Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)

[TobiasFunke]

at comparing Zimmerman to a famous football star and a woman who was turned in by her own mother for killing her daughter.

What Casey did is rare, as well as sick and twisted. That's what made it dramatic enough to be national news. And OJ's case was dramatic enough to be national news because he was a celebrity. What happened between Martin/Zimmerman isn't rare, and neither of them were celebrities. There's was no reason for it to be national news. A lot of flame fanning had to occur to get the nation heated over it.

I may be wrong about this, but I think people killing unarmed total strangers and then claiming self defense is kinda rare, regardless of the race of either party. Not saying it wasn't self defense, but this was not an everyday occurrence. It wouldn't have received national media attention were it not for the race of the parties, and the way the killer described the victim and his motivation for following him (which played into the racial angle), but let's not act like this sort of thing happens every day.

There are an average of 438 incidents per year of whites killing blacks in this county. There are an average of 853 incidents per year of blacks killing whites in this country. It's rare however for journalists to be fired for how they report incidents.

Great. Thanks for the irrelevant information.

I said it was noteworthy because I think people killing unarmed strangers and then claiming self defense is very unusual (especially when not on the assailant's property), and that race became an issue only because of the already unusual circumstances that caught everyone's attention. I don't know what a simple count of white on black or black on white murders has to do what that at all. If you had a count on the number of killings of unarmed strangers in which the assailant claimed self defense, that would be relevant. Do you have that information?

 

[Politician Spock]

at comparing Zimmerman to a famous football star and a woman who was turned in by her own mother for killing her daughter.

What Casey did is rare, as well as sick and twisted. That's what made it dramatic enough to be national news. And OJ's case was dramatic enough to be national news because he was a celebrity. What happened between Martin/Zimmerman isn't rare, and neither of them were celebrities. There's was no reason for it to be national news. A lot of flame fanning had to occur to get the nation heated over it.

I may be wrong about this, but I think people killing unarmed total strangers and then claiming self defense is kinda rare, regardless of the race of either party. Not saying it wasn't self defense, but this was not an everyday occurrence. It wouldn't have received national media attention were it not for the race of the parties, and the way the killer described the victim and his motivation for following him (which played into the racial angle), but let's not act like this sort of thing happens every day.

There are an average of 438 incidents per year of whites killing blacks in this county. There are an average of 853 incidents per year of blacks killing whites in this country. It's rare however for journalists to be fired for how they report incidents.

Great. Thanks for the irrelevant information.

I said it was noteworthy because I think people killing unarmed strangers and then claiming self defense is very unusual (especially when not on the assailant's property), and that race became an issue only because of the already unusual circumstances that caught everyone's attention. I don't know what a simple count of white on black or black on white murders has to do what that at all. If you had a count on the number of killings of unarmed strangers in which the assailant claimed self defense, that would be relevant. Do you have that information?

Nope. Don't have that info... Because it's uninteresting information.

You can keep saying that is why the story got the hype it did. It didn't it was hyped because it was assumed to be a racial issue. That assumption proved to be wrong.

 

[Doug B]

There are an average of 438 incidents per year of whites killing blacks in this county. There are an average of 853 incidents per year of blacks killing whites in this country. It's rare however for journalists to be fired for how they report incidents.

No -- Tobias is right here. The Zimmerman-Martin case really is a sui generis, with a perfect storm of factors leading directly to its eventual societal repercussions.

One thing that could've tamped the outrage way down, for example, would've been the existence of a clear-as-daylight videotape of the entire altercation that broadly supported Zimmerman's verbal account. Or of close-up eyewitnesses who did the same.

 

[TobiasFunke]

at comparing Zimmerman to a famous football star and a woman who was turned in by her own mother for killing her daughter.

What Casey did is rare, as well as sick and twisted. That's what made it dramatic enough to be national news. And OJ's case was dramatic enough to be national news because he was a celebrity. What happened between Martin/Zimmerman isn't rare, and neither of them were celebrities. There's was no reason for it to be national news. A lot of flame fanning had to occur to get the nation heated over it.

I may be wrong about this, but I think people killing unarmed total strangers and then claiming self defense is kinda rare, regardless of the race of either party. Not saying it wasn't self defense, but this was not an everyday occurrence. It wouldn't have received national media attention were it not for the race of the parties, and the way the killer described the victim and his motivation for following him (which played into the racial angle), but let's not act like this sort of thing happens every day.

There are an average of 438 incidents per year of whites killing blacks in this county. There are an average of 853 incidents per year of blacks killing whites in this country. It's rare however for journalists to be fired for how they report incidents.

Great. Thanks for the irrelevant information.

I said it was noteworthy because I think people killing unarmed strangers and then claiming self defense is very unusual (especially when not on the assailant's property), and that race became an issue only because of the already unusual circumstances that caught everyone's attention. I don't know what a simple count of white on black or black on white murders has to do what that at all. If you had a count on the number of killings of unarmed strangers in which the assailant claimed self defense, that would be relevant. Do you have that information?

Nope. Don't have that info... Because it's uninteresting information.

You can keep saying that is why the story got the hype it did. It didn't it was hyped because it was assumed to be a racial issue. That assumption proved to be wrong.

No, it got hyped because of the circumstances which led people to believe that it might be a racial issue. Circumstances affect whether something is "rare" and thus the media coverage. So a simple count of white on black or black on white crimes is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The media didn't just pick a random white/hispanic on black crime and decide to run with a racial angle just to see what happened, which is how you seem to be portraying it here (that's the only reason your silly "count" would be relevant). They trumpeted this one because of the unusual circumstances. If you don't understand that I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Rayderr]

at comparing Zimmerman to a famous football star and a woman who was turned in by her own mother for killing her daughter.

What Casey did is rare, as well as sick and twisted. That's what made it dramatic enough to be national news. And OJ's case was dramatic enough to be national news because he was a celebrity. What happened between Martin/Zimmerman isn't rare, and neither of them were celebrities. There's was no reason for it to be national news. A lot of flame fanning had to occur to get the nation heated over it.

I may be wrong about this, but I think people killing unarmed total strangers and then claiming self defense is kinda rare, regardless of the race of either party. Not saying it wasn't self defense, but this was not an everyday occurrence. It wouldn't have received national media attention were it not for the race of the parties, and the way the killer described the victim and his motivation for following him (which played into the racial angle), but let's not act like this sort of thing happens every day.

There are an average of 438 incidents per year of whites killing blacks in this county. There are an average of 853 incidents per year of blacks killing whites in this country. It's rare however for journalists to be fired for how they report incidents.

Great. Thanks for the irrelevant information.

I said it was noteworthy because I think people killing unarmed strangers and then claiming self defense is very unusual (especially when not on the assailant's property), and that race became an issue only because of the already unusual circumstances that caught everyone's attention. I don't know what a simple count of white on black or black on white murders has to do what that at all. If you had a count on the number of killings of unarmed strangers in which the assailant claimed self defense, that would be relevant. Do you have that information?

Here's a case. And another. And another. And these are ones involving buses that I found while looking for another story I remember.

 

[TobiasFunke]

at comparing Zimmerman to a famous football star and a woman who was turned in by her own mother for killing her daughter.

What Casey did is rare, as well as sick and twisted. That's what made it dramatic enough to be national news. And OJ's case was dramatic enough to be national news because he was a celebrity. What happened between Martin/Zimmerman isn't rare, and neither of them were celebrities. There's was no reason for it to be national news. A lot of flame fanning had to occur to get the nation heated over it.

I may be wrong about this, but I think people killing unarmed total strangers and then claiming self defense is kinda rare, regardless of the race of either party. Not saying it wasn't self defense, but this was not an everyday occurrence. It wouldn't have received national media attention were it not for the race of the parties, and the way the killer described the victim and his motivation for following him (which played into the racial angle), but let's not act like this sort of thing happens every day.

There are an average of 438 incidents per year of whites killing blacks in this county. There are an average of 853 incidents per year of blacks killing whites in this country. It's rare however for journalists to be fired for how they report incidents.

Great. Thanks for the irrelevant information.

I said it was noteworthy because I think people killing unarmed strangers and then claiming self defense is very unusual (especially when not on the assailant's property), and that race became an issue only because of the already unusual circumstances that caught everyone's attention. I don't know what a simple count of white on black or black on white murders has to do what that at all. If you had a count on the number of killings of unarmed strangers in which the assailant claimed self defense, that would be relevant. Do you have that information?

Here's a case. And another. And another. And these are ones involving buses that I found while looking for another story I remember.

Yup, that's two (one was not a murder).

Again, I didn't say that it never happens. Obviously it happens. I said that it's unusual. That, plus the age and race of the parties, is what drew media attention. If Zimmerman had shot Martin in a gang-related incident or after a bar fight or something like that, there would be no media attention. It was a confluence of the unusual nature of the incident and the races/ages of the parties that brought the media attention. Spock was suggesting there was nothing unusual about it, that the media just decided to trumpet this case for no particular reason even though it was no different than any other white on black or black on white murder. That's silly.

 

[Rayderr]

at comparing Zimmerman to a famous football star and a woman who was turned in by her own mother for killing her daughter.

What Casey did is rare, as well as sick and twisted. That's what made it dramatic enough to be national news. And OJ's case was dramatic enough to be national news because he was a celebrity. What happened between Martin/Zimmerman isn't rare, and neither of them were celebrities. There's was no reason for it to be national news. A lot of flame fanning had to occur to get the nation heated over it.

I may be wrong about this, but I think people killing unarmed total strangers and then claiming self defense is kinda rare, regardless of the race of either party. Not saying it wasn't self defense, but this was not an everyday occurrence. It wouldn't have received national media attention were it not for the race of the parties, and the way the killer described the victim and his motivation for following him (which played into the racial angle), but let's not act like this sort of thing happens every day.

There are an average of 438 incidents per year of whites killing blacks in this county. There are an average of 853 incidents per year of blacks killing whites in this country. It's rare however for journalists to be fired for how they report incidents.

Great. Thanks for the irrelevant information.

I said it was noteworthy because I think people killing unarmed strangers and then claiming self defense is very unusual (especially when not on the assailant's property), and that race became an issue only because of the already unusual circumstances that caught everyone's attention. I don't know what a simple count of white on black or black on white murders has to do what that at all. If you had a count on the number of killings of unarmed strangers in which the assailant claimed self defense, that would be relevant. Do you have that information?

Here's a case. And another. And another. And these are ones involving buses that I found while looking for another story I remember.

Yup, that's two (one was not a murder).

Again, I didn't say that it never happens. Obviously it happens. I said that it's unusual. That, plus the age and race of the parties, is what drew media attention. If Zimmerman had shot Martin in a gang-related incident or after a bar fight or something like that, there would be no media attention. It was a confluence of the unusual nature of the incident and the races/ages of the parties that brought the media attention. Spock was suggesting there was nothing unusual about it, that the media just decided to trumpet this case for no particular reason even though it was no different than any other white on black or black on white murder. That's silly.

Do you think it would've gotten as much attention if Martin's age was accurately portrayed (i.e. not use pictures of him from elementary school)?

 

[Doug B]

Here's a case. And another. And another. And these are ones involving buses that I found while looking for another story I remember.

I didn't look at all three, but I checked out your first link. Very different from the Zimmerman case because the act was on camera, and there were some close-up eyewitnesses. Here's the text:

A Cook County judge acquitted a South Side father of murder Friday, saying he acted in self-defense when he fatally shot a man who had accosted him and his daughters at a bus stop last year.

Hours later, Elliot Mayfield, 53, who had been locked up since his arrest in February 2010, walked out of Cook County Jail a free man, carrying a plastic bag filled with his belongings over one shoulder.

"I'm just grateful to God and thankful that I had a fair and impartial judge," Mayfield said.

According to testimony, Samuel Fullilove, 33, was extremely intoxicated when he approached Mayfield and his two daughters, ages 11 and 15, and their young friend as they waited for a bus at 6114 S. King Drive.

Fullilove offered to sell drugs to those at the bus stop, but Mayfield refused. When Fullilove became aggressive, Mayfield showed him his gun and said, "I'll use it," according to testimony.

A city surveillance camera captured Fullilove swinging his fists at Mayfield and chasing him. After Mayfield's eldest daughter got between the men and said, "Leave my daddy alone," Mayfield shot Fullilove once in the chest.

"Mr. Mayfield was not the aggressor," Judge Maura Slattery Boyle said in her ruling. "Here is this man just trying to get home, and their paths cross and tragedy ensued."

Mayfield, a former drug counselor, said he prayed for Fullilove's family but was glad he had a gun on him that night.

"It could have been me," he told a reporter.

Another difference -- Mayfield was arrested very shortly after the act.

I am respectfully curious about Commish's (and perhaps tim's) thoughts on this Mayfield case. It could be argued (weakly) that the worst pain Mayfield was set to face would be a fisticuff beatdown of himself and his daughters. So ... was Mayfield justified in taking the life of an unarmed man? Commish earlier said "no, never", so he'd presumably argue that Mayfield's acquital was an affront to society.

 

[Rayderr]

And here's a case of a white, 24 year old, shooting an unarmed black 18 year old.

 

[TobiasFunke]

at comparing Zimmerman to a famous football star and a woman who was turned in by her own mother for killing her daughter.

What Casey did is rare, as well as sick and twisted. That's what made it dramatic enough to be national news. And OJ's case was dramatic enough to be national news because he was a celebrity. What happened between Martin/Zimmerman isn't rare, and neither of them were celebrities. There's was no reason for it to be national news. A lot of flame fanning had to occur to get the nation heated over it.

I may be wrong about this, but I think people killing unarmed total strangers and then claiming self defense is kinda rare, regardless of the race of either party. Not saying it wasn't self defense, but this was not an everyday occurrence. It wouldn't have received national media attention were it not for the race of the parties, and the way the killer described the victim and his motivation for following him (which played into the racial angle), but let's not act like this sort of thing happens every day.

There are an average of 438 incidents per year of whites killing blacks in this county. There are an average of 853 incidents per year of blacks killing whites in this country. It's rare however for journalists to be fired for how they report incidents.

Great. Thanks for the irrelevant information.

I said it was noteworthy because I think people killing unarmed strangers and then claiming self defense is very unusual (especially when not on the assailant's property), and that race became an issue only because of the already unusual circumstances that caught everyone's attention. I don't know what a simple count of white on black or black on white murders has to do what that at all. If you had a count on the number of killings of unarmed strangers in which the assailant claimed self defense, that would be relevant. Do you have that information?

Here's a case. And another. And another. And these are ones involving buses that I found while looking for another story I remember.

Yup, that's two (one was not a murder).

Again, I didn't say that it never happens. Obviously it happens. I said that it's unusual. That, plus the age and race of the parties, is what drew media attention. If Zimmerman had shot Martin in a gang-related incident or after a bar fight or something like that, there would be no media attention. It was a confluence of the unusual nature of the incident and the races/ages of the parties that brought the media attention. Spock was suggesting there was nothing unusual about it, that the media just decided to trumpet this case for no particular reason even though it was no different than any other white on black or black on white murder. That's silly.

Do you think it would've gotten as much attention if Martin's age was accurately portrayed (i.e. not use pictures of him from elementary school)?

Maybe not quite as much, but I think it would have been close. I think it's obvious that this was an unusual case for a lot of reasons, and those unusual reasons drew the media attention and opened up the door for them to fan the flames of the racial issue. I can't explain or account for every nuance of the media attention, but I can say that simply discounting it as a normal white on black or black on white crime as Politician Spock did is just plain crazy.

 

[Rayderr]

Here's a case. And another. And another. And these are ones involving buses that I found while looking for another story I remember.

I didn't look at all three, but I checked out your first link. Very different from the Zimmerman case because the act was on camera, and there were some close-up eyewitnesses.

Goalpost moving. Tobias was talking about unarmed people being killed in self defense, especially when not on the person's property.

 

[Witz]

at comparing Zimmerman to a famous football star and a woman who was turned in by her own mother for killing her daughter.

What Casey did is rare, as well as sick and twisted. That's what made it dramatic enough to be national news. And OJ's case was dramatic enough to be national news because he was a celebrity. What happened between Martin/Zimmerman isn't rare, and neither of them were celebrities. There's was no reason for it to be national news. A lot of flame fanning had to occur to get the nation heated over it.

I may be wrong about this, but I think people killing unarmed total strangers and then claiming self defense is kinda rare, regardless of the race of either party. Not saying it wasn't self defense, but this was not an everyday occurrence. It wouldn't have received national media attention were it not for the race of the parties, and the way the killer described the victim and his motivation for following him (which played into the racial angle), but let's not act like this sort of thing happens every day.

There are an average of 438 incidents per year of whites killing blacks in this county. There are an average of 853 incidents per year of blacks killing whites in this country. It's rare however for journalists to be fired for how they report incidents.

Great. Thanks for the irrelevant information.

I said it was noteworthy because I think people killing unarmed strangers and then claiming self defense is very unusual (especially when not on the assailant's property), and that race became an issue only because of the already unusual circumstances that caught everyone's attention. I don't know what a simple count of white on black or black on white murders has to do what that at all. If you had a count on the number of killings of unarmed strangers in which the assailant claimed self defense, that would be relevant. Do you have that information?

Here's a case. And another. And another. And these are ones involving buses that I found while looking for another story I remember.

Yup, that's two (one was not a murder).

Again, I didn't say that it never happens. Obviously it happens. I said that it's unusual. That, plus the age and race of the parties, is what drew media attention. If Zimmerman had shot Martin in a gang-related incident or after a bar fight or something like that, there would be no media attention. It was a confluence of the unusual nature of the incident and the races/ages of the parties that brought the media attention. Spock was suggesting there was nothing unusual about it, that the media just decided to trumpet this case for no particular reason even though it was no different than any other white on black or black on white murder. That's silly.

Do you think it would've gotten as much attention if Martin's age was accurately portrayed (i.e. not use pictures of him from elementary school)?

Maybe not quite as much, but I think it would have been close. I think it's obvious that this was an unusual case for a lot of reasons, and those unusual reasons drew the media attention and opened up the door for them to fan the flames of the racial issue. I can't explain or account for every nuance of the media attention, but I can say that simply discounting it as a normal white on black or black on white crime as Politician Spock did is just plain crazy.

Part of the reason this is seen as an unusual case is because so much information on the case has been out there compared any of the thousands of cases that occur each day/year. If the level of scrutiny were applied to any number of those cases that was applied to this case, the same types of statements could be made.

 

[TobiasFunke]

And here's a case of a white, 24 year old, shooting an unarmed black 18 year old.

He was arrested, tried and convicted. Nothing to be outraged about there. If Zimmerman had been arrested immediately, tried and convicted the media coverage goes away.

 

[StrikeS2k]

I thought this thread would die when Tim finally, actually, quit it for the 10th time. Sadly, I was wrong.

 

[Rayderr]

And here's a case of a white, 24 year old, shooting an unarmed black 18 year old.

He was arrested, tried and convicted. Nothing to be outraged about there. If Zimmerman had been arrested immediately, tried and convicted the media coverage goes away.

Fine. Here's a case of a a 65 year od man shooting a 16 and 15 year old kid (the 16 year old) who were unarmed while on neither's property and charges were not pressed. How many more qualifiers do you need to add?

 

[squistion]

And here's a case of a white, 24 year old, shooting an unarmed black 18 year old.

He was arrested, tried and convicted. Nothing to be outraged about there. If Zimmerman had been arrested immediately, tried and convicted the media coverage goes away.

I doubt we would have even heard of this case if Zimmerman had been arrested immediately (even if the DA subsequently decided not to prosecute). It was the 45 days it took to bring charges that fueled the media coverage.

 

[TobiasFunke]

And here's a case of a white, 24 year old, shooting an unarmed black 18 year old.

He was arrested, tried and convicted. Nothing to be outraged about there. If Zimmerman had been arrested immediately, tried and convicted the media coverage goes away.

Fine. Here's a case of a a 65 year od man shooting a 16 and 15 year old kid (the 16 year old) who were unarmed while on neither's property and charges were not pressed. How many more qualifiers do you need to add?

I really don't understand what you're doing.

I said it was unusual and that a number of factors contributed to the media circus. Those include (but probably are not limited to): the victim was unarmed, the victim wasn't on the killer's property, the victim did not initiate the interaction with the killer, the disparity in ages, the weird call to the police made by the killer about the victim, the fact that the police advised the killer not to pursue, and so on. Add the races of the parties to that and you get a full on feeding frenzy.

Every case is different. I was arguing against the proposition that the media circus here was entirely a creation of the media wanting to turn an every day run of the mill murder case into something more. That seemed to be the point Spock was making by reciting white on black and black on white murder stats. I'm saying this was not a run of the mill case, for a ton of reasons. Most prominently the fact that the victim was unarmed and not really doing anything wrong when the killer decided to call him in and track him. Do you disagree? What does some other killing of some unarmed kids trying to rob somebody have to do with it?

 

[Rayderr]

And here's a case of a white, 24 year old, shooting an unarmed black 18 year old.

He was arrested, tried and convicted. Nothing to be outraged about there. If Zimmerman had been arrested immediately, tried and convicted the media coverage goes away.

Fine. Here's a case of a a 65 year od man shooting a 16 and 15 year old kid (the 16 year old) who were unarmed while on neither's property and charges were not pressed. How many more qualifiers do you need to add?

I really don't understand what you're doing.

I said it was unusual and that a number of factors contributed to the media circus. Those include (but probably are not limited to): the victim was unarmed, the victim wasn't on the killer's property, the victim did not initiate the interaction with the killer, the disparity in ages, the weird call to the police made by the killer about the victim, the fact that the police advised the killer not to pursue, and so on. Add the races of the parties to that and you get a full on feeding frenzy.

Every case is different. I was arguing against the proposition that the media circus here was entirely a creation of the media wanting to turn an every day run of the mill murder case into something more. That seemed to be the point Spock was making by reciting white on black and black on white murder stats. I'm saying this was not a run of the mill case, for a ton of reasons. Most prominently the fact that the victim was unarmed and not really doing anything wrong when the killer decided to call him in and track him. Do you disagree? What does some other killing of some unarmed kids trying to rob somebody have to do with it?

My point is that the news media deliberately ignored information in order to sensationalize this local story into a national one and fan the flames all in the name of ratings.

 

[The Commish]

Do people really expect us to overlook the reality that a kid is dead?

It's simply not that pat, though. A lot of people beliwve that since (a) someone died (b) by gunshot that something -- anything -- must be done, somehow someway. They feel things "just shouldn't work out that way."

However, this case is necessarily complex and cannot honestly be distilled down to "gun fired, kid dies". The extenuating circumstances are legion and exculpatory (assuming some level of acceptance of Zimmerman's account + some other evidence introduced at trial).

I understand that it's not cut and dry, but folks want to sweep this factor under the rug. From a legal perspective, that can be done. Society isn't going to allow that to happen. There's case after case where people go to trial, are found not guilty and society still punishes them. That's generally because society understands the difference between innocent and not guilty and if it's not clearly innocent, society wants it's form of justice. What's happening to this guy has happened to plenty. Some don't like that for whatever reason and are up in arms with everyone/everything because of it.

Three days into the prosecution's case it was clear that he wasn't going to be punished by the criminal justice system. He was going to be punished by society. Now everyone's "outraged" at that. Throw on top of all this the political and you have 506 pages.

It is outrage worthy. The reality is, the whole reason "society" wants to punish ZImmerman is because of the news media. This story was not worthy of being national. The news media manipulated people's emotions, by showing pictures of Trayvon at 10 years old instead of much more recent photos, constantly saying a White man shot an African-American boy. They doctored audio tapes to make Zimmerman seem guilty and racist. The media went out of their way to find circumstantial evidence (at best) that protrayed ZImmerman poorly (He applied to be a police officer. Clearly he's just a cop wannabe that took the law into his own hands) while they ignored evidence to the contrary, and evidence about Trayvon that would've supported Zimmerman's story. Then you have Obama saying Trayvon could've been his son (OMG! ZImmerman killed Obama's son!) and then Obama saying he was Trayvon Martin (OMG! ZImmerman killed the next Obama!) and of course you have the news media repeating those clips ad nauseam.

If the news media had any integrity at all during this whole ordeal, then there would not be all the outrage from those demanding justicevengeance and from those that think Zimmerman is being unfairly targeted.

Disagree....there's a substantial segment of our society that wants to punish him because he shot a kid. Yes, the news media is part of this, but they started sucking at the ratings teet when they saw the initial reaction from folks upset that an unarmed kid was shot by an adult and not be brought up on a single charge. They certainly added fuel to the fire. To a lot of folks the circumstances are irrelevant. A lot of folks want to society to play by the rules of our judicial system, but the reality is our judicial system works within the confines of our society, not the other way around.

I don't really have a problem with the initial outrage to this. What I find more troubling is the continued outrage (on both sides) well after the case is over. I'm not a big fan of the "social justice" that exists in our society but I accept that it is there and understand it will always be there.

Do you think this story would've gotten anywhere near the attention had it been reported as "Hispanic claims self defense in shooting of african american teenager with behavior problems; police investigation ongoing."? Remember, back when this story made national, the police were still investigating to determine if Zimmerman should be charged.

I had heard blurbs on our local news about a child that had been shot in Florida by an adult. It wasn't until the "outrage" was expressed regarding the no charges decision that I saw any other significant coverage on it outside my local news, but I acknowledge I don't watch much of our news media in the first place. Once that decision had been made all the major outlets seemed to be covering it 24 x 7. To your question on if the races were different would the coverage had changed....I'm not sure. I suspect it would depend on if the public outcry was similar. If it was similar and organized protests/marches etc were all over the place, yeah, it would probably be similar to what went down here. That kind of stuff sells.

 

[The Commish]

Really? The first two that pop into mind that everyone knows are OJ and Casey Anthony. I can rattle off others locally that wouldn't mean anything to you. I have a dear friend of mine that was accused of sexual assault in college and acquitted (as he should have been) that had to leave the state to start his life over again because of societal influence. It happens frequently.

Yeah, but I wasn't counting the local ones that could move a state away and regain anonimity I thought the thing you meant that "happened to plenty" was "societally punished by becoming persona non grata in all of the land area of the U.S.". So there was a measure of scale that I thought was implicit in your comment.

As pointed out by a post or two before, I suspect Zimmerman will be able to move to an area where he's not bothered just like others. That doesn't change my comments though. The only difference here is you know about him and it's not a local story to you. As I said before, I expect society to act this way. What's confusing to me is this feigned outrage that society DOES act this way and people can't believe it does.

 

[The Commish]

Do people really expect us to overlook the reality that a kid is dead?

It's simply not that pat, though. A lot of people beliwve that since (a) someone died (b) by gunshot that something -- anything -- must be done, somehow someway. They feel things "just shouldn't work out that way."

However, this case is necessarily complex and cannot honestly be distilled down to "gun fired, kid dies". The extenuating circumstances are legion and exculpatory (assuming some level of acceptance of Zimmerman's account + some other evidence introduced at trial).

I understand that it's not cut and dry, but folks want to sweep this factor under the rug. From a legal perspective, that can be done. Society isn't going to allow that to happen. There's case after case where people go to trial, are found not guilty and society still punishes them. That's generally because society understands the difference between innocent and not guilty and if it's not clearly innocent, society wants it's form of justice. What's happening to this guy has happened to plenty. Some don't like that for whatever reason and are up in arms with everyone/everything because of it.

Three days into the prosecution's case it was clear that he wasn't going to be punished by the criminal justice system. He was going to be punished by society. Now everyone's "outraged" at that. Throw on top of all this the political and you have 506 pages.

It is outrage worthy. The reality is, the whole reason "society" wants to punish ZImmerman is because of the news media. This story was not worthy of being national. The news media manipulated people's emotions, by showing pictures of Trayvon at 10 years old instead of much more recent photos, constantly saying a White man shot an African-American boy. They doctored audio tapes to make Zimmerman seem guilty and racist. The media went out of their way to find circumstantial evidence (at best) that protrayed ZImmerman poorly (He applied to be a police officer. Clearly he's just a cop wannabe that took the law into his own hands) while they ignored evidence to the contrary, and evidence about Trayvon that would've supported Zimmerman's story. Then you have Obama saying Trayvon could've been his son (OMG! ZImmerman killed Obama's son!) and then Obama saying he was Trayvon Martin (OMG! ZImmerman killed the next Obama!) and of course you have the news media repeating those clips ad nauseam.

If the news media had any integrity at all during this whole ordeal, then there would not be all the outrage from those demanding justicevengeance and from those that think Zimmerman is being unfairly targeted.

Disagree....there's a substantial segment of our society that wants to punish him because he shot a kid. Yes, the news media is part of this, but they started sucking at the ratings teet when they saw the initial reaction from folks upset that an unarmed kid was shot by an adult and not be brought up on a single charge. They certainly added fuel to the fire. To a lot of folks the circumstances are irrelevant. A lot of folks want to society to play by the rules of our judicial system, but the reality is our judicial system works within the confines of our society, not the other way around.

I don't really have a problem with the initial outrage to this. What I find more troubling is the continued outrage (on both sides) well after the case is over. I'm not a big fan of the "social justice" that exists in our society but I accept that it is there and understand it will always be there.

Disagree with this. All you have to do is look at the news to see folks shooting people all the time. Adults shooting kids, kids shooting kids. None of them are getting the 'press' that this particular story did.

Tell me if you are familar with any of these folks without googling them:

John Spooner and Darius Simmons

Donald Wilder and Caleb Gordley

Michael Bishop and Jacob Eberle

Demarquis Elkins and Antonio West

Maybe one of this grouping but definitely not all four. My point, as sad and tragic as it is, is that kids are getting shot everyday in this country. While folks may also be upset about the age of the individual that was killed, it's unfortunately turned into an us vs them mentality which continues to further propel this story.

I'm not sure we are too off in our disagreement. There's no question that the difference between these cases and the Martin case is the publicity. The publicity came from an outcry of people who wanted to make sure their case was heard. Regardless of if I agree with them or not on the outcome, that is their right to voice their opinion. If anything, the fact that these above (if they are indeed apples to apples) have not been publicized makes me more sad than anything. That tells me the people don't care enough to let their voice be heard. There's nothing that's turned into "us vs them"....that's the way it always is, in just about every case. It's x vs the state or x vs y or x vs company etc. What's propelling the story is one side believes there's an enormous disconnect that exists in this country and they want to use this case to show that. There are parts of their argument I agree with. Others not so much.

ETA: If you want to argue the media took it a step further and sensationalized it by doing x, y, z that's fine. You won't get an argument from me, but I believe the original outcry was authentic and people wanted answers. That the media piled on and did everything in their power to make money off it is irrelevant to my point.

 

[greenroom]

George Zimmerman just single handedly foiled a terrorist organization's plot to blow up the moon.

He has already done more positive things in his life than you have. Between the two of you, I would suggest that you would and should be the one spending 30 years behind bars.

He also has done more negative stuff than you or I have. Taking someone's life who did not deserve to die is a pretty big checkmark in the negative side. I think most would agree with that except JoJo and you???

 

[Rayderr]

I had heard blurbs on our local news about a child that had been shot in Florida by an adult. It wasn't until the "outrage" was expressed regarding the no charges decision that I saw any other significant coverage on it outside my local news, but I acknowledge I don't watch much of our news media in the first place. Once that decision had been made all the major outlets seemed to be covering it 24 x 7. To your question on if the races were different would the coverage had changed....I'm not sure. I suspect it would depend on if the public outcry was similar. If it was similar and organized protests/marches etc were all over the place, yeah, it would probably be similar to what went down here. That kind of stuff sells.

Really? This thread started on March 8, 2012. The decision to not file charges wasn't until a week later.

 

[Doug B]

Goalpost moving. Tobias was talking about unarmed people being killed in self defense, especially when not on the person's property.

Not from me. My stance and Tobias's are not identical. I do happen to agree with him that the media coverage of the Zimmernan case was not driven by a single vector. I was merely pointing out that there are clear reasons the Mayfield case got far less media coverage than the Zimmerman case.

 

[Doug B]

He also has done more negative stuff than you or I have. Taking someone's life who did not deserve to die is a pretty big checkmark in the negative side. I think most would agree with that except JoJo and you???

The bolded may or may not be the case. I don't think you can throw it out as an undeniable truth.

 

[jon_mx]

There are well over 100 cases of strangers killing in self-defense in Florida alone of all race types. This is a story because it was suppose to be what Ryan White was to AIDS and what Mathew Shephard was for hate crimes. It was suppose to put an innocent face on the issue of racial profiling. The narrative seemed perfect.

1. A kid who looks no older than 12 years old

2. Just walking home from buying skittles and tea for his little brother before watching the All-Star game before being tracked and hunted down.

3. an armed evil white wannabe cop who killed him for no reason in their gated community (read rich-white)

4. An armed white wannabe-cop racially profiling

5. A police department with past racial issues refusing to press charges despite a mountain of evidence which includes the poor kid on tape screaming for help.

The perfect case to advance an agenda. What could possibly go wrong?

Maybe the truth;

1. A kid who looks no older than 12 years old

2. Just walking home from buying skittles and tea for his little brother before watching the All-Star game before being tracked and hunted down.

3. an armed evil white wannabe cop killed him for no reason in their gated community (read rich-white)

4. An armed white wannabe-cop racially profiling

5. A police department with past racial issues refusing to press charges despite a mountain of evidence which includes the poor kid on tape screaming for help.

Final Story:

1. But he got out of the car!!!!

 

[TobiasFunke]

I really don't understand what you're doing.

I said it was unusual and that a number of factors contributed to the media circus. Those include (but probably are not limited to): the victim was unarmed, the victim wasn't on the killer's property, the victim did not initiate the interaction with the killer, the disparity in ages, the weird call to the police made by the killer about the victim, the fact that the police advised the killer not to pursue, and so on. Add the races of the parties to that and you get a full on feeding frenzy.

Every case is different. I was arguing against the proposition that the media circus here was entirely a creation of the media wanting to turn an every day run of the mill murder case into something more. That seemed to be the point Spock was making by reciting white on black and black on white murder stats. I'm saying this was not a run of the mill case, for a ton of reasons. Most prominently the fact that the victim was unarmed and not really doing anything wrong when the killer decided to call him in and track him. Do you disagree? What does some other killing of some unarmed kids trying to rob somebody have to do with it?

My point is that the news media deliberately ignored information in order to sensationalize this local story into a national one and fan the flames all in the name of ratings.

I kind of agree. My only point was that there were a lot of unusual facts around this case that grabbed the public interest. This wasn't a run of the mill murder or a run of the mill self defense case, as many seemed to be saying. Those unusual factors played a role in making it a national story (or, if you prefer, making it easy for the media to make it a national story).

 

[tdoss]

Do people really expect us to overlook the reality that a kid is dead?

It's simply not that pat, though. A lot of people beliwve that since (a) someone died (b) by gunshot that something -- anything -- must be done, somehow someway. They feel things "just shouldn't work out that way."

However, this case is necessarily complex and cannot honestly be distilled down to "gun fired, kid dies". The extenuating circumstances are legion and exculpatory (assuming some level of acceptance of Zimmerman's account + some other evidence introduced at trial).

I understand that it's not cut and dry, but folks want to sweep this factor under the rug. From a legal perspective, that can be done. Society isn't going to allow that to happen. There's case after case where people go to trial, are found not guilty and society still punishes them. That's generally because society understands the difference between innocent and not guilty and if it's not clearly innocent, society wants it's form of justice. What's happening to this guy has happened to plenty. Some don't like that for whatever reason and are up in arms with everyone/everything because of it.Three days into the prosecution's case it was clear that he wasn't going to be punished by the criminal justice system. He was going to be punished by society. Now everyone's "outraged" at that. Throw on top of all this the political and you have 506 pages.

It is outrage worthy. The reality is, the whole reason "society" wants to punish ZImmerman is because of the news media. This story was not worthy of being national. The news media manipulated people's emotions, by showing pictures of Trayvon at 10 years old instead of much more recent photos, constantly saying a White man shot an African-American boy. They doctored audio tapes to make Zimmerman seem guilty and racist. The media went out of their way to find circumstantial evidence (at best) that protrayed ZImmerman poorly (He applied to be a police officer. Clearly he's just a cop wannabe that took the law into his own hands) while they ignored evidence to the contrary, and evidence about Trayvon that would've supported Zimmerman's story. Then you have Obama saying Trayvon could've been his son (OMG! ZImmerman killed Obama's son!) and then Obama saying he was Trayvon Martin (OMG! ZImmerman killed the next Obama!) and of course you have the news media repeating those clips ad nauseam. If the news media had any integrity at all during this whole ordeal, then there would not be all the outrage from those demanding justicevengeance and from those that think Zimmerman is being unfairly targeted.

Disagree....there's a substantial segment of our society that wants to punish him because he shot a kid. Yes, the news media is part of this, but they started sucking at the ratings teet when they saw the initial reaction from folks upset that an unarmed kid was shot by an adult and not be brought up on a single charge. They certainly added fuel to the fire. To a lot of folks the circumstances are irrelevant. A lot of folks want to society to play by the rules of our judicial system, but the reality is our judicial system works within the confines of our society, not the other way around. I don't really have a problem with the initial outrage to this. What I find more troubling is the continued outrage (on both sides) well after the case is over. I'm not a big fan of the "social justice" that exists in our society but I accept that it is there and understand it will always be there.

Do you think this story would've gotten anywhere near the attention had it been reported as "Hispanic claims self defense in shooting of african american teenager with behavior problems; police investigation ongoing."? Remember, back when this story made national, the police were still investigating to determine if Zimmerman should be charged.

I had heard blurbs on our local news about a child that had been shot in Florida by an adult. It wasn't until the "outrage" was expressed regarding the no charges decision that I saw any other significant coverage on it outside my local news, but I acknowledge I don't watch much of our news media in the first place. Once that decision had been made all the major outlets seemed to be covering it 24 x 7. To your question on if the races were different would the coverage had changed....I'm not sure. I suspect it would depend on if the public outcry was similar. If it was similar and organized protests/marches etc were all over the place, yeah, it would probably be similar to what went down here. That kind of stuff sells.

I'm sure if the races were flipped...then we'd have heard all about Zim's Hispanic heritage and the media would've somehow turned this into an immigration & violence debate. They know what sells.

 

[The Commish]

I had heard blurbs on our local news about a child that had been shot in Florida by an adult. It wasn't until the "outrage" was expressed regarding the no charges decision that I saw any other significant coverage on it outside my local news, but I acknowledge I don't watch much of our news media in the first place. Once that decision had been made all the major outlets seemed to be covering it 24 x 7. To your question on if the races were different would the coverage had changed....I'm not sure. I suspect it would depend on if the public outcry was similar. If it was similar and organized protests/marches etc were all over the place, yeah, it would probably be similar to what went down here. That kind of stuff sells.

Really? This thread started on March 8, 2012. The decision to not file charges wasn't until a week later.

I'm not sure what a thread start date here has to do with what I posted, but really. I came to this thread pretty early on, but not at the beginning. I saw the trainwreck that was occurring, left and came back less than 5 times between then and the trial for obvious reasons. I knew virtually nothing about the case before the trial started, but as I said before, I don't watch much of the MSM. Once local news dropped it, I did (sans an occasional trip back to this thread to see if anything ever changed).

 

[Politician Spock]

at comparing Zimmerman to a famous football star and a woman who was turned in by her own mother for killing her daughter.

What Casey did is rare, as well as sick and twisted. That's what made it dramatic enough to be national news. And OJ's case was dramatic enough to be national news because he was a celebrity. What happened between Martin/Zimmerman isn't rare, and neither of them were celebrities. There's was no reason for it to be national news. A lot of flame fanning had to occur to get the nation heated over it.

I may be wrong about this, but I think people killing unarmed total strangers and then claiming self defense is kinda rare, regardless of the race of either party. Not saying it wasn't self defense, but this was not an everyday occurrence. It wouldn't have received national media attention were it not for the race of the parties, and the way the killer described the victim and his motivation for following him (which played into the racial angle), but let's not act like this sort of thing happens every day.

There are an average of 438 incidents per year of whites killing blacks in this county. There are an average of 853 incidents per year of blacks killing whites in this country. It's rare however for journalists to be fired for how they report incidents.

Great. Thanks for the irrelevant information.

I said it was noteworthy because I think people killing unarmed strangers and then claiming self defense is very unusual (especially when not on the assailant's property), and that race became an issue only because of the already unusual circumstances that caught everyone's attention. I don't know what a simple count of white on black or black on white murders has to do what that at all. If you had a count on the number of killings of unarmed strangers in which the assailant claimed self defense, that would be relevant. Do you have that information?

Nope. Don't have that info... Because it's uninteresting information.You can keep saying that is why the story got the hype it did. It didn't it was hyped because it was assumed to be a racial issue. That assumption proved to be wrong.

No, it got hyped because of the circumstances which led people to believe that it might be a racial issue. Circumstances affect whether something is "rare" and thus the media coverage. So a simple count of white on black or black on white crimes is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The media didn't just pick a random white/hispanic on black crime and decide to run with a racial angle just to see what happened, which is how you seem to be portraying it here (that's the only reason your silly "count" would be relevant). They trumpeted this one because of the unusual circumstances. If you don't understand that I don't know what to tell you.

Commish compared this case to OJ and Casey Anthony.A celebrity being a key suspect in his wife's death: interesting

A mom turning in her daughter for murdering the daughter's two year old: interesting

Two strangers fight and one ends up dead from a gun shot: NOT interesting

The deceased being ten years old and the survivor of the fight saying racist things on the 911 call: interesting

Learning that the deceased was made to look like a ten year old victim by the media showing his ten year old picture to the nation, and then learning that the 911 call was edited by the media to make the survivor of the fight sound racist: no longer interesting... except to people who still believe he was racist.

Learning from the court case that the facts show he didn't act racially and defended himself legally: what an overblown media drama the whole thing was.... Except to those who are still sold on the false assumption he is a racist.

Nothing made this case any where near what Casey Anthony and OJ, except for the media fanning the flames of bogus assumptions made at the very beginning.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I really don't understand what you're doing.

I said it was unusual and that a number of factors contributed to the media circus. Those include (but probably are not limited to): the victim was unarmed, the victim wasn't on the killer's property, the victim did not initiate the interaction with the killer, the disparity in ages, the weird call to the police made by the killer about the victim, the fact that the police advised the killer not to pursue, and so on. Add the races of the parties to that and you get a full on feeding frenzy.

Every case is different. I was arguing against the proposition that the media circus here was entirely a creation of the media wanting to turn an every day run of the mill murder case into something more. That seemed to be the point Spock was making by reciting white on black and black on white murder stats. I'm saying this was not a run of the mill case, for a ton of reasons. Most prominently the fact that the victim was unarmed and not really doing anything wrong when the killer decided to call him in and track him. Do you disagree? What does some other killing of some unarmed kids trying to rob somebody have to do with it?

My point is that the news media deliberately ignored information in order to sensationalize this local story into a national one and fan the flames all in the name of ratings.

I kind of agree. My only point was that there were a lot of unusual facts around this case that grabbed the public interest. This wasn't a run of the mill murder or a run of the mill self defense case, as many seemed to be saying. Those unusual factors played a role in making it a national story (or, if you prefer, making it easy for the media to make it a national story).

Ratings, political agendas, and distorting the facts by the media to try to make this a case about race and 2nd amendment rights had 10x more to do with becoming the public interest flavor of the week than the fact that the child that got shot while beating an older man with his fists was unarmed.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I really don't understand what you're doing.

I said it was unusual and that a number of factors contributed to the media circus. Those include (but probably are not limited to): the victim was unarmed, the victim wasn't on the killer's property, the victim did not initiate the interaction with the killer, the disparity in ages, the weird call to the police made by the killer about the victim, the fact that the police advised the killer not to pursue, and so on. Add the races of the parties to that and you get a full on feeding frenzy.

Every case is different. I was arguing against the proposition that the media circus here was entirely a creation of the media wanting to turn an every day run of the mill murder case into something more. That seemed to be the point Spock was making by reciting white on black and black on white murder stats. I'm saying this was not a run of the mill case, for a ton of reasons. Most prominently the fact that the victim was unarmed and not really doing anything wrong when the killer decided to call him in and track him. Do you disagree? What does some other killing of some unarmed kids trying to rob somebody have to do with it?

My point is that the news media deliberately ignored information in order to sensationalize this local story into a national one and fan the flames all in the name of ratings.

I kind of agree. My only point was that there were a lot of unusual facts around this case that grabbed the public interest. This wasn't a run of the mill murder or a run of the mill self defense case, as many seemed to be saying. Those unusual factors played a role in making it a national story (or, if you prefer, making it easy for the media to make it a national story).

Ratings, political agendas, and distorting the facts by the media to try to make this a case about race and 2nd amendment rights had 10x more to do with becoming the public interest flavor of the week than the fact that the child that got shot while beating an older man with his fists was unarmed.

Second amendment rights? OK, sport.

 

[The Commish]

at comparing Zimmerman to a famous football star and a woman who was turned in by her own mother for killing her daughter.

What Casey did is rare, as well as sick and twisted. That's what made it dramatic enough to be national news. And OJ's case was dramatic enough to be national news because he was a celebrity. What happened between Martin/Zimmerman isn't rare, and neither of them were celebrities. There's was no reason for it to be national news. A lot of flame fanning had to occur to get the nation heated over it.

I may be wrong about this, but I think people killing unarmed total strangers and then claiming self defense is kinda rare, regardless of the race of either party. Not saying it wasn't self defense, but this was not an everyday occurrence. It wouldn't have received national media attention were it not for the race of the parties, and the way the killer described the victim and his motivation for following him (which played into the racial angle), but let's not act like this sort of thing happens every day.

There are an average of 438 incidents per year of whites killing blacks in this county. There are an average of 853 incidents per year of blacks killing whites in this country. It's rare however for journalists to be fired for how they report incidents.

Great. Thanks for the irrelevant information.

I said it was noteworthy because I think people killing unarmed strangers and then claiming self defense is very unusual (especially when not on the assailant's property), and that race became an issue only because of the already unusual circumstances that caught everyone's attention. I don't know what a simple count of white on black or black on white murders has to do what that at all. If you had a count on the number of killings of unarmed strangers in which the assailant claimed self defense, that would be relevant. Do you have that information?

Nope. Don't have that info... Because it's uninteresting information.You can keep saying that is why the story got the hype it did. It didn't it was hyped because it was assumed to be a racial issue. That assumption proved to be wrong.

No, it got hyped because of the circumstances which led people to believe that it might be a racial issue. Circumstances affect whether something is "rare" and thus the media coverage. So a simple count of white on black or black on white crimes is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The media didn't just pick a random white/hispanic on black crime and decide to run with a racial angle just to see what happened, which is how you seem to be portraying it here (that's the only reason your silly "count" would be relevant). They trumpeted this one because of the unusual circumstances. If you don't understand that I don't know what to tell you.

Commish compared this case to OJ and Casey Anthony.A celebrity being a key suspect in his wife's death: interesting

A mom turning in her daughter for murdering the daughter's two year old: interesting

Two strangers fight and one ends up dead from a gun shot: NOT interesting

The deceased being ten years old and the survivor of the fight saying racist things on the 911 call: interesting

Learning that the deceased was made to look like a ten year old victim by the media showing his ten year old picture to the nation, and then learning that the 911 call was edited by the media to make the survivor of the fight sound racist: no longer interesting... except to people who still believe he was racist.

Learning from the court case that the facts show he didn't act racially and defended himself legally: what an overblown media drama the whole thing was.... Except to those who are still sold on the false assumption he is a racist.

Nothing made this case any where near what Casey Anthony and OJ, except for the media fanning the flames of bogus assumptions made at the very beginning.

I made no comparisons of the cases. I simply pointed out the attitude towards the defendant by the public was similar in each of them. FWIW....what's "interesting" (odd choice of words IMO but we'll use them) varies from one person to the next. You didn't find this case to fit your criteria of interesting. What's comical is the "well, if it wasn't interesting to me, it shouldn't be interesting to anyone else and if it is those people must be morons" attitude. I tend to agree with Tobias on this in that the circumstances of this case aren't run of the mill. It's not your average "everyday" shooting in this country. It's triggered some pretty good discussions around our laws in some areas, but the MSM isn't concerned with that so you have to look for them.

You seem angry with media more than anything. That's understandable I guess, but if you keep watching it or paying attention to it you're just fueling it.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I really don't understand what you're doing.

I said it was unusual and that a number of factors contributed to the media circus. Those include (but probably are not limited to): the victim was unarmed, the victim wasn't on the killer's property, the victim did not initiate the interaction with the killer, the disparity in ages, the weird call to the police made by the killer about the victim, the fact that the police advised the killer not to pursue, and so on. Add the races of the parties to that and you get a full on feeding frenzy.

Every case is different. I was arguing against the proposition that the media circus here was entirely a creation of the media wanting to turn an every day run of the mill murder case into something more. That seemed to be the point Spock was making by reciting white on black and black on white murder stats. I'm saying this was not a run of the mill case, for a ton of reasons. Most prominently the fact that the victim was unarmed and not really doing anything wrong when the killer decided to call him in and track him. Do you disagree? What does some other killing of some unarmed kids trying to rob somebody have to do with it?

My point is that the news media deliberately ignored information in order to sensationalize this local story into a national one and fan the flames all in the name of ratings.

I kind of agree. My only point was that there were a lot of unusual facts around this case that grabbed the public interest. This wasn't a run of the mill murder or a run of the mill self defense case, as many seemed to be saying. Those unusual factors played a role in making it a national story (or, if you prefer, making it easy for the media to make it a national story).

Ratings, political agendas, and distorting the facts by the media to try to make this a case about race and 2nd amendment rights had 10x more to do with becoming the public interest flavor of the week than the fact that the child that got shot while beating an older man with his fists was unarmed.

Second amendment rights? OK, sport.

Yes second amendment rights, haven't you been watching the news about Bloomberg and Obama wanting to rescind SYG laws and using the Zimmerman trial as an example of why, when they stump to push their political agendas? If you don't think political agendas had anything to do with why certain news agencies colored the facts of this case to get national attention then you need to make an appointment with your equine veterinarian and ask for smaller blinders.

 

[The Commish]

You guys really need to stop watching the MSM....it's turning what I'd consider rather thoughtful posters into mouth breathing goobers. My

 

[TobiasFunke]

I really don't understand what you're doing.

I said it was unusual and that a number of factors contributed to the media circus. Those include (but probably are not limited to): the victim was unarmed, the victim wasn't on the killer's property, the victim did not initiate the interaction with the killer, the disparity in ages, the weird call to the police made by the killer about the victim, the fact that the police advised the killer not to pursue, and so on. Add the races of the parties to that and you get a full on feeding frenzy.

Every case is different. I was arguing against the proposition that the media circus here was entirely a creation of the media wanting to turn an every day run of the mill murder case into something more. That seemed to be the point Spock was making by reciting white on black and black on white murder stats. I'm saying this was not a run of the mill case, for a ton of reasons. Most prominently the fact that the victim was unarmed and not really doing anything wrong when the killer decided to call him in and track him. Do you disagree? What does some other killing of some unarmed kids trying to rob somebody have to do with it?

My point is that the news media deliberately ignored information in order to sensationalize this local story into a national one and fan the flames all in the name of ratings.

I kind of agree. My only point was that there were a lot of unusual facts around this case that grabbed the public interest. This wasn't a run of the mill murder or a run of the mill self defense case, as many seemed to be saying. Those unusual factors played a role in making it a national story (or, if you prefer, making it easy for the media to make it a national story).

Ratings, political agendas, and distorting the facts by the media to try to make this a case about race and 2nd amendment rights had 10x more to do with becoming the public interest flavor of the week than the fact that the child that got shot while beating an older man with his fists was unarmed.

Second amendment rights? OK, sport.

Yes second amendment rights, haven't you been watching the news about Bloomberg and Obama wanting to rescind SYG laws and using the Zimmerman trial as an example of why, when they stump to push their political agendas? If you don't think political agendas had anything to do with why certain news agencies colored the facts of this case to get national attention then you need to make an appointment with your equine veterinarian and ask for smaller blinders.

Take it easy, Champ. Why don't you stop talking for a while? Maybe sit the next few plays out.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I really don't understand what you're doing.

I said it was unusual and that a number of factors contributed to the media circus. Those include (but probably are not limited to): the victim was unarmed, the victim wasn't on the killer's property, the victim did not initiate the interaction with the killer, the disparity in ages, the weird call to the police made by the killer about the victim, the fact that the police advised the killer not to pursue, and so on. Add the races of the parties to that and you get a full on feeding frenzy.

Every case is different. I was arguing against the proposition that the media circus here was entirely a creation of the media wanting to turn an every day run of the mill murder case into something more. That seemed to be the point Spock was making by reciting white on black and black on white murder stats. I'm saying this was not a run of the mill case, for a ton of reasons. Most prominently the fact that the victim was unarmed and not really doing anything wrong when the killer decided to call him in and track him. Do you disagree? What does some other killing of some unarmed kids trying to rob somebody have to do with it?

My point is that the news media deliberately ignored information in order to sensationalize this local story into a national one and fan the flames all in the name of ratings.

I kind of agree. My only point was that there were a lot of unusual facts around this case that grabbed the public interest. This wasn't a run of the mill murder or a run of the mill self defense case, as many seemed to be saying. Those unusual factors played a role in making it a national story (or, if you prefer, making it easy for the media to make it a national story).

Ratings, political agendas, and distorting the facts by the media to try to make this a case about race and 2nd amendment rights had 10x more to do with becoming the public interest flavor of the week than the fact that the child that got shot while beating an older man with his fists was unarmed.

Second amendment rights? OK, sport.

Yes second amendment rights, haven't you been watching the news about Bloomberg and Obama wanting to rescind SYG laws and using the Zimmerman trial as an example of why, when they stump to push their political agendas? If you don't think political agendas had anything to do with why certain news agencies colored the facts of this case to get national attention then you need to make an appointment with your equine veterinarian and ask for smaller blinders.

Take it easy, Champ. Why don't you stop talking for a while? Maybe sit the next few plays out.

Ok champ, sport, #####.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I really don't understand what you're doing.

I said it was unusual and that a number of factors contributed to the media circus. Those include (but probably are not limited to): the victim was unarmed, the victim wasn't on the killer's property, the victim did not initiate the interaction with the killer, the disparity in ages, the weird call to the police made by the killer about the victim, the fact that the police advised the killer not to pursue, and so on. Add the races of the parties to that and you get a full on feeding frenzy.

Every case is different. I was arguing against the proposition that the media circus here was entirely a creation of the media wanting to turn an every day run of the mill murder case into something more. That seemed to be the point Spock was making by reciting white on black and black on white murder stats. I'm saying this was not a run of the mill case, for a ton of reasons. Most prominently the fact that the victim was unarmed and not really doing anything wrong when the killer decided to call him in and track him. Do you disagree? What does some other killing of some unarmed kids trying to rob somebody have to do with it?

My point is that the news media deliberately ignored information in order to sensationalize this local story into a national one and fan the flames all in the name of ratings.

I kind of agree. My only point was that there were a lot of unusual facts around this case that grabbed the public interest. This wasn't a run of the mill murder or a run of the mill self defense case, as many seemed to be saying. Those unusual factors played a role in making it a national story (or, if you prefer, making it easy for the media to make it a national story).

Ratings, political agendas, and distorting the facts by the media to try to make this a case about race and 2nd amendment rights had 10x more to do with becoming the public interest flavor of the week than the fact that the child that got shot while beating an older man with his fists was unarmed.

Second amendment rights? OK, sport.

Yes second amendment rights, haven't you been watching the news about Bloomberg and Obama wanting to rescind SYG laws and using the Zimmerman trial as an example of why, when they stump to push their political agendas? If you don't think political agendas had anything to do with why certain news agencies colored the facts of this case to get national attention then you need to make an appointment with your equine veterinarian and ask for smaller blinders.

Take it easy, Champ. Why don't you stop talking for a while? Maybe sit the next few plays out.

Ok champ, sport, #####.

"The jew is using the black as muscle against you! And you are left there helpless. Well, what are you gonna do about it, Whitey? Just sit there?"

 

[eurotrashman]

He also has done more negative stuff than you or I have. Taking someone's life who did not deserve to die is a pretty big checkmark in the negative side. I think most would agree with that except JoJo and you???

The bolded may or may not be the case. I don't think you can throw it out as an undeniable truth.

Who gets to determine who lives or dies?? Pretty stupid response.

 

[Christo]

He also has done more negative stuff than you or I have. Taking someone's life who did not deserve to die is a pretty big checkmark in the negative side. I think most would agree with that except JoJo and you???

The bolded may or may not be the case. I don't think you can throw it out as an undeniable truth.

Who gets to determine who lives or dies?? Pretty stupid response.

If you are trying to kill me without justification I get to determine whether you live or die. Pretty simple really.

 

[Short Corner]

He also has done more negative stuff than you or I have. Taking someone's life who did not deserve to die is a pretty big checkmark in the negative side. I think most would agree with that except JoJo and you???

The bolded may or may not be the case. I don't think you can throw it out as an undeniable truth.

Who gets to determine who lives or dies?? Pretty stupid response.

The victim of a felony assault who just happens to be packing.

 

[greenroom]

He also has done more negative stuff than you or I have. Taking someone's life who did not deserve to die is a pretty big checkmark in the negative side. I think most would agree with that except JoJo and you???

The bolded may or may not be the case. I don't think you can throw it out as an undeniable truth.

Who gets to determine who lives or dies?? Pretty stupid response.

The victim of a felony assault who just happens to be packing.

I guess JoJo and Short Corner has no problem killing an innocent kid. Link to felony assault please

 

[Carolina Hustler]

He also has done more negative stuff than you or I have. Taking someone's life who did not deserve to die is a pretty big checkmark in the negative side. I think most would agree with that except JoJo and you???

The bolded may or may not be the case. I don't think you can throw it out as an undeniable truth.

Who gets to determine who lives or dies?? Pretty stupid response.

If you are trying to kill me without justification and I have a gun, I get to determine whether you live or die. Pretty simple really.

Fixed

 

[Christo]

He also has done more negative stuff than you or I have. Taking someone's life who did not deserve to die is a pretty big checkmark in the negative side. I think most would agree with that except JoJo and you???

The bolded may or may not be the case. I don't think you can throw it out as an undeniable truth.

Who gets to determine who lives or dies?? Pretty stupid response.

If you are trying to kill me without justification and I have a gun, I get to determine whether you live or die. Pretty simple really.

Fixed

You? I'd beat to death with my fists.

 

[Politician Spock]

at comparing Zimmerman to a famous football star and a woman who was turned in by her own mother for killing her daughter.

What Casey did is rare, as well as sick and twisted. That's what made it dramatic enough to be national news. And OJ's case was dramatic enough to be national news because he was a celebrity. What happened between Martin/Zimmerman isn't rare, and neither of them were celebrities. There's was no reason for it to be national news. A lot of flame fanning had to occur to get the nation heated over it.

I may be wrong about this, but I think people killing unarmed total strangers and then claiming self defense is kinda rare, regardless of the race of either party. Not saying it wasn't self defense, but this was not an everyday occurrence. It wouldn't have received national media attention were it not for the race of the parties, and the way the killer described the victim and his motivation for following him (which played into the racial angle), but let's not act like this sort of thing happens every day.

There are an average of 438 incidents per year of whites killing blacks in this county. There are an average of 853 incidents per year of blacks killing whites in this country. It's rare however for journalists to be fired for how they report incidents.

Great. Thanks for the irrelevant information.

I said it was noteworthy because I think people killing unarmed strangers and then claiming self defense is very unusual (especially when not on the assailant's property), and that race became an issue only because of the already unusual circumstances that caught everyone's attention. I don't know what a simple count of white on black or black on white murders has to do what that at all. If you had a count on the number of killings of unarmed strangers in which the assailant claimed self defense, that would be relevant. Do you have that information?

Nope. Don't have that info... Because it's uninteresting information.You can keep saying that is why the story got the hype it did. It didn't it was hyped because it was assumed to be a racial issue. That assumption proved to be wrong.

No, it got hyped because of the circumstances which led people to believe that it might be a racial issue. Circumstances affect whether something is "rare" and thus the media coverage. So a simple count of white on black or black on white crimes is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The media didn't just pick a random white/hispanic on black crime and decide to run with a racial angle just to see what happened, which is how you seem to be portraying it here (that's the only reason your silly "count" would be relevant). They trumpeted this one because of the unusual circumstances. If you don't understand that I don't know what to tell you.

Commish compared this case to OJ and Casey Anthony.A celebrity being a key suspect in his wife's death: interesting

A mom turning in her daughter for murdering the daughter's two year old: interesting

Two strangers fight and one ends up dead from a gun shot: NOT interesting

The deceased being ten years old and the survivor of the fight saying racist things on the 911 call: interesting

Learning that the deceased was made to look like a ten year old victim by the media showing his ten year old picture to the nation, and then learning that the 911 call was edited by the media to make the survivor of the fight sound racist: no longer interesting... except to people who still believe he was racist.

Learning from the court case that the facts show he didn't act racially and defended himself legally: what an overblown media drama the whole thing was.... Except to those who are still sold on the false assumption he is a racist.

Nothing made this case any where near what Casey Anthony and OJ, except for the media fanning the flames of bogus assumptions made at the very beginning.

I made no comparisons of the cases. I simply pointed out the attitude towards the defendant by the public was similar in each of them. FWIW....what's "interesting" (odd choice of words IMO but we'll use them) varies from one person to the next. You didn't find this case to fit your criteria of interesting. What's comical is the "well, if it wasn't interesting to me, it shouldn't be interesting to anyone else and if it is those people must be morons" attitude. I tend to agree with Tobias on this in that the circumstances of this case aren't run of the mill. It's not your average "everyday" shooting in this country. It's triggered some pretty good discussions around our laws in some areas, but the MSM isn't concerned with that so you have to look for them.You seem angry with media more than anything. That's understandable I guess, but if you keep watching it or paying attention to it you're just fueling it.

The media had to manipulate the story to make it interesting because it wasn't interesting enough to profit from by itself.

 

[Yenrub]

The original police recommendation. Long before this case became highly publicized, was that GZ be charged with manslaughter. That's what he should have been charged with. There was, IMO, enough evidence to convict him of this charge had the prosecution practiced a strategy like the one Ramsey Hunt proposed in this thread or the one Jeffrey Toobin proposed on CNN.

Then it seems like you of all people should be ticked off at the racially-charged mob that eventually twisted enough arms to get a laughable overcharge.

I am. If you're talking about Al Sharpton, Ben Crump and their crowd, I can't stand them. They screwed this case up early on. However, blame also has to go to the Sanford authorities, who refused to press charges when there was clearly enough evidence to do so.And Sharpton and Crump and the rest are right about the essence of this case: it has everything to do with race.

It seems like an acquittal would indicate there clearly wasn't enough evidence to do so

An acquittal largely based on murder 2, in which the jury demonstrated they didn't understand manslaughter, and which the prosecution screwed up from day 1. Also a jury dominated by a woman who is pro-gun and largely sympathetic to Zimmerman and who apparently convinced everyone else. This woman never should have been on the jury- her mind was made up before the trial started.

They acquitted on manslaughter as well.

There was an acquittal which means the prosecution didn't have a good case and he shouldn't have been charged. That's it. The rest is hot air and lame excuses.

I what world do you live in where an acquittal means a person shouldn’t have been charged?

So Casey Anthony shouldn’t have been charged right...since you know she was acquitted

 

[Mr Two Cents]

He also has done more negative stuff than you or I have. Taking someone's life who did not deserve to die is a pretty big checkmark in the negative side. I think most would agree with that except JoJo and you???

The bolded may or may not be the case. I don't think you can throw it out as an undeniable truth.

Who gets to determine who lives or dies?? Pretty stupid response.

The victim of a felony assault who just happens to be packing.

I guess JoJo and Short Corner has no problem killing an innocent kid. Link to felony assault please

The thug was into "lean", fighting and the "life. Zimmerman did everyone in Florida a favor. The punk deserved what he got, he just tried to jack the wrong person. I think he showed a lot of restraint not killing the thug drug punk earlier

 

[squistion]

I guess JoJo and Short Corner has no problem killing an innocent kid. Link to felony assault please

The thug was into "lean", fighting and the "life. Zimmerman did everyone in Florida a favor. The punk deserved what he got, he just tried to jack the wrong person. I think he showed a lot of restraint not killing the thug drug punk earlier

 

[jonessed]

The original police recommendation. Long before this case became highly publicized, was that GZ be charged with manslaughter. That's what he should have been charged with. There was, IMO, enough evidence to convict him of this charge had the prosecution practiced a strategy like the one Ramsey Hunt proposed in this thread or the one Jeffrey Toobin proposed on CNN.

Then it seems like you of all people should be ticked off at the racially-charged mob that eventually twisted enough arms to get a laughable overcharge.

I am. If you're talking about Al Sharpton, Ben Crump and their crowd, I can't stand them. They screwed this case up early on. However, blame also has to go to the Sanford authorities, who refused to press charges when there was clearly enough evidence to do so.And Sharpton and Crump and the rest are right about the essence of this case: it has everything to do with race.

It seems like an acquittal would indicate there clearly wasn't enough evidence to do so

An acquittal largely based on murder 2, in which the jury demonstrated they didn't understand manslaughter, and which the prosecution screwed up from day 1. Also a jury dominated by a woman who is pro-gun and largely sympathetic to Zimmerman and who apparently convinced everyone else. This woman never should have been on the jury- her mind was made up before the trial started.

They acquitted on manslaughter as well.There was an acquittal which means the prosecution didn't have a good case and he shouldn't have been charged. That's it. The rest is hot air and lame excuses.

I what world do you live in where an acquittal means a person shouldnt have been charged?So Casey Anthony shouldnt have been charged right...since you know she was acquitted

Obviously.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

He also has done more negative stuff than you or I have. Taking someone's life who did not deserve to die is a pretty big checkmark in the negative side. I think most would agree with that except JoJo and you???

The bolded may or may not be the case. I don't think you can throw it out as an undeniable truth.

Who gets to determine who lives or dies?? Pretty stupid response.

If you are trying to kill me without justification and I have a gun, I get to determine whether you live or die. Pretty simple really.

Fixed

You? I'd beat to death with my fists.

Lol, You'd have a tough one on your hands..