Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (2 Viewers)

[Carolina Hustler]

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

This might be why you're 150+ pages in without being able to agree on anything.

What do I need to agree on? We've already come to a conclusion about the facts we do know.. I won't agree to some speculative alternate story that only happened in someones head.. Let the case play out..There is no proof that this was race related.. There is no proof that Zimmerman wasn't defending himselfWhat is there to agree upon when the opposition will only accept that Zimmerman is a bigot who committed a hate crime and murder..

 

[SacramentoBob]

man you guys are really obsessed with timschochet. its kinda weird.

Very creepy.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

A resonable person knows what happened the night trey was shot to death and if you dont theres something wrong with the way you`re wired.

you keep saying zimmerman had his head slammed into the ground , but as your leader christo keeps saying we havent heard zimmermans side of the story. You`re as guilty as us treyvon supporters of fabricating the missing minute of what happened and who actually started the struggle between zimm and trey. For all you know they had words and then someone pushed the other and they started wrestling. Zimm could have hit his head falling backwards and then he reached for his gun and trey tried to prevent zimm from pointing at at him and lost that advantage and was eventually shot to death. Its as probable as what you keep saying happened.

How's your wiring?

my wiring is great , thanks for asking.

seriously? Are you saying a reasonable person doesnt already know from the 911 calls and the witness accounts what happened to trey? An unarmed teen was shot to death by an armed wannabe cop who was paranoid.That scenerio i posted above is in my reasonable mind, what happened based on the witness that said he saw and heard trey and george talking, then arguing , then fighting closely (wrestling)before the gun went off. Anyone who has followed this case had the timelines down to the minutes, so what is it we dont actually know? what trey and zimm were thinking? not every thought but using 911 calls we know pretty much know what zimm was thinking and if we go by treys GF we know what trey was thinking also. Throw in the lack of blood and injuries on zimm and the fact that some of the cops on the scene wanted to charge zimmerman with manslaughter its pretty clear what went on that night.So keep playing defense lawyer and try to dispel common logic and sense.

First you say a reasonable person knows what happened that night and if you don't then something is wrong with the way you're wired. Then you admit that we haven't heard Zimmerman's side of the story and go through a bunch of scenarios, which are all possible, but we clearly don't know what happened. Then you combine the two and say both in this last post. Sorry, but you're all over the damn map.

i blame it on these damn magic mushrooms

 

[jon_mx]

A bit puzzled why the media did not run with this picture for Treyvon?

 

[jon_mx]

man you guys are really obsessed with timschochet. its kinda weird.

I am just fascinated by Tim's abilities to read the minds and heart of those he disagrees with near certainty, while at the same time he gets upset with others who try.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

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

You don't keep up very well do you?

 

[squistion]

A bit puzzled why the media did not run with this picture for Treyvon?

jon_mx, on 07 April 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

There is some awful posts in this thread.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

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.

Let me guess, you believe them..?

 

[jon_mx]

A bit puzzled why the media did not run with this picture for Treyvon?

jon_mx, on 07 April 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:

There is some awful posts in this thread.

My post was sarcasm....I just click on a recent story and they are still using the picture of him when he was like 10. Come on, that is ridiculous.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

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.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

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.

Exactly, it's Journalism 101..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

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....

^ this guy is pretty funny..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The only people not exercising common sense are those insisting that the only explanation is that it was an innocent mistake. You don't know the guy who did it and you have no way to know if he had an ulterior motive.

That would make the people insisting/insinuating that it was a dishonest mistake equally ridiculous.

fair point

 

[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.

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.

im pretty sure shooting an unarmed person during a wrestling match is excessive force, but keep trying to confuse the issue , its what you do best.

WTF are you talking about?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The only people not exercising common sense are those insisting that the only explanation is that it was an innocent mistake. You don't know the guy who did it and you have no way to know if he had an ulterior motive.

That would make the people insisting/insinuating that it was a dishonest mistake equally ridiculous.

No, but it is funny how certain people here are willing to call what NBC did an honest mistake and not racially/ratings motivated, but yet those same people are convinced they know that what Zimmerman did was racially motivated beyond a shadow of doubt.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

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.

im pretty sure shooting an unarmed person during a wrestling match is excessive force, but keep trying to confuse the issue , its what you do best.

WTF are you talking about?

 

[jon_mx]

The only people not exercising common sense are those insisting that the only explanation is that it was an innocent mistake. You don't know the guy who did it and you have no way to know if he had an ulterior motive.

That would make the people insisting/insinuating that it was a dishonest mistake equally ridiculous.

fair point

Not really. It takes an effort to edit a tape down. It is with near certainty it was intentionally misleading, at least on the part of the guy who did the edit job. That is why he was fired. If they hired someone who doesn't speak English, it would have plausibly been a mistake. Again, the guy was fired, and fired with just cause.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

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.

There's no reason to give Fox News the benefit of any doubt. You can't make your whole reputation and then claim that you're being singly mistreated.

I get a tingle up my leg every time I hear altered 911 tapes.Oh wait...that was a different news channel.

That must be the Cialas

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The only people not exercising common sense are those insisting that the only explanation is that it was an innocent mistake. You don't know the guy who did it and you have no way to know if he had an ulterior motive.

That would make the people insisting/insinuating that it was a dishonest mistake equally ridiculous.

No, but it is funny how certain people here are willing to call what NBC did an honest mistake and not racially/ratings motivated, but yet those same people are convinced they know that what Zimmerman did was racially motivated beyond a shadow of doubt.

False equivalency. A national news organization with multiple parties involved versus one individual (completely unknown at the time). Also not everyone who thought what NBC did was a mistake are also completely convinced that what "Zimmerman did was racially motivated beyond a shadow of doubt," - at least I am not.

One person edited the tape.

But the argument is that everyone in the chain of command at NBC was involved in this and signed off on it.

I certainly haven't said that. Look at my original post in this string--You don't know the guy who did it and you have no way to know if he had an ulterior motive.

I didn't say that was your argument. I was responding to court jester - the reference to certain people. Perhaps I should have edited out the earlier part of the thread.

You work for NBC?

 

[squistion]

The only people not exercising common sense are those insisting that the only explanation is that it was an innocent mistake. You don't know the guy who did it and you have no way to know if he had an ulterior motive.

That would make the people insisting/insinuating that it was a dishonest mistake equally ridiculous.

fair point

Not really. It takes an effort to edit a tape down. It is with near certainty it was intentionally misleading, at least on the part of the guy who did the edit job. That is why he was fired. If they hired someone who doesn't speak English, it would have plausibly been a mistake. Again, the guy was fired, and fired with just cause.

We don't know that. The fact that he was fired does not necessarily mean they thought he did it intentionally, he was fired because it was a mistake that someone in his position should not have made, as evidenced by the negative repercussions for NBC that will be mentioned on this forum, other message boards and in the media for the next decade (I am sure you won't forget this).When some mistakes are made, heads have to roll even if the mistake was unintentional. The ESPN Jeremy Lin headline ***** In The Armour would be a good example. The guy who ran the headline deserved to lose his job even if it was unintentional mistake. It was a mistake a headline writer should not have made. Similarly at NBC it was a mistake an editor never should have made.

 

[jon_mx]

The only people not exercising common sense are those insisting that the only explanation is that it was an innocent mistake. You don't know the guy who did it and you have no way to know if he had an ulterior motive.

That would make the people insisting/insinuating that it was a dishonest mistake equally ridiculous.

fair point

Not really. It takes an effort to edit a tape down. It is with near certainty it was intentionally misleading, at least on the part of the guy who did the edit job. That is why he was fired. If they hired someone who doesn't speak English, it would have plausibly been a mistake. Again, the guy was fired, and fired with just cause.

We don't know that. The fact that he was fired does not necessarily mean they thought he did it intentionally, he was fired because it was a mistake that someone in his position should not have made, as evidenced by the negative repercussions for NBC that will be mentioned on this forum, other message boards and in the media for the next decade (I am sure you won't forget this).When some mistakes are made, heads have to roll even if the mistake was unintentional. The ESPN Jeremy Lin headline ***** In The Armour would be a good example. The guy who ran the headline deserved to lose his job even if it was unintentional mistake. It was a mistake a headline writer should not have made. Similarly at NBC it was a mistake an editor never should have made.

If I had to rate those two, I think the ***** in the armour comment has a bit more plausible deniability. It is a commonly used phrase and it is possible the guy did not think about the double meaning. Although headline writers usually like to use phrases which do have double-meaning. When you edit a tape, you try to put meaning in the clip to illustrate a point. He intentionally made it sound racist to convey that point. The only possible thing he could plea ignorance on is that he doesn't see how the dispatcher prompting him makes that big of a difference. But in that case, the guy is just too stupid to be in the position. Odds are, he is a smart fella and understood what he did.

 

[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.

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.

im pretty sure shooting an unarmed person during a wrestling match is excessive force, but keep trying to confuse the issue , its what you do best.

WTF are you talking about?

Jorge Zimmerman (as per BustedKnuckles)

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The only people not exercising common sense are those insisting that the only explanation is that it was an innocent mistake. You don't know the guy who did it and you have no way to know if he had an ulterior motive.

That would make the people insisting/insinuating that it was a dishonest mistake equally ridiculous.

fair point

Not really. It takes an effort to edit a tape down. It is with near certainty it was intentionally misleading, at least on the part of the guy who did the edit job. That is why he was fired. If they hired someone who doesn't speak English, it would have plausibly been a mistake. Again, the guy was fired, and fired with just cause.

Whether likely or not, there is still a chance this was a mistake.. We don't know the truth.. Silly to assume that NBC wouldn't do some PR work here and cover there true motivations, but without getting inside someones head here, we can't come to that definitive conclusion..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The only people not exercising common sense are those insisting that the only explanation is that it was an innocent mistake. You don't know the guy who did it and you have no way to know if he had an ulterior motive.

That would make the people insisting/insinuating that it was a dishonest mistake equally ridiculous.

fair point

Not really. It takes an effort to edit a tape down. It is with near certainty it was intentionally misleading, at least on the part of the guy who did the edit job. That is why he was fired. If they hired someone who doesn't speak English, it would have plausibly been a mistake. Again, the guy was fired, and fired with just cause.

We don't know that. The fact that he was fired does not necessarily mean they thought he did it intentionally, he was fired because it was a mistake that someone in his position should not have made, as evidenced by the negative repercussions for NBC that will be mentioned on this forum, other message boards and in the media for the next decade (I am sure you won't forget this).When some mistakes are made, heads have to roll even if the mistake was unintentional. The ESPN Jeremy Lin headline ***** In The Armour would be a good example. The guy who ran the headline deserved to lose his job even if it was unintentional mistake. It was a mistake a headline writer should not have made. Similarly at NBC it was a mistake an editor never should have made.

If indeed it was a mistake.. The media was full a buzz with Race related news.. Certainly this "mistake" feed the narrative.. The media needs stories that make an impact, sensationalism is quite often the status quo.. Regardless of the network..

 

[jon_mx]

The only people not exercising common sense are those insisting that the only explanation is that it was an innocent mistake. You don't know the guy who did it and you have no way to know if he had an ulterior motive.

That would make the people insisting/insinuating that it was a dishonest mistake equally ridiculous.

fair point

Not really. It takes an effort to edit a tape down. It is with near certainty it was intentionally misleading, at least on the part of the guy who did the edit job. That is why he was fired. If they hired someone who doesn't speak English, it would have plausibly been a mistake. Again, the guy was fired, and fired with just cause.

Whether likely or not, there is still a chance this was a mistake.. We don't know the truth.. Silly to assume that NBC wouldn't do some PR work here and cover there true motivations, but without getting inside someones head here, we can't come to that definitive conclusion..

Hence the 'near certainty'. The chance that this was simply a mistake was way south of 10 percent. It is not something that could have been overlooked as is plausible with the ***** in the amour headline, he actively edited the tape to illustrate a point. It is like more sticking a tack on a teachers chair and claiming it was a mistake when the tack stuck in the teacher's ###..

 

[Chaos Commish]

The most current pictures of Trayvon.

His dad said he was 6'3"

He's probably right looking at how long he is horseback.

That's a good sized kid.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The only people not exercising common sense are those insisting that the only explanation is that it was an innocent mistake. You don't know the guy who did it and you have no way to know if he had an ulterior motive.

That would make the people insisting/insinuating that it was a dishonest mistake equally ridiculous.

fair point

Not really. It takes an effort to edit a tape down. It is with near certainty it was intentionally misleading, at least on the part of the guy who did the edit job. That is why he was fired. If they hired someone who doesn't speak English, it would have plausibly been a mistake. Again, the guy was fired, and fired with just cause.

Whether likely or not, there is still a chance this was a mistake.. We don't know the truth.. Silly to assume that NBC wouldn't do some PR work here and cover there true motivations, but without getting inside someones head here, we can't come to that definitive conclusion..

Hence the 'near certainty'. The chance that this was simply a mistake was way south of 10 percent. It is not something that could have been overlooked as is plausible with the ***** in the amour headline, he actively edited the tape to illustrate a point. It is like more sticking a tack on a teachers chair and claiming it was a mistake when the tack stuck in the teacher's ###..

It would be hard to imagine (for me at least) that this was a mistake and no one at NBC caught it before it aired.. These people know exactly how to incite the populous, they do it for a living.. If anyone here thinks that the powers that be at NBC looked at this before it aired and didn't see this angle, their lying to them self..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The most current pictures of Trayvon.

His dad said he was 6'3"

He's probably right looking at how long he is horseback.

That's a good sized kid.

Not a very menacing impression, but certainly a big kid..

 

[Chaos Commish]

The most current pictures of Trayvon.

His dad said he was 6'3"

He's probably right looking at how long he is horseback.

That's a good sized kid.

Not a very menacing impression, but certainly a big kid..

Sorry, maybe this one better fits the menacing stereotype, gray hoodie and all.

 

[squistion]

The only people not exercising common sense are those insisting that the only explanation is that it was an innocent mistake. You don't know the guy who did it and you have no way to know if he had an ulterior motive.

That would make the people insisting/insinuating that it was a dishonest mistake equally ridiculous.

fair point

Not really. It takes an effort to edit a tape down. It is with near certainty it was intentionally misleading, at least on the part of the guy who did the edit job. That is why he was fired. If they hired someone who doesn't speak English, it would have plausibly been a mistake. Again, the guy was fired, and fired with just cause.

Whether likely or not, there is still a chance this was a mistake.. We don't know the truth.. Silly to assume that NBC wouldn't do some PR work here and cover there true motivations, but without getting inside someones head here, we can't come to that definitive conclusion..

Hence the 'near certainty'. The chance that this was simply a mistake was way south of 10 percent. It is not something that could have been overlooked as is plausible with the ***** in the amour headline, he actively edited the tape to illustrate a point. It is like more sticking a tack on a teachers chair and claiming it was a mistake when the tack stuck in the teacher's ###..

So now you are a statistical percentage expert too. Because this mistake had negative ramifications that will haunt this network for years, one could argue just as plausibly that due to the foreseeable negative publicity, the likelihood it was intentional was also way south of 10%. Unless you were there (and neither of us were) it is irresponsible to speculate what happened with over a 90% certainly.

 

[identikit]

The only people not exercising common sense are those insisting that the only explanation is that it was an innocent mistake. You don't know the guy who did it and you have no way to know if he had an ulterior motive.

That would make the people insisting/insinuating that it was a dishonest mistake equally ridiculous.

fair point

Not really. It takes an effort to edit a tape down. It is with near certainty it was intentionally misleading, at least on the part of the guy who did the edit job. That is why he was fired. If they hired someone who doesn't speak English, it would have plausibly been a mistake. Again, the guy was fired, and fired with just cause.

Whether likely or not, there is still a chance this was a mistake.. We don't know the truth.. Silly to assume that NBC wouldn't do some PR work here and cover there true motivations, but without getting inside someones head here, we can't come to that definitive conclusion..

Hence the 'near certainty'. The chance that this was simply a mistake was way south of 10 percent. It is not something that could have been overlooked as is plausible with the ***** in the amour headline, he actively edited the tape to illustrate a point. It is like more sticking a tack on a teachers chair and claiming it was a mistake when the tack stuck in the teacher's ###..

So now you are a statistical percentage expert too. Because this mistake had negative ramifications that will haunt this network for years, one could argue just as plausibly that due to the foreseeable negative publicity, the likelihood it was intentional was also way south of 10%. Unless you were there (and neither of us were) it is irresponsible to speculate what happened with over a 90% certainly.

I tend to believe that this incident will be a small blip that many will not remember fairly soon.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The most current pictures of Trayvon.

His dad said he was 6'3"

He's probably right looking at how long he is horseback.

That's a good sized kid.

Not a very menacing impression, but certainly a big kid..

Sorry, maybe this one better fits the menacing stereotype, gray hoodie and all.

He is definitely a young man with bad intentions.. (says that girls father)He is definitely 6'..6'+... Standard door height is 6'8" though that could be a 7'0" door being in a commercial setting.

6'3" seems about right

 

[TexanFan02]

The most current pictures of Trayvon.

His dad said he was 6'3"

He's probably right looking at how long he is horseback.

That's a good sized kid.

Not a very menacing impression, but certainly a big kid..

Sorry, maybe this one better fits the menacing stereotype, gray hoodie and all.

Yep, definitely looks like a kid that would attack someone for no reason and try to kill them.

 

[jon_mx]

So now you are a statistical percentage expert too. Because this mistake had negative ramifications that will haunt this network for years, one could argue just as plausibly that due to the foreseeable negative publicity, the likelihood it was intentional was also way south of 10%. Unless you were there (and neither of us were) it is irresponsible to speculate what happened with over a 90% certainly.

You could make that argument and it would be stupid. That is not a mistake an intelligent, experienced, and competent editor makes. Perhaps he is an idiot who has trouble with the English language, but that is about the only explanation for that 'mistake'.And BTW, I am not blaming the network. If higher ups knew, they would not have approved. It is a stupid thing for a network to do.

 

[PinkydaPimp]

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

You don't keep up very well do you?

i unsubscribed to this thread like 2 weeks ago!

 

[BustedKnuckles]

The most current pictures of Trayvon.

His dad said he was 6'3"

He's probably right looking at how long he is horseback.

That's a good sized kid.

Not a very menacing impression, but certainly a big kid..

Sorry, maybe this one better fits the menacing stereotype, gray hoodie and all.

Yep, definitely looks like a kid that would attack someone for no reason and try to kill them.

i agree....he has that mike tyson thug look to him, not your average high school kid

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Ya thats it, those of us that actually care that an innocent 17 yo kid that was buying his little baby brother skittles , was killed in a fist fight he never saw coming, are in fact just REALLY upset that zimmerman was armed in the first place.

His brother was a teenager...

 

[squistion]

So now you are a statistical percentage expert too. Because this mistake had negative ramifications that will haunt this network for years, one could argue just as plausibly that due to the foreseeable negative publicity, the likelihood it was intentional was also way south of 10%. Unless you were there (and neither of us were) it is irresponsible to speculate what happened with over a 90% certainly.

You could make that argument and it would be stupid. That is not a mistake an intelligent, experienced, and competent editor makes. Perhaps he is an idiot who has trouble with the English language, but that is about the only explanation for that 'mistake'.

Not any more stupid than your argument.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The most current pictures of Trayvon.

His dad said he was 6'3"

He's probably right looking at how long he is horseback.

That's a good sized kid.

Not a very menacing impression, but certainly a big kid..

Sorry, maybe this one better fits the menacing stereotype, gray hoodie and all.

Yep, definitely looks like a kid that would attack someone for no reason and try to kill them.

Though if that was something we could tell based on appearance with any certainty, we'd have no need for a legal system right?O' and I thought your line of reasoning was that Trayvon was provoked because Zimmerman was "chasing" him..

Do you even know what your position is anymore?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So now you are a statistical percentage expert too. Because this mistake had negative ramifications that will haunt this network for years, one could argue just as plausibly that due to the foreseeable negative publicity, the likelihood it was intentional was also way south of 10%. Unless you were there (and neither of us were) it is irresponsible to speculate what happened with over a 90% certainly.

You could make that argument and it would be stupid. That is not a mistake an intelligent, experienced, and competent editor makes. Perhaps he is an idiot who has trouble with the English language, but that is about the only explanation for that 'mistake'.

Not any more stupid than your argument.

I do think it's rather silly to suggest this "mistake" made it past everyone's eyes at NBC and no one saw the "zimmerman is a racist" angle... Especially since it was already the narrative of the media so far..

 

[jon_mx]

So now you are a statistical percentage expert too. Because this mistake had negative ramifications that will haunt this network for years, one could argue just as plausibly that due to the foreseeable negative publicity, the likelihood it was intentional was also way south of 10%. Unless you were there (and neither of us were) it is irresponsible to speculate what happened with over a 90% certainly.

You could make that argument and it would be stupid. That is not a mistake an intelligent, experienced, and competent editor makes. Perhaps he is an idiot who has trouble with the English language, but that is about the only explanation for that 'mistake'.

Not any more stupid than your argument.

It is a false equivalency argument. Just because there are two possibilities, does not mean they are both equally likely. In this case you have an editor who actively altered something. It could not be blamed on an oversight. He listened to the tape and made changes too it. He knew what the tape said and he knew how he edited it. An intelligent person knows better.

 

[squistion]

So now you are a statistical percentage expert too. Because this mistake had negative ramifications that will haunt this network for years, one could argue just as plausibly that due to the foreseeable negative publicity, the likelihood it was intentional was also way south of 10%. Unless you were there (and neither of us were) it is irresponsible to speculate what happened with over a 90% certainly.

You could make that argument and it would be stupid. That is not a mistake an intelligent, experienced, and competent editor makes. Perhaps he is an idiot who has trouble with the English language, but that is about the only explanation for that 'mistake'.

Not any more stupid than your argument.

I do think it's rather silly to suggest this "mistake" made it past everyone's eyes at NBC and no one saw the "zimmerman is a racist" angle... Especially since it was already the narrative of the media so far..

Nope - this seems quite plausible, they assumed the guy was doing his job properly and simply missed it at the time: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/08/nbc-news-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-error_n_1410913.html

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.

 

[Chaos Commish]

The most current pictures of Trayvon.

His dad said he was 6'3"

He's probably right looking at how long he is horseback.

That's a good sized kid.

Not a very menacing impression, but certainly a big kid..

Sorry, maybe this one better fits the menacing stereotype, gray hoodie and all.

Yep, definitely looks like a kid that would attack someone for no reason and try to kill them.

Well he only weighs 140 so I don't think he'd be taking on any 240 pound Latino MMA artists.

 

[jon_mx]

So now you are a statistical percentage expert too. Because this mistake had negative ramifications that will haunt this network for years, one could argue just as plausibly that due to the foreseeable negative publicity, the likelihood it was intentional was also way south of 10%. Unless you were there (and neither of us were) it is irresponsible to speculate what happened with over a 90% certainly.

You could make that argument and it would be stupid. That is not a mistake an intelligent, experienced, and competent editor makes. Perhaps he is an idiot who has trouble with the English language, but that is about the only explanation for that 'mistake'.

Not any more stupid than your argument.

I do think it's rather silly to suggest this "mistake" made it past everyone's eyes at NBC and no one saw the "zimmerman is a racist" angle... Especially since it was already the narrative of the media so far..

Nope - this seems quite plausible, they assumed the guy was doing his job properly and simply missed it at the time: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/08/nbc-news-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-error_n_1410913.html

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.

Yes, it is plausible it was an error in oversight for those who reviewed it. Calling the actual edit an error is complete bull####. Considering the chain of people who review it, it is hard to believe no one saw it, but I will give them the BIG benefit of the doubt on that part. Arguing that the actual edit was an 'error' is silly. The guy was fired whether they publicly want to admit it or not, for altering the meaning of the tape intentionally. The error was on the part of the other 4 groups who were suppose to review it. That is why they were not fired, because there is a reasonable possibility that was a mistake.

 

[TexanFan02]

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

 

[jon_mx]

The most current pictures of Trayvon.

His dad said he was 6'3"

He's probably right looking at how long he is horseback.

That's a good sized kid.

Not a very menacing impression, but certainly a big kid..

Sorry, maybe this one better fits the menacing stereotype, gray hoodie and all.

Yep, definitely looks like a kid that would attack someone for no reason and try to kill them.

Well he only weighs 140 so I don't think he'd be taking on any 240 pound Latino MMA artists.

Do you have any link that shows those sizes. 140 is really light for someone 6'3, but he is skinny. The pictures I have seen of Zimmerman he does not appear to be 240.

 

[TexanFan02]

The most current pictures of Trayvon.

His dad said he was 6'3"

He's probably right looking at how long he is horseback.

That's a good sized kid.

Not a very menacing impression, but certainly a big kid..

Sorry, maybe this one better fits the menacing stereotype, gray hoodie and all.

Yep, definitely looks like a kid that would attack someone for no reason and try to kill them.

Well he only weighs 140 so I don't think he'd be taking on any 240 pound Latino MMA artists.

Do you have any link that shows those sizes. 140 is really light for someone 6'3, but he is skinny. The pictures I have seen of Zimmerman he does not appear to be 240.

The original stories had him at 240, but subsequent ones put him at 170+, which is consistent with how he looked in the police video. He could be anywhere from 170-200 based on the video.

 

[Chaos Commish]

The most current pictures of Trayvon.

His dad said he was 6'3"

He's probably right looking at how long he is horseback.

That's a good sized kid.

Not a very menacing impression, but certainly a big kid..

Sorry, maybe this one better fits the menacing stereotype, gray hoodie and all.

Yep, definitely looks like a kid that would attack someone for no reason and try to kill them.

Well he only weighs 140 so I don't think he'd be taking on any 240 pound Latino MMA artists.

Do you have any link that shows those sizes. 140 is really light for someone 6'3, but he is skinny. The pictures I have seen of Zimmerman he does not appear to be 240.

The original stories had him at 240, but subsequent ones put him at 170+, which is consistent with how he looked in the police video. He could be anywhere from 170-200 based on the video.

Right. Jon missed the sarcasm. My guess is Tray and Zimmerman were within 10 pounds of each other that night. No telling who was heavier but no doubt Tray looked a lot bigger and certainly seems a more formidable speciman, which hurts the anonymous witness who thought by claiming the bigger person was on top meant Tray was on bottom. So the team Martin lies will backfire in court if it gets that far.Considering the pictures I've posted were easily accessed by the family and the media to which they appealed, it begs the question why they went with the 4 year old sensationalism and lied about a 100 pound weight difference. If you go back to the way the story broke, all that information came from Martin's 'team'. They were dishonest in the way they've presented things from the start. Why? It has witnesses who lean in their direction ultimately hurting their case. Honesty was the best policy but sensationalism ruled the day. The size of the two shouldn't matter regarding the legal case, should it? So why lie? They're starting to look NBC-foolish for doing it, and while it may always hurt Zimmerman in the media it will help him in court.

 

[Fennis]

The most current pictures of Trayvon.

His dad said he was 6'3"

He's probably right looking at how long he is horseback.

That's a good sized kid.

The kid is really into Reese's. I wonder what he thinks of snickers?

 

[Chaos Commish]

The most current pictures of Trayvon.

His dad said he was 6'3"

He's probably right looking at how long he is horseback.

That's a good sized kid.

The kid is really into Reese's. I wonder what he thinks of snickers?

Hey now!