far left, I show you the far right alternative..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Your hypothetical had nothing to do with this case. Rather, you said: If you follow someone and engage them and it turns physical and you are armed and the person who you were following wasnt and you shoot them you go to jail. At least in MA."

Which, now that we've taken a look at the law in MA, turns out to not necessarily be true.

my point was if this shooting happened in MA things would be very different for mr. zimmerman

I keep forgetting we're in the "what I say may really not be what I mean" thread.

 

[Boom Switch]

I kinda hope the guy gets off, we havent had a good looting in the cities in awhile. Thats always good tv....

Where have you been? I missed you. I really did.

Online dating has turned out to be a full time job, been busy

 

[jon_mx]

There is some awful posts in this thread.

No one is forcing you to keep posting.

If you must know what I was referring to, a few off the top of my head:- The plagiarized cheesy post from some blog that was more suitable for a romance novel. The only thing missing was talking about his throbbing loins. - Any defense of NBC's editing of the 911 tape which was an intentional effort to fan the flames of an already heated up racial debate. The worst piece of journalism in a long time by a major network.- Saying that Zimmerman is guilty of a crime and should be arrested, while admitting there is virtually no chance of convicting him.- Saying the Treyvon might have stolen something or referring to him as a thug.- Any post which describes Zimmerman has hunting down Treyvon.- Insisting that the police acted in a racially biased way but have nothing concrete to base it on.And that is not even mentioning dinner with my black friends or any trolling by mad sweeney.

 

[meatwad1]

Excellent analysis by Victor Davis Hansen:

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson040512.html

This should be jarring to all of the bigoted race baiting feinds populating this threa, as well for our high minded residents who are 'friends of the black community', aka honorary African Americans.

 

[fatness]

Fearing that the lack of race riots in the Sanford community is a sure sign of upcoming race riots in the Sanford community, "concerned" citizens swing into action.

Neo-Nazis are currently conducting heavily armed patrols in and around Sanford, Florida and are "prepared" for violence in the case of a race riot. The patrols are to protect "white citizens in the area who are concerned for their safety" in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting last month, says Commander Jeff Schoep of the National Socialist Movement. "We are not advocating any type of violence or attacks on anybody, but we are prepared for it," he says. "We are not the type of white people who are going to be walked all over."

 

[jon_mx]

Those damn socialists trying to provoke a fight is disgusting.

 

[Boom Switch]

Fearing that the lack of race riots in the Sanford community is a sure sign of upcoming race riots in the Sanford community, "concerned" citizens swing into action.

Neo-Nazis are currently conducting heavily armed patrols in and around Sanford, Florida and are "prepared" for violence in the case of a race riot. The patrols are to protect "white citizens in the area who are concerned for their safety" in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting last month, says Commander Jeff Schoep of the National Socialist Movement. "We are not advocating any type of violence or attacks on anybody, but we are prepared for it," he says. "We are not the type of white people who are going to be walked all over."

Good for them

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Fearing that the lack of race riots in the Sanford community is a sure sign of upcoming race riots in the Sanford community, "concerned" citizens swing into action.

Neo-Nazis are currently conducting heavily armed patrols in and around Sanford, Florida and are "prepared" for violence in the case of a race riot. The patrols are to protect "white citizens in the area who are concerned for their safety" in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting last month, says Commander Jeff Schoep of the National Socialist Movement. "We are not advocating any type of violence or attacks on anybody, but we are prepared for it," he says. "We are not the type of white people who are going to be walked all over."

Good for them

I cant wait until they bump into the Black Panthers ...LLLLETS GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!!

 

[PinkydaPimp]

Christo/Carolina Hustler, is this you? And is that Tim right next to you?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Christo/Carolina Hustler, is this you? And is that Tim right next to you?

 

[Boom Switch]

Fearing that the lack of race riots in the Sanford community is a sure sign of upcoming race riots in the Sanford community, "concerned" citizens swing into action.

Neo-Nazis are currently conducting heavily armed patrols in and around Sanford, Florida and are "prepared" for violence in the case of a race riot. The patrols are to protect "white citizens in the area who are concerned for their safety" in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting last month, says Commander Jeff Schoep of the National Socialist Movement. "We are not advocating any type of violence or attacks on anybody, but we are prepared for it," he says. "We are not the type of white people who are going to be walked all over."

Good for them

I cant wait until they bump into the Black Panthers ...LLLLETS GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!!

My money is on the skin heads, those dudes have A LOT of white rage lol...

 

[BustedKnuckles]

You guys'll be proud of me - I went looking for a fight today, and managed to force a confrontation, but then I totally stood my ground!

 

[Guest]

Christo/Carolina Hustler, is this you? And is that Tim right next to you?

 

[BoneYardDog]

Fearing that the lack of race riots in the Sanford community is a sure sign of upcoming race riots in the Sanford community, "concerned" citizens swing into action.

Neo-Nazis are currently conducting heavily armed patrols in and around Sanford, Florida and are "prepared" for violence in the case of a race riot. The patrols are to protect "white citizens in the area who are concerned for their safety" in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting last month, says Commander Jeff Schoep of the National Socialist Movement. "We are not advocating any type of violence or attacks on anybody, but we are prepared for it," he says. "We are not the type of white people who are going to be walked all over."

Good for them

I cant wait until they bump into the Black Panthers ...LLLLETS GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!!

Lets hope it never comes to this...The Neo-Nazis train and are armed like a military organization, it would not be pretty...

I find it distressing but not surprising that you find humor in this situation...

 

[identikit]

Christo/Carolina Hustler, is this you? And is that Tim right next to you?

OMG

 

[squistion]

Fearing that the lack of race riots in the Sanford community is a sure sign of upcoming race riots in the Sanford community, "concerned" citizens swing into action.

Neo-Nazis are currently conducting heavily armed patrols in and around Sanford, Florida and are "prepared" for violence in the case of a race riot. The patrols are to protect "white citizens in the area who are concerned for their safety" in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting last month, says Commander Jeff Schoep of the National Socialist Movement. "We are not advocating any type of violence or attacks on anybody, but we are prepared for it," he says. "We are not the type of white people who are going to be walked all over."

Good for them

I cant wait until they bump into the Black Panthers ...LLLLETS GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!!

Cheers for Neo-Nazi white supremacists and wishes for racial confrontation and violence.How appropriate it is Easter Sunday.

 

[Boom Switch]

Fearing that the lack of race riots in the Sanford community is a sure sign of upcoming race riots in the Sanford community, "concerned" citizens swing into action.

Neo-Nazis are currently conducting heavily armed patrols in and around Sanford, Florida and are "prepared" for violence in the case of a race riot. The patrols are to protect "white citizens in the area who are concerned for their safety" in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting last month, says Commander Jeff Schoep of the National Socialist Movement. "We are not advocating any type of violence or attacks on anybody, but we are prepared for it," he says. "We are not the type of white people who are going to be walked all over."

Good for them

I cant wait until they bump into the Black Panthers ...LLLLETS GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!!

Cheers for Neo-Nazi white supremacists and wishes for racial confrontation and violence.How appropriate it is Easter Sunday.

Yes, shame on them for not rolling over like the white guilt crowd lol

 

[Christo]

Your hypothetical had nothing to do with this case. Rather, you said: If you follow someone and engage them and it turns physical and you are armed and the person who you were following wasnt and you shoot them you go to jail. At least in MA."

Which, now that we've taken a look at the law in MA, turns out to not necessarily be true.

my point was if this shooting happened in MA things would be very different for mr. zimmerman

I keep forgetting we're in the "what I say may really not be what I mean" thread.

Under current Massachusetts law, there are no protections for lawful citizens who use force to defend themselves, or others, outside of their dwelling...not sure how much clearer this could be.

Perhaps you should read what you quoted earlier. There are not protections for people who use excessive force. There are protections for people who use force that's not excessive.

 

[Christo]

Your hypothetical had nothing to do with this case. Rather, you said: If you follow someone and engage them and it turns physical and you are armed and the person who you were following wasnt and you shoot them you go to jail. At least in MA."

Which, now that we've taken a look at the law in MA, turns out to not necessarily be true.

my point was if this shooting happened in MA things would be very different for mr. zimmerman

I keep forgetting we're in the "what I say may really not be what I mean" thread.

boy, you`re a real piece of work

Between you and tim in the last few pages, it should be apparent to anyone.

 

[timschochet]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/08/us-usa-florida-shooting-nbc-idUSBRE83609U20120408

Trayvon Martin call was "mistake, not deliberate": NBC

(Reuters) - NBC News' decision to air an edited call from George Zimmerman to police in the moments before he shot Trayvon Martin was "a mistake and not a deliberate act to misrepresent the phone call," according to the president of the network's news division.

The edit in question, which aired on the network's flagship "Today" morning show last week, made it appear that Zimmerman told police that Martin was black without being prompted, when, in fact, the full tape reveals that the neighborhood watch captain only did so when responding to a question posed by a dispatcher.

Under growing public pressure to explain the incident, NBC News President Steve Capus provided Reuters with the fullest explanation to date of how the edited call made it on air and what the network is doing to prevent such a consequential error from happening again.

Capus confirmed a previous Reuters report that an internal network investigation had determined that a producer made the editing error, and that the network's editorial controls - including senior broadcast producer oversight, script editors and often legal and standards department reviews of sensitive material to be broadcast - simply missed the selective editing of the phone call.

He said the producer has been fired and "several people" involved were disciplined, though he declined to specify the nature of the disciplinary actions, saying they were internal personnel matters.

Sources at the network told Reuters on Thursday that NBC News executives did not know the emergency call was misleadingly edited until news reports surfaced days later on blogs including newsbusters.org and Breitbart.com.

Those blogs, along with media critics and rival networks, have charged that the edited call has inflamed racial tensions in an already volatile situation.

Sources inside the network have told Reuters that NBC News brass interviewed more than a dozen staffers during its investigation of the matter.

As part of the investigation, the producer who edited the call was questioned extensively about motivation, and it was determined that the person had cut the video clip down to meet a maximum time requirement for the length of the segment - a common pressure in morning television - and inadvertently edited the call in a way that proved misleading.

NBC News has apologized for the incident, saying in a statement to Reuters earlier this week that there was "an editing error in the production process," but insisting the results of the internal investigation would not be announced publicly.

Capus said that the network "takes its responsibility seriously" and has undertaken rigorous efforts to formalize the editorial safeguards in place at the network.

He said that NBC News' broadcast standards department, led by David McCormick, has been holding meetings with various NBC News shows, as well as the network's specialized units, which handle sometimes complicated subjects like medical or legal news. Capus added that he also is holding meetings among the network executives to reinforce the lessons learned from the investigation into the edited call.

 

[Christo]

I kinda hope the guy gets off, we havent had a good looting in the cities in awhile. Thats always good tv....

Where have you been? I missed you. I really did.

Online dating has turned out to be a full time job, been busy

Online porn isn't dating peens.

 

[timschochet]

Guess all of you "liberal media" conspiracy people will have to look somewhere else in order to justify your delusions. Oh well.

 

[Christo]

Christo/Carolina Hustler, is this you? And is that Tim right next to you?

I have no love for white people. They suck just as hard as any minority.

 

[identikit]

Of course it was a 'mistake' per NBC.

 

[Christo]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/08/us-usa-florida-shooting-nbc-idUSBRE83609U20120408

Trayvon Martin call was "mistake, not deliberate": NBC

(Reuters) - NBC News' decision to air an edited call from George Zimmerman to police in the moments before he shot Trayvon Martin was "a mistake and not a deliberate act to misrepresent the phone call," according to the president of the network's news division.

The edit in question, which aired on the network's flagship "Today" morning show last week, made it appear that Zimmerman told police that Martin was black without being prompted, when, in fact, the full tape reveals that the neighborhood watch captain only did so when responding to a question posed by a dispatcher.

Under growing public pressure to explain the incident, NBC News President Steve Capus provided Reuters with the fullest explanation to date of how the edited call made it on air and what the network is doing to prevent such a consequential error from happening again.

Capus confirmed a previous Reuters report that an internal network investigation had determined that a producer made the editing error, and that the network's editorial controls - including senior broadcast producer oversight, script editors and often legal and standards department reviews of sensitive material to be broadcast - simply missed the selective editing of the phone call.

He said the producer has been fired and "several people" involved were disciplined, though he declined to specify the nature of the disciplinary actions, saying they were internal personnel matters.

Sources at the network told Reuters on Thursday that NBC News executives did not know the emergency call was misleadingly edited until news reports surfaced days later on blogs including newsbusters.org and Breitbart.com.

Those blogs, along with media critics and rival networks, have charged that the edited call has inflamed racial tensions in an already volatile situation.

Sources inside the network have told Reuters that NBC News brass interviewed more than a dozen staffers during its investigation of the matter.

As part of the investigation, the producer who edited the call was questioned extensively about motivation, and it was determined that the person had cut the video clip down to meet a maximum time requirement for the length of the segment - a common pressure in morning television - and inadvertently edited the call in a way that proved misleading.

NBC News has apologized for the incident, saying in a statement to Reuters earlier this week that there was "an editing error in the production process," but insisting the results of the internal investigation would not be announced publicly.

Capus said that the network "takes its responsibility seriously" and has undertaken rigorous efforts to formalize the editorial safeguards in place at the network.

He said that NBC News' broadcast standards department, led by David McCormick, has been holding meetings with various NBC News shows, as well as the network's specialized units, which handle sometimes complicated subjects like medical or legal news. Capus added that he also is holding meetings among the network executives to reinforce the lessons learned from the investigation into the edited call.

TV Journalism 101

 

[Christo]

Guess all of you "liberal media" conspiracy people will have to look somewhere else in order to justify your delusions. Oh well.

You've been railing against Zimmerman for lying when we haven't even heard what he has to say but you bend over and take it from an organization like NBC without any question?

 

[timschochet]

Of course it was a 'mistake' per NBC.

Ah yes. And now the denial begins. You would much rather believe that people at that network got together and deliberately conspired to manipulate the news, risking their jobs and reputations, in order to further stir up tensions which by then were already at a fever pitch. You believe that because the alternative, that somebody screwed up over time constraints, isn't that interesting and doesn't fit your agenda. Guess there's no way to convince you otherwise. Carry on.

 

[squistion]

Of course it was a 'mistake' per NBC.

Why would they intentionally do this? If they were the only one with access to this tape, you might have a point. But it was only a matter of time until some other news outlet would notice the editing.

 

[Fennis]

Christo/Carolina Hustler, is this you? And is that Tim right next to you?

 

[identikit]

Of course it was a 'mistake' per NBC.

Ah yes. And now the denial begins. You would much rather believe that people at that network got together and deliberately conspired to manipulate the news, risking their jobs and reputations, in order to further stir up tensions which by then were already at a fever pitch. You believe that because the alternative, that somebody screwed up over time constraints, isn't that interesting and doesn't fit your agenda. Guess there's no way to convince you otherwise. Carry on.

I don't have an agenda.I call them as I see them.

 

[Christo]

Of course it was a 'mistake' per NBC.

Ah yes. And now the denial begins. You would much rather believe that people at that network got together and deliberately conspired to manipulate the news, risking their jobs and reputations, in order to further stir up tensions which by then were already at a fever pitch. You believe that because the alternative, that somebody screwed up over time constraints, isn't that interesting and doesn't fit your agenda. Guess there's no way to convince you otherwise. Carry on.

Believe? Not necessarily. Take their word for it without a doubt? No way in hell.News organizations manipulate stories all of the time, tim.

 

[Courtjester]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/08/us-usa-florida-shooting-nbc-idUSBRE83609U20120408

Trayvon Martin call was "mistake, not deliberate": NBC

(Reuters) - NBC News' decision to air an edited call from George Zimmerman to police in the moments before he shot Trayvon Martin was "a mistake and not a deliberate act to misrepresent the phone call," according to the president of the network's news division.

The edit in question, which aired on the network's flagship "Today" morning show last week, made it appear that Zimmerman told police that Martin was black without being prompted, when, in fact, the full tape reveals that the neighborhood watch captain only did so when responding to a question posed by a dispatcher.

Under growing public pressure to explain the incident, NBC News President Steve Capus provided Reuters with the fullest explanation to date of how the edited call made it on air and what the network is doing to prevent such a consequential error from happening again.

Capus confirmed a previous Reuters report that an internal network investigation had determined that a producer made the editing error, and that the network's editorial controls - including senior broadcast producer oversight, script editors and often legal and standards department reviews of sensitive material to be broadcast - simply missed the selective editing of the phone call.

He said the producer has been fired and "several people" involved were disciplined, though he declined to specify the nature of the disciplinary actions, saying they were internal personnel matters.

Sources at the network told Reuters on Thursday that NBC News executives did not know the emergency call was misleadingly edited until news reports surfaced days later on blogs including newsbusters.org and Breitbart.com.

Those blogs, along with media critics and rival networks, have charged that the edited call has inflamed racial tensions in an already volatile situation.

Sources inside the network have told Reuters that NBC News brass interviewed more than a dozen staffers during its investigation of the matter.

As part of the investigation, the producer who edited the call was questioned extensively about motivation, and it was determined that the person had cut the video clip down to meet a maximum time requirement for the length of the segment - a common pressure in morning television - and inadvertently edited the call in a way that proved misleading.

NBC News has apologized for the incident, saying in a statement to Reuters earlier this week that there was "an editing error in the production process," but insisting the results of the internal investigation would not be announced publicly.

Capus said that the network "takes its responsibility seriously" and has undertaken rigorous efforts to formalize the editorial safeguards in place at the network.

He said that NBC News' broadcast standards department, led by David McCormick, has been holding meetings with various NBC News shows, as well as the network's specialized units, which handle sometimes complicated subjects like medical or legal news. Capus added that he also is holding meetings among the network executives to reinforce the lessons learned from the investigation into the edited call.

Of course, Tim believes that it must be true since it is on the internet.But if it was Foxnews that did this, I doubt you would be so believing.

 

[cstu]

Of course it was a 'mistake' per NBC.

Why would they intentionally do this? If they were the only one with access to this tape, you might have a point. But it was only a matter of time until some other news outlet would notice the editing.

They got their ratings and in a week no one will remember.

 

[cstu]

Of course it was a 'mistake' per NBC.

Ah yes. And now the denial begins. You would much rather believe that people at that network got together and deliberately conspired to manipulate the news, risking their jobs and reputations, in order to further stir up tensions which by then were already at a fever pitch. You believe that because the alternative, that somebody screwed up over time constraints, isn't that interesting and doesn't fit your agenda. Guess there's no way to convince you otherwise. Carry on.

Dude, you are so naive.

 

[timschochet]

Guess all of you "liberal media" conspiracy people will have to look somewhere else in order to justify your delusions. Oh well.

You've been railing against Zimmerman for lying when we haven't even heard what he has to say but you bend over and take it from an organization like NBC without any question?

1. I think Zimmerman is lying because his story doesn't make any sense on the basis of what we know.2. I think NBC is telling the truth because I just can't see people risking their careers in order to deliberately edit a tape- for what? By the time they made that broadcast, this story was already huge and people were already angry. A screw up seems 1000 times more plausible than deliberate action. 3. "Bend over and take it?" The person doing that here is you, if you're willing to buy into the "mainstream media is liberal" idea that so many conservatives keep trying to shove down our throats. It's not true, it's never been true, and it hurts your credibility everytime it gets repeated.

 

[squistion]

Of course it was a 'mistake' per NBC.

Why would they intentionally do this? If they were the only one with access to this tape, you might have a point. But it was only a matter of time until some other news outlet would notice the editing.

They got their ratings and in a week no one will remember.

Please. This incident will be brought up on this and other message board for years. This could be a long term taint on the NBC brand. Not worth it for a week of ratings.

 

[identikit]

Of course it was a 'mistake' per NBC.

Why would they intentionally do this? If they were the only one with access to this tape, you might have a point. But it was only a matter of time until some other news outlet would notice the editing.

Possibly, because even if caught, their apology would never get the airtime or have the impact that their incorrect audio did.

 

[timschochet]

Of course it was a 'mistake' per NBC.

Why would they intentionally do this? If they were the only one with access to this tape, you might have a point. But it was only a matter of time until some other news outlet would notice the editing.

Forget it. Don't even try. Common sense has gone out the window.

 

[Boom Switch]

I kinda hope the guy gets off, we havent had a good looting in the cities in awhile. Thats always good tv....

Where have you been? I missed you. I really did.

Online dating has turned out to be a full time job, been busy

Online porn isn't dating peens.

Im beating them off with a stick, i ran into one lady that liked to be choked. Oh the irony....

 

[squistion]

Of course it was a 'mistake' per NBC.

Why would they intentionally do this? If they were the only one with access to this tape, you might have a point. But it was only a matter of time until some other news outlet would notice the editing.

Possibly, because even if caught, their apology would never get the airtime or have the impact that their incorrect audio did.

Unavoidable they wouldn't be caught. And you are right, this apology won't get the airtime the negative news surrounding this did.

 

[timschochet]

Of course it was a 'mistake' per NBC.

Ah yes. And now the denial begins. You would much rather believe that people at that network got together and deliberately conspired to manipulate the news, risking their jobs and reputations, in order to further stir up tensions which by then were already at a fever pitch. You believe that because the alternative, that somebody screwed up over time constraints, isn't that interesting and doesn't fit your agenda. Guess there's no way to convince you otherwise. Carry on.

Dude, you are so naive.

Yeah. I've been told this by every conspiracy theorist I've ever met. I've been told it by the "Black Helicopters" guy, the "JFK was killed by LBJ:" guy, the "Clinton was a murderer" guy, the "911 was planned by our government" guy, and the "Obama wasn't born in the USA" guy. They all think I'm naive. Join the crowd.

 

[Christo]

Guess all of you "liberal media" conspiracy people will have to look somewhere else in order to justify your delusions. Oh well.

You've been railing against Zimmerman for lying when we haven't even heard what he has to say but you bend over and take it from an organization like NBC without any question?

1. I think Zimmerman is lying because his story doesn't make any sense on the basis of what we know.2. I think NBC is telling the truth because I just can't see people risking their careers in order to deliberately edit a tape- for what? By the time they made that broadcast, this story was already huge and people were already angry. A screw up seems 1000 times more plausible than deliberate action. 3. "Bend over and take it?" The person doing that here is you, if you're willing to buy into the "mainstream media is liberal" idea that so many conservatives keep trying to shove down our throats. It's not true, it's never been true, and it hurts your credibility everytime it gets repeated.

The only one who's repeated it is you. You are one wacky person.

 

[identikit]

Of course it was a 'mistake' per NBC.

Why would they intentionally do this? If they were the only one with access to this tape, you might have a point. But it was only a matter of time until some other news outlet would notice the editing.

Possibly, because even if caught, their apology would never get the airtime or have the impact that their incorrect audio did.

Unavoidable they wouldn't be caught. And you are right, this apology won't get the airtime the negative news surrounding this did.

Should have typed 'when' instead of 'if.'

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Fearing that the lack of race riots in the Sanford community is a sure sign of upcoming race riots in the Sanford community, "concerned" citizens swing into action.

Neo-Nazis are currently conducting heavily armed patrols in and around Sanford, Florida and are "prepared" for violence in the case of a race riot. The patrols are to protect "white citizens in the area who are concerned for their safety" in the wake of the Trayvon Martin shooting last month, says Commander Jeff Schoep of the National Socialist Movement. "We are not advocating any type of violence or attacks on anybody, but we are prepared for it," he says. "We are not the type of white people who are going to be walked all over."

Good for them

I cant wait until they bump into the Black Panthers ...LLLLETS GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!!

Cheers for Neo-Nazi white supremacists and wishes for racial confrontation and violence.How appropriate it is Easter Sunday.

If 2 hate groups wind up wiping each other out im sure nobody would shed any tears

 

[jonessed]

1. I think Zimmerman is lying because his story doesn't make any sense on the basis of what we know.

2. I think NBC is telling the truth because I just can't see people risking their careers in order to deliberately edit a tape- for what? By the time they made that broadcast, this story was already huge and people were already angry. A screw up seems 1000 times more plausible than deliberate action.

3. "Bend over and take it?" The person doing that here is you, if you're willing to buy into the "mainstream media is liberal" idea that so many conservatives keep trying to shove down our throats. It's not true, it's never been true, and it hurts your credibility everytime it gets repeated.