Self Defense Killing in Florida...Geeks got an opinion?

[IGotWorms 3,297]

The voice heard crying for help on a 911 call just before Trayvon Martin was shot to death was not that of George Zimmerman according to 2 experts.

 

MURDER.

[Gepetto 977]

There's this newfangled contraption called a video cam. Some people actually video their kids.

 

They didn't even have snacks and drinks stocked in their house, not one bag of skittles, or can of nestea, so their son has to go out in the heavy rain at night. And you think they have a video camera? :no:

 

Also, sorryfortheirloss, this is horrible.

[Gepetto 977]

i've decided not only to not argue about this situation here, but i'm not going to follow it online either. this is my uncle's take on the matter and i agree with him.

 

Excellent discussion on both parts. My issue, since all of the facts we discuss are gleaned from indirect and imperfect sources is not the incident itself. I am willing to let the investigation lead where it may by whomever. My issue is that we are being manipulated. I hate being driven like cattle. I hate being manipulated. I reserve judgement on the incident and the investigation, but as I look at my wall (tv?) I see the deceased elevated to martyred sainthood and a mob screaming for Zimmerman's blood. This is no way to seek the truth. And both of you, Jeffrey and Art have enough experience and knowledge to have been privy to many times when the immediate portrayal of events in the media are inaccurate and misleading. ALSO, as the blood of young black men fills the gutters of every major city and many minor ones, I understand seeking justice, but as I said, I see our emotions being manipulated for political gain and other agendas. I was speaking with my brother, A Deputy DA who tries gang, drug and death penalty cases in COMPTON. His words: "I understand the frustration over the Martin shooting, but I wish everyone got as worked up over every Hoover (hoover is a gang) shooting a Crip. They need to come see me, they want to hear about good innocent young people getting murdered by creeps... babies to adults... where is the outrage..." This is my point. What happened to Martin is happening all over the country every day and not a peep. YOu want to get pissed at someone, get pissed that THOSE crimes are getting no push. Do none of them look like the president's son?

 

my uncle is a former los angeles police officer.

 

I completely agree with your uncle. That was smartly written by him.

[Gepetto 977]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0328/Trayvon-Martin-case-Why-hasn-t-George-Zimmerman-been-arrested-video

 

Why didn’t the Sanford, Fla., police arrest George Zimmerman after he shot Trayvon Martin Feb. 26? That’s a question that today is more relevant than ever amid reports the lead investigator in the case thought Mr. Zimmerman should be charged with manslaughter for his actions.

 

Trayvon Martin's parents went before a congressional panel and thanked those who turned their 17-year-old son's death into a cry against racial profiling. Martin's parents spoke at a Capitol Hill forum that began with a moment of silence.

 

The investigator, Chris Serino, was unconvinced by Zimmerman’s assertion that he resorted to deadly force in self-defense, according to ABC News. Mr. Serino filed an affidavit to that effect on the night of the killing.

 

But Serino’s superiors, in turn, were apparently unconvinced by Serino’s reasoning. They did not take Zimmerman into custody because of two words: “probable cause.”

 

“The Sanford police said this is why they did not arrest Zimmerman: they did not have probable cause to believe that he had broken the law,” writes legal analyst Dave Kopel, research director of the Independence Institute, on the widely read legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy.

 

Florida’ Stand Your Ground law would have been legally irrelevant to this determination, according to Mr. Kopel. Florida has other statutes that allow the use of force against a criminal attack, as do virtually all states. Zimmerman’s story has been that he was doing exactly that: defending against an assault by Martin. In his version of events, Martin knocked him down, then straddled him and pounded his head on the ground. He did not have an opportunity to retreat, he told police.

 

On the day of the shooting, Sanford police officials determined that they did not have enough evidence to the contrary to detain Zimmerman. Whether they were suspicious of his story would not have mattered. They would have had to produce hard evidence to the contrary. The “probable cause” criterion is derived from the Constitution and is meant to protect against unreasonable arrest.

 

“The normal rule in American law is that a police officer must have ‘probable cause’ in order to arrest someone,” writes Kopel.

 

 

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

I think they do have probable cause: in the tapes Trayvon is screaming for help and then a shot is heard and then silence. Open and shut case in my opinion.

[Vikings4ever 496]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0328/Trayvon-Martin-case-Why-hasn-t-George-Zimmerman-been-arrested-video

 

Why didn’t the Sanford, Fla., police arrest George Zimmerman after he shot Trayvon Martin Feb. 26? That’s a question that today is more relevant than ever amid reports the lead investigator in the case thought Mr. Zimmerman should be charged with manslaughter for his actions.

 

Trayvon Martin's parents went before a congressional panel and thanked those who turned their 17-year-old son's death into a cry against racial profiling. Martin's parents spoke at a Capitol Hill forum that began with a moment of silence.

 

The investigator, Chris Serino, was unconvinced by Zimmerman’s assertion that he resorted to deadly force in self-defense, according to ABC News. Mr. Serino filed an affidavit to that effect on the night of the killing.

 

But Serino’s superiors, in turn, were apparently unconvinced by Serino’s reasoning. They did not take Zimmerman into custody because of two words: “probable cause.”

 

“The Sanford police said this is why they did not arrest Zimmerman: they did not have probable cause to believe that he had broken the law,” writes legal analyst Dave Kopel, research director of the Independence Institute, on the widely read legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy.

 

Florida’ Stand Your Ground law would have been legally irrelevant to this determination, according to Mr. Kopel. Florida has other statutes that allow the use of force against a criminal attack, as do virtually all states. Zimmerman’s story has been that he was doing exactly that: defending against an assault by Martin. In his version of events, Martin knocked him down, then straddled him and pounded his head on the ground. He did not have an opportunity to retreat, he told police.

 

On the day of the shooting, Sanford police officials determined that they did not have enough evidence to the contrary to detain Zimmerman. Whether they were suspicious of his story would not have mattered. They would have had to produce hard evidence to the contrary. The “probable cause” criterion is derived from the Constitution and is meant to protect against unreasonable arrest.

 

“The normal rule in American law is that a police officer must have ‘probable cause’ in order to arrest someone,” writes Kopel.

 

 

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

I think they do have probable cause: in the tapes Trayvon is screaming for help and then a shot is heard and then silence. Open and shut case in my opinion.

They have a tape with someone screaming for help, that it took a month for 2 experts to say isn't Zimmerman (but haven't checked to see if they can say it's Martin's, either). Now, if they can get audio of Martin's voice and can positively compare it to the voice on the tape, then they likely have probable cause.

[Strike 3,941]

While I am no FBG lawyer, I don't believe that the person who initiates the fight can ever say that it was self defense, regardless of whether he is getting his ass kicked or in fear of his life. Only the original victim can claim self-defense and/or use the Stand Your Ground defense.

 

One of Romine's cases is a prime example. In 2008, his client, Charles Podany, noticed a truck speeding past his house in Thonotosassa, where his children play in the front yard. Podany fetched his handgun and rode his bicycle down the street to the house where the truck was parked to get a license plate number.

 

He found himself in a confrontation with Casey Landes, 24, who had been a passenger in the truck. Landes, legally drunk, attacked the smaller Podany and wound up on top of him. Podany drew his weapon and fired twice. The second bullet entered Landes' left cheek and struck the back of his skull, killing him instantly.

 

Podany was charged with manslaughter. But before trial, a judge ruled that despite initiating the confrontation by arming himself and riding his bicycle to the speeder's house, Podany was in a place he had a legal right to be and he was carrying a weapon he had a legal right to carry. He found that Podany feared for his life and had the right to defend himself with deadly force.

 

"There is not an exception to the law that says if you're doing something stupid, or risky, or not in your best interest, that 'stand your ground' doesn't apply," Romine said.

 

Care to retract that statement?

 

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/stand-your-ground-law-protects-those-who-go-far-beyond-that-point/1222930

[SUXBNME 1,319]

Trayvon was a thug and Zimmerman is an illegal immigrant.

[ZeroTolerance 582]

Care to retract that statement?

 

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/stand-your-ground-law-protects-those-who-go-far-beyond-that-point/1222930

So, the plan to get away with murder in Florida:

 

#1. Pack your firearm

#2. Pick a fight with person you want to kill

#3. Let person you want to kill start whooping your ass

#4. Fire away!

[Strike 3,941]

No question, but given the untested nature of the law, I am going to give more weight to their comments than those of the folks here.

 

Untested?

 

'Stand your ground' law protects those who go far beyond that point

 

 

By Ben Montgomery, Times Staff Writer

In Print: Sunday, April 1, 2012

 

 

The men responsible for Florida's controversial "stand your ground'' law are certain about one thing: Because of his actions before he pulled the trigger and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman is not protected from criminal prosecution.

 

Because Zimmerman exited his vehicle, because he followed Martin, because his actions put him in a situation where he felt it necessary to shoot a boy dead, he should be booked, jailed and forced to face a jury of his peers.

 

Said Durell Peaden, the former Republican senator from Crestview who sponsored the bill: "The guy lost his defense right then. When he said, 'I'm following him,' he lost his defense."

 

Said Jeb Bush, the governor who signed the bill into law: "Stand your ground means stand your ground. It doesn't mean chase after somebody who's turned their back."

 

But they are wrong.

 

Since its passage in 2005, the "stand your ground'' law has protected people who have pursued another, initiated a confrontation and then used deadly force to defend themselves. Citing the law, judges have granted immunity to killers who put themselves in danger, so long as their pursuit was not criminal, so long as the person using force had a right to be there, and so long as he could convince the judge he was in fear of great danger or death.

 

The Tampa Bay Times has identified 140 cases across the state in which "stand your ground'' has been invoked, and many involve defendants whose lives were clearly in jeopardy. But at least a dozen share similarities with what we know about the Trayvon Martin case, and they show the law has not always worked as its sponsors say they intended.

 

Early morning, Jan. 25, 2011. Greyston Garcia was in his apartment in Miami when a roommate told him someone was stealing the radio from his truck.

 

Garcia grabbed a kitchen knife and ran outside. The burglar saw him coming, grabbed his bag of stolen radios and fled.

 

Rather than calling the police, Garcia chased the thief down the street and caught up to him a block away. The confrontation lasted less than a minute and was captured on surveillance video. The thief swung the bag of radios at Garcia, who blocked the bag with his left hand and stabbed the thief in the chest with his right.

 

Pedro Roteta, 26, died in the street.

 

Those are the facts. You be the judge.

 

Florida statute 776.013(3) says: (a) person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

 

The old law required a person to use every reasonable means available to retreat before using deadly force, except when the person was in his or her home or place of work. "Stand your ground'' expands that to any other place where he or she has a right to be.

 

Should that be enough to protect Greyston Garcia from prosecution?

 

Does it help to know that a medical examiner testified that a blow from a 4- to 6-pound bag of metal to the head would cause great bodily harm, possibly even death? Does it change your mind to learn that police found a folding knife in the dead man's back pocket?

 

Does it matter that Garcia didn't call the police? That he went home and fell asleep? That he later sold the other stolen car stereos and hid the knife and denied killing anyone when police finally caught him?

 

The judge considered all those facts. In the end, she ruled that Garcia's use of force was justified. It didn't matter that he had chased the thief for a block with a knife in his hand.

 

All that mattered was what happened in those few seconds when the two men stood face to face.

 

"Mr. Zimmerman's unnecessary pursuit and confrontation of Trayvon Martin elevated the prospect of a violent episode and does not seem to be an act of self-defense as defined by the castle doctrine" wrote state Rep. Dennis Baxley, the Ocala Republican who co-authored the law, in a column March 21 for FOXNews.com. "There is no protection in the 'stand your ground' law for anyone who pursues and confronts people."

 

Lawyers say the bill's supporters are either uninformed or politically motivated.

 

"That's not what the law says," said Steven Romine, a Tampa Bay lawyer who has invoked "stand your ground'' successfully. "They might think that in their own heads, but it's just not true.

 

"If you're doing something legal, no matter what the act is, and you're attacked, it's in that moment that you have a right to stand your ground."

 

Prosecutors, who are generally critical of the law, agree.

 

"The real issue is what happens around the 60 seconds prior to the shooting," said Ed Griffith, a spokesman for the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office, which brought the charges against Greyston Garcia. "Everything else has emotional content, but from a legal perspective, it all comes down to the 60 seconds before the incident."

 

One of Romine's cases is a prime example. In 2008, his client, Charles Podany, noticed a truck speeding past his house in Thonotosassa, where his children play in the front yard. Podany fetched his handgun and rode his bicycle down the street to the house where the truck was parked to get a license plate number.

 

He found himself in a confrontation with Casey Landes, 24, who had been a passenger in the truck. Landes, legally drunk, attacked the smaller Podany and wound up on top of him. Podany drew his weapon and fired twice. The second bullet entered Landes' left cheek and struck the back of his skull, killing him instantly.

 

Podany was charged with manslaughter. But before trial, a judge ruled that despite initiating the confrontation by arming himself and riding his bicycle to the speeder's house, Podany was in a place he had a legal right to be and he was carrying a weapon he had a legal right to carry. He found that Podany feared for his life and had the right to defend himself with deadly force.

 

"There is not an exception to the law that says if you're doing something stupid, or risky, or not in your best interest, that 'stand your ground' doesn't apply," Romine said.

 

In May, Carlos Catalan-Flores, 26, a security guard at a Tampa strip club called Flash Dancers, confronted men who were drinking beer in the parking lot. One of the men threw a beer bottle at Catalan-Flores' head and prepared to throw another. Rather than taking cover inside the club, or using his baton or pepper spray to protect himself, Catalan-Flores drew his weapon and began firing. Several of the six shots hit the man who threw the beer.

 

A judge ruled that Catalan-Flores was justified, even though he initiated the confrontation. Being hit by a beer bottle constitutes a forcible felony, so he had the right to shoot, to protect himself.

 

"Fundamentally, this law is in place to protect us from prosecution and to allow us to protect ourselves," said Catalan-Flores' attorney, Joe Caimano. "If somebody takes it to the extreme, it will come out in the investigation."

 

Some extreme cases have tested the law.

 

A man got into a shootout on a Sarasota street, for instance, killing a man who owed him money and endangering bystanders. But a judge granted him immunity because a witness testified that his rival had claimed he had "fire in his pocket" and threatened the shooter. Police found no weapon at the scene, but that didn't matter. What mattered was that the shooter believed his enemy had a weapon and was ready to use it.

 

The court has even ruled that the statute can protect someone who shoots a retreating person. In overturning a ruling against Jimmy Hair, who shot a man who was retreating from a fight, a judge in Tallahassee wrote that the statute "makes no exception from the immunity when the victim is in retreat at the time the defensive force is employed."

 

Prosecutors argue that these types of cases should be brought before a jury.

 

"Jurors understand self-defense," said Griffith, the spokesman in Miami. "That's really where it should be."

 

Nine days after Trayvon Martin was shot dead in Sanford, Brandon Baker, 30, and his twin brother were driving separate cars toward the apartment they shared in Palm Harbor.

 

Seth Browning, a 23-year-old security guard who later told deputies he was concerned with Baker's erratic driving, pulled in close behind Baker to get his license tag number.

 

Baker turned off East Lake Road, then onto an access road and came to a stop, according to Pinellas sheriff's investigators. Browning followed and stopped behind Baker's Chevy truck.

 

Baker climbed out of his truck and walked to Browning's window. His brother, Chris, watching from behind, said Baker was trying to figure out why Browning was tailgating him.

 

Browning sprayed Baker with pepper spray, then shot him in the chest. He told deputies that Baker had punched him and he was in fear for his life. Browning called police as Chris Baker tried to revive his brother.

 

His father, Kevin Lindsay, rushed to the scene and watched as Browning was questioned at length. Then he learned the man who killed his son was released.

 

Baker's parents had never heard of the "stand your ground" law. Waiting for some type of action has exhausted them. They long for justice in what appears to them to be a clearly unjustifiable killing.

 

"I always knew that the law would protect you if somebody broke into your home. Sure, you can protect yourself," said his stepmother, Alex Lindsay. "But why did they have to expand it to protect people who do things like this?"

 

Their friends and family are just as shocked when they learn Browning might not be charged.

 

"They're incredulous," Alex Lindsay said.

 

More than 500 people have signed their online petition to get "stand your ground" repealed.

 

"This case is being considered a 'stand your ground' case and should not be since Seth Browning was the sole 'AGGRESSOR' and 'CHOSE' to tailgate, pull over, pepper spray, and shoot and kill Brandon Baker," it says. "Seth Browning did NOT act out of self defense and should be prosecuted for killing Brandon Baker."

 

But if history serves, the pursuit may not matter. The case will hinge on what happened in the moments before Browning pulled the trigger, and whether he feared for his life. Pinellas Sheriff Bob Gaultieri said this week that the case is still under investigation.

 

Baker's parents, like Martin's, are appalled that the law might protect the man who killed their son, and shocked that men who backed the law are saying they didn't know it could.

 

"Even if they had the best of intentions, they need to change this law," Alex Lindsay said. "They will never fully understand the repercussions of it."

 

"I don't wish this on anyone," said her husband. "And this is going to keep happening. It's going to happen to other families."

 

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/stand-your-ground-law-protects-those-who-go-far-beyond-that-point/1222930

[Strike 3,941]

So, the plan to get away with murder in Florida:

 

#1. Pack your firearm

#2. Pick a fight with person you want to kill

#3. Let person you want to kill start whooping your ass

#4. Fire away!

 

It seems to me that this law is a bit overreaching. However, at this point in time it is the law. It seems there have been enough cases that the public should have demanded it's repeal or modification, but they didn't.

[NorthernVike 2,079]

Trayvon was a thug and Zimmerman is an illegal immigrant.

But Mexican kills black man does not make news...White man kills black child does.

 

 

 

Obama's new campaign slogan...Devide and conquer.

[SUXBNME 1,319]

But Mexican kills black man does not make news...White man kills black child does.

 

 

 

Obama's new campaign slogan...Devide and conquer.

Devide? You mean "divide"?

[nikki2200 4]

So, the plan to get away with murder in Florida:

 

#1. Pack your firearm

#2. Pick a fight with person you want to kill

#3. Let person you want to kill start whooping your ass

#4. Fire away!

 

Sure sounds like it.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Care to retract that statement?

 

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/stand-your-ground-law-protects-those-who-go-far-beyond-that-point/1222930

Umm. No I don't. An opinion from a defense lawyer does not hold as much water as the sponsors of the bill and the Governor who signed it.

[Strike 3,941]

Umm. No I don't. An opinion from a defense lawyer does not hold as much water as the sponsors of the bill and the Governor who signed it.

 

Apparently you didn't read the entire article, which includes opinions of entire prosecuting offices who've lost under his law and numerous other cases where it's been applied. That's funny since, in the post after the one you replied to, I quoted the entire article.

[NorthernVike 2,079]

Devide? You mean "divide"?

 

 

Sorry, I thought you spoke ebonics

[nikki2200 4]

Why have Trayvon's parents not provided a sample of his voice to compare to the tape? Seems to me if it matches his voice it helps their case.

 

How do you know they haven't?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

How do you know they haven't?

Seems to me if they had, and the voice screaming was Trayvon's, there would be an arrest by now.

[IGotWorms 3,297]

Devide? You mean "divide"?

 

That's racist hick talk for "divide". You have to be patient with them--they aren't very smart.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

Apparently you didn't read the entire article, which includes opinions of entire prosecuting offices who've lost under his law and numerous other cases where it's been applied. That's funny since, in the post after the one you replied to, I quoted the entire article.

 

Actually, I did read the entire article. Either the law should be immediately repealed or the article was only showing one side. I went with the latter.

[Strike 3,941]

Actually, I did read the entire article. Either the law should be immediately repealed or the article was only showing one side. I went with the latter.

 

Really? So because it doesn't fit your previous posts and apparent viewpoint, you're just going to assume it's biased? It seems like a well researched piece of journalism to me. They tried to identify all the cases that have been prosecuted under this law, spoke to both sides about it, and identified the 11 cases that share similar characteristics as the Zimmerman/Martin case and noted what the disposition of each of those cases is. But hey, it must be wrong.

 

[penultimatestraw 473]

Seems to me if they had, and the voice screaming was Trayvon's, there would be an arrest by now.

Considering the photo they had was several years old, I seriously doubt they have an up to date recording of his voice. What % of the population do you think keeps such recordings? A voicemail to his girlfriend, maybe, though I don't think phones are used for anything but typing anymore.

Actually, I did read the entire article. Either the law should be immediately repealed or the article was only showing one side. I went with the latter.

After reading Strike's article, the SYG law promotes ugly vigilantism which may cause more harm than good, IMO.

[nikki2200 4]

After reading Strike's article, the SYG law promotes ugly vigilantism which may cause more harm than good, IMO.

 

Sounds like it's the wild west down there.

 

Police officer: It appears we have a dead body here, can you tell me what happened?

 

Shooter: Officer, this man challenged me to a duel and I won.

 

Police officer: Oh, I see. You're free to go then. Thank you for your time.

 

 

[GobbleDog 815]

This was exactly the type of case critics of the law made before it passed.

 

Regardless, I think Zimmerman is innocent. Nobody calls 911 to report a suspicious person before committing cold blooded murder. And cops (particularly redneck Sanford cops) are quick to arrest any Latino involved in a shooting. The fact that they never charged him means his story was 100% consistent and supported by eye witnesses.

[IGotWorms 3,297]

This was exactly the type of case critics of the law made before it passed.

 

Regardless, I think Zimmerman is innocent. Nobody calls 911 to report a suspicious person before committing cold blooded murder. And cops (particularly redneck Sanford cops) are quick to arrest any Latino involved in a shooting. The fact that they never charged him means his story was 100% consistent and supported by eye witnesses.

 

I don't think Zimmerman had a prior intent to murder this kid. I doubt he woke up this morning and said "I'm gonna shoot me a black kid."

 

BUT, I think he was probably enraged that this kid would question his authority (which only exited in his head) and killed him in a rage.

 

That isn't Murder One but it's definitely manslaughter and probably Murder Two.

 

If I was the prosecutor, that would probably be my theory at trial and I bet I would win on it.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Considering the photo they had was several years old

Throwing out a photo of a 12 year old skinny kid gets more sympathy than a pic of a 16 year old wif gold teef and hat all cockeyed.

[KSB2424 3,082]

I have no idea if Zimmerman is a cold blooded killer, he should be tried for manslaughter, or if he was acting in total self defense. The evidence will ultimately bear that out.

 

The angle of this story that rings with me is with the media. Everyone here knows I loathe todays 'shoot first and ask questions later' media. With the internet, 24 hour news channels, blogs, twitter, facebook and the National Enqueir and TMZ's of the world news simply cannot be trusted any longer. You literally cannot believe what you read whatsoever. 20 years ago and longer there was an 'art' to journalism. A reporter or news anchor had to perform due dilligence to verify a story before sending it the masses. There were editors that filtered out garbage. This is no longer the case. Media has turned into the Wild Wild West where everybody carries a gun and takes out their own justice. There is journalism anarchy. It's one of the reasons I was behind Tiger Woods back during Tigergate as you simply cannot believe everything you read and I wanted to wait until the facts came out. To me, in this day of age, its better to be cautious than jump to conclusions. More and more people are realizing to do the same.

 

Finally some people in media are calling out their own, it took a uber high profile case like Trayvaon's to do it:

 

Media crosses the line

 

The Trayvon Martin case has exposed some of the media's worst tendencies--selective editing, rushing to judgment, stoking anger for ratings and page views--and it's taken more than fake photos, the incendiary stumbles of Geraldo Rivera and Spike Lee and verbal clashes between Piers Morgan and Toure to shine a light on them.

 

Here are three recent, troubling examples:

 

1. After ABC News aired surveillance video of George Zimmerman, Martin's shooter, entering a police precinct without any apparent injuries, the Daily Caller treated the tape like a Zapruder film, enhancing still images from the video and concluding that it found "what may be an injury to the back of his head." The site's photo "analysis" of the back of Zimmerman's head--replete with yellow Photoshopped arrows--"indicates what appears to be a vertical laceration or scar several inches long."

 

[Related: Video of Zimmerman arriving at police station]

 

Keep in mind, this is the same Daily Caller that published 152 pages of what the conservative site claims were Martin's tweets--which, if they were, prove that Martin was a pretty typical high school male, preoccupied with girls, sex and getting out of class early.

 

2. NBC told the Washington Post that it has launched an internal investigation of the "Today" show's editorial process after its morning show aired an edited conversation between George Zimmerman and a 911 dispatcher recorded moments before the shooting. The investigation came after Fox News and others pointed out that the network spliced two parts of the call together, making it appear as if Zimmerman had said, "This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black." In reality, Zimmerman was answering a dispatcher's question:

 

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.

 

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy--is he black, white or Hispanic?

 

Zimmerman: He looks black.

 

3. In an flailing effort to break news in a month-old shooting, CBS News aired an interview with Richard Kurtz, the funeral director who handled Trayvon Martin's burial.

 

[Related: Geraldo Rivera finds the "real culprit"]

 

"There were no physical signs like there had been a scuffle," Kurtz declared, which the network said proves Zimmerman's claims of a violent encounter with Martin before the shooting are false. "The hands--I didn't see any knuckles, bruises or what have you, and that is something we would have covered up if it would have been there. He looked perfectly normal to me when he came in and the story just does not make sense that he was in this type of scuffle or fight in anything that we could see."

[NorthernVike 2,079]

I have no idea if Zimmerman is a cold blooded killer, he should be tried for manslaughter, or if he was acting in total self defense. The evidence will ultimately bear that out.

 

The angle of this story that rings with me is with the media. Everyone here knows I loathe todays 'shoot first and ask questions later' media. With the internet, 24 hour news channels, blogs, twitter, facebook and the National Enqueir and TMZ's of the world news simply cannot be trusted any longer. You literally cannot believe what you read whatsoever. 20 years ago and longer there was an 'art' to journalism. A reporter or news anchor had to perform due dilligence to verify a story before sending it the masses. There were editors that filtered out garbage. This is no longer the case. Media has turned into the Wild Wild West where everybody carries a gun and takes out their own justice. There is journalism anarchy.

 

Finally some people in media are calling out their own, it took a uber high profile case like Trayvaon's to do it:

 

 

 

 

 

This is exactly why the President of the United States of America should shut his pie hole and not try to use tragic things like this to further his own political ambitions.

[hoytdwow 202]

A forensics expert has determined that the screams for help on the 911 call were not Zimmerman.

 

link

[DankNuggs 305]

NBC caught red handed trying to race bait, and mislead the public... That 'story' was about as fraudulent as you could possibly string together...

 

This is the liberal mainstream media in FULL EFFECT.

[DankNuggs 305]

A forensics expert has determined that the screams for help on the 911 call were not Zimmerman.

 

link

Working for NBC now? Showed 48% or whatever chance of correlation, needs 60% for some confidence factor...

 

It basically showed it was inconclusive, and thus we couldn't derive any information from it..

[DankNuggs 305]

This is exactly why the President of the United States of America should shut his pie hole and not try to use tragic things like this to further his own political ambitions.

Perhaps concerning himself with people looking like his sons and daughters killing other people that look like his sons and daughters...Every day, all day long.....

 

 

How about caring about those people?

[BLS 313]

Again, the secret here is to wait until all of the facts come out.

 

 

 

It's way too early to say it was murder.

[MDC 5,875]

I don't think Zimmerman had a prior intent to murder this kid. I doubt he woke up this morning and said "I'm gonna shoot me a black kid."

 

BUT, I think he was probably enraged that this kid would question his authority (which only exited in his head) and killed him in a rage.

 

That isn't Murder One but it's definitely manslaughter and probably Murder Two.

 

If I was the prosecutor, that would probably be my theory at trial and I bet I would win on it.

 

Agreed.

[DAVID RUFFIN 1]

This is exactly why the President of the United States of America should shut his pie hole and not try to use tragic things like this to further his own political ambitions.

 

 

 

What exactly did he say that furthered his political ambitions

[nikki2200 4]

This is exactly why the President of the United States of America should shut his pie hole and not try to use tragic things like this to further his own political ambitions.

 

So what was he supposed to do when he was specifically asked a question about Trayvon Martin by a reporter?

[nikki2200 4]

So I see no one wants to discuss the case anymore. They just want to make this a political thing (I have no idea why this would be a political thing) and another reason to biitch about the liberal biased media.

 

Honestly... you guys are completely right. The most outrageous aspect of this case is what the media is doing. Not that there are laws in Florida that basically let you get away with murder. Nah... the biased media is what we should be all taking out of this.

[drobeski 3,061]

So what was he supposed to do when he was specifically asked a question about Trayvon Martin by a reporter?

"No comment" ? "I have bigger issues to deal with" ?

"I will leave that to the jurisdictional authority in charge"

"Maybe the media can tone down the rhetoric until all the facts are presented", ?

 

But those are things and man with class leadership and professionalism would say.

Nobody would expect anything like that from the jersey shore American idol super hip cool guy the kids voted for.

[MDC 5,875]

"No comment" ? "I have bigger issues to deal with" ?

"I will leave that to the jurisdictional authority in charge"

"Maybe the media can tone down the rhetoric until all the facts are presented", ?

 

But those are things and man with class leadership and professionalism would say.

Nobody would expect anything like that from the jersey shore American idol super hip cool guy the kids voted for.

 

[Strike 3,941]

So what was he supposed to do when he was specifically asked a question about Trayvon Martin by a reporter?

 

He could have said he feels sympathy for the family. He could have said it was a local matter and as far as he knew the local and state authorities were working on the case. He could have said we should all wait until they're done before making any judgments. What he shouldn't have said was that if he had a kid it would look just like Trayvon. That was race pandering and, IMO, suggesting that there might be something to the racism theories. Why did he inject race in to his comments? He didn't need to and again, IMO, shouldn't have.