Friday, March 30, 2012
True or False - The Trayvon Martin Killing Edition
1) If the roles were reversed and the shooter had been black and the victim white, there probably would have been an arrest. True.............2) If both of the individuals had been black, the media more than likely would have ignored the story. True.............3) The video of George Zimmerman 34 minutes after the tragedy (at the police station) is proof-positive that he did NOT sustain any significant injuries. False. I have personally sustained a broken nose and it didn't bleed and was difficult to ascertain at a distance.............4) We know beyond a shadow of a doubt who cried for help during the confrontation. False (hopefully technology will eventually help us along in this regard).............5) George Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon Martin after the police told him not to. Unclear. On this fact we need to know the precise time of the 911 call and whether or not Mr. Zimmerman made the call from his vehicle (this, in that the event took place a pretty fair distance from the vehicle).............6) We know for a fact that George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin. False. I say this because, even if Mr. Zimmerman WAS following Trayvon Martin, Mr. Martin still could have initiated the altercation. Not, of course, that this excuses Zimmerman or says that he's completely innocent of everything, just that it would probably be more of reckless endangerment or manslaughter offense.............7) We know for a fact that the Sanford Police Department falsified the documents. False.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
What we do now for a fact is that a young man died, the result of a gun shot. Also he was unarmed.
What should have happened didn't. Zimmerman should have been arrested. A full scale investigation should have commenced immediately.
Deadly force was IMO was necessary. While I've moderated my original judgement (which were based on anger and disgust) I still believe more will surface and ultimately Zimmerman will face some charge.
As you say possibly manslaughter.
Points of yours that I disagree with...
[3] I haven't heard anyone claim it was "proof positive". I give your claim that this is so a "false".
[5] It is not "unclear" that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after the police told him not to. Listen to the tapes. Zimmerman CLEARLY was still following Martin after he was told "we don't need you to do that". I give you another "false" on this one.
[6] Who is claiming this? Why are you "refuting" claims that haven't been made? We need an investigation and (if need be), a trial. That's how guilt or innocence will be determined. That said, it looks like murder to me.
[7] WHO is claiming that the police falsified documents? They didn't do their job... that's the only claim I'm hearing being made.
I assume that RN meant to say that deadly force was not necessary.
By and large, I agree with WD's points. This is a perfect example of something that needs an investigation and trial.
wd, 3) Ive a seen a gazillion people on CNN and MSNBC claim that this (the video) is proof positive that Mr. Zimmerman wasn't injured.......5) Yes, it is unclear. The dispatcher says that we don't need you to follow him and Zimmerman say, "O.K." Yes he could have followed him anyway and that's why I say that it's important that we know if he made the call from the car or not.......6) Last night, Toure (on Pierce Morgan's show) claimed that Mr. Zimmerman MURDERED Martin. And on the House floor some black Congresswoman claimed that Trayvon Martin was hunted down like a dog.......7) I've heard a lot of people claim that the police were covering up for Mr. Zimmerman. (CNN, MSNBC, Headline News, etc.)
dmarks, I believe that there IS an investigation taking place. And, no, I wouldn't mind it one iota if Mr. Zimmerman was arrested. I just don't think that the dude should be tried and convicted on Lawrence O'Donnell's and/or the Reverend Al Sharpton's cable shows.
Will said: "I just don't think that the dude should be tried and convicted on Lawrence O'Donnell's and/or the Reverend Al Sharpton's cable shows."
That is simply not possible. Those two men are propagan... er "opinion journalists" and are not members of the criminal justice or judiciary system, and have no ability to try or convict anyone.
Fair points. And I do have a clicker, now don't I?
You do indeed. My point being the "tried in the court of public opinion" is overused.... when all that is done is people exercising their free speech rights. And it does not result in arrest, conviction, sentence to prison, the penalty of fine, etc.
And they always seem to be able to find a jury that doesn't watch this crappola. Thank the Lord for that.
You're talking MSNBC. No chance of that tainting any possible jury pool.
Everyone here has obviously been watching the MSNBC coverage (or, me and Will, at least). But why watch it if it's "crappola"?
Also, people saying he was murdered are voicing their opinion. I'm sure none of them would advocate bypassing a trial and locking Zimmerman away based on what they THINK happened.
Also, no criticism of people who are jumping to the opposite conclusion? Maybe, instead of "Contra O'Reilly" this blog should be titled "Liberal Bashing Central" or something similar? It does seem to be mostly what you do here.
These programs ARE opinion journalism... dmarks can stuff first calling them "propagandists" and then adding the "er opinion journalists".
Despite his words to the contrary, it sounds to me like dmarks wants to stifle free speech (by turning people off with his "propaganda" claims).
WD said: "These programs ARE opinion journalism... dmarks can stuff first calling them "propagandists" and then adding the "er opinion journalists".
Yes, yes, I remember. Propagandists are the opinion journalists whose opinions you dislike. I understand well.
O'Reilly is a boob. But I have to say that he's been a lot more even-handed on this story at least. Not as even-handed as Anderson Cooper has been but certainly more so than Sharpton.
Sharpton's a tool.
wd, this is what Sue said at the end of her most recent post, "Zimmerman shot an unarmed innocent teenager, he should be arrested and charged in the cold blooded murder of Trayvon Martin! George Zimmerman is a MURDERER!" Can you say, judge, jury, and executioner?
For christ sake....the media wants a full blown race riot in Florida.Why the hell do you think Jackson and Sharpton are there?
If it bleeds it leads!!!
For goodness sake Will,you're quoting that moron Sue? The same twit that gets her daily news from the White House web site...shame on you.
I think this is going to flush out very similar to the Duke case.
Will said: "Can you say, judge, jury, and executioner?"
No, I can't. Sue was expressing an opinion about an issue as a private citizen. As judge and jury, her proclamations do not have any weight at all. As executioner... well, is there any indication that Sue would like to act as one?
dmarks: Propagandists are the opinion journalists whose opinions you dislike. I understand well.
You understand not at all. Propagandists are commentators who LIE. Fox Nooz personalities, in other words.
Will: Can you say, judge, jury, and executioner?
Sue said nothing about bypassing a trial. She voiced her opinion on Zimmerman's guilt or innocence, which she is entitled to do. I think he's guilty too. I'd also say there should be a trial and I should not be on the jury.
In any case, are you quoting Sue to "prove" you're just as critical as those who are positive Trayvon was the aggressor and got what was coming to him? WAY TO GO!
Rusty: I think this is going to flush out very similar to the Duke case.
There is no way it can. Zimmerman isn't being accused of murder but in reality did NOTHING (like in the Duke case). Zimmerman shot Trayvon, that is not in dispute.
The only way it could be the same is if the authorities determined that the Duke students did rape Crystal Gail Mangum, but it was a "justified rape"... or maybe a "she-was-asking-for-it rape".
However, they did dismiss the charges against Joe Horn, and I think that was a clear case of murder. What a travesty that was.
"You understand not at all. Propagandists are commentators who LIE. Fox [News] personalities, in other words."
1) We all know the fact that news personalities on the networks lie no more or no less than on other networks. Will and others have documented lies by MSNBC personalities. Instances where they clearly meet this part of the definition of propaganda: "Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view."
2) We all know that for you the difference is ideological. If your ideological opponents lie, you hit the ceiling. If your ideological allies are caught lying, not only do you deny it, but you embrace deception when you go all out to defend them.
3) Your incapability at properly spelling the name of news organizations you dislike makes you come across as a buffoon. Like those people who called CNN "Clinton News Network". In any case it is information of a misleading and biased nature. Why not be accurate, instead of a propagandist?
Its shows you to be either ignorant, or someone who thinks that playground-style taunts are witty. Or somewhere in between. In no place along that spectrum do you win.
You're calling me ignorant? You're the one who thinks a proud African American can bash another African American for being black. You're the one who believes socialism is the economic aspect of fascism. You're the one who thinks affirmative action is racist. You're the one who thinks Al Gore said he invented the internet. You're the one who thinks the OIC is a "terrorist tribunal". I could go on. And on. And on.
Point is, you believe many things that are patently false. Most anyone hearing you say these things will either think you are joking or be flabbergasted at your ignorance.
Your criticisms mean nothing to me dmarks, because they are all wrong. You say we "all know" things... but we do not ALL know them. Mostly, I'd say, because they aren't true.
I call the organization "Fox Nooz" because they are primarily a propaganda machine. I will continue to do so, regardless of whether or not dmarks approves.
"You're the one who thinks a proud African American can bash another African American for being black."
I don't think it. I know it. Check into the quotation. As for the skin color of the racist, since I am a racist it does not matter to me.
"You're the one who believes socialism is the economic aspect of fascism."
I checked the definition. The way socialism concentrates and centralizes power in the hands of ruling elites fits a big part of the definition of fascism. I explained and linked to the exact part earlier.
"You're the one who thinks affirmative action is racist.
Again, this has to do with my knowledge of the subject, and your willful ignorance of it.
Again for the umpteenth time, the definition of racism:
"racial prejudice or discrimination"
If an affirmative action program discriminates by race (treats people differently based on their skin color) it is by definition racist. THe University of Michigan law school admissions program we discussed is a perfect example of this.
"You're the one who thinks Al Gore said he invented the internet."
I heard his actual unedited quotation. He used the word create, which is a synonym of invent.
"You're the one who thinks the OIC is a "terrorist tribunal"."
I have listed the large number of terrorist leaders and antisemitic idealogues who run this radical organization. Again, I provide evidence, and the only evidence you had of was of your own ignorance.
"I could go on. And on. And on."
IF you bothered to research some of this, you would not.
"Point is, you believe many things that are patently false."
You have yet to name one. I am ignorant on many subjects, of course. But you are not a good person to point out my ignorance, as it turns out I know more than you on these matters.
"You say we "all know" things... but we do not ALL know them."
As you have made your lack of knowledge quite clear, you win this part of the argument.
"I call the organization "Fox Nooz" because they are primarily a propaganda machine."
They are no more and no less than other news organizations. But you give your fellow ideologues a free pass.
"I will continue to do so regardless of whether or not dmarks approves."
This one only makes you look silly.
wd, very simple. I posted Sue's comment strictly in response to you having said that nobody was calling Mr. Zimmerman a murderer (adding it to the previous examples that I provided). And I didn't necessarily mean that she was literally the judge, jury, and executioner (I mean, come on, does anybody ever use that particular phrase literally - other than, of course, to describe individuals such as Pol Pot, Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, etc.?).............And, yes, I agree with you ONE THOUSAND PERCENT on that Texas asshole. That, wd, WAS murder. I mean, the guy wasn't even breaking into HIS home and the dispatcher kept on telling him, "Don't go outside. Don't go outside." To this day, I still can't believe that he wasn't charged with at least 2nd degree murder. Absolutely inexplicable.
dmarks: I don't think it. I know it. Check into the quotation [Toure bashed Cain for being black]. As for the skin color of the racist, since I am a racist it does not matter to me.
It doesn't matter to you because paying attention to this important detail illustrates how ridiculous your claim is. Dictionary.com defines racism as, "[involves] the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others". If Toure (a black man) was a racist, he'd believe being black was superior. It's nonsensical to claim Toure bashed Cain for being superior.
I *did* check the quotation... that is how I know you got it wrong.
dmarks: I checked the definition. The way socialism concentrates and centralizes power in the hands of ruling elites fits a big part of the definition of fascism. I explained and linked to the exact part earlier.
You got the definition wrong. Socialism is Leftwing. Fascism is Rightwing. They're on opposite ends of the politcal spectrum. They are diametrically opposed.
dmarks: ...this has to do with my knowledge of the subject [of Affirmative Action], and your willful ignorance of it. Again for the umpteenth time, the definition of racism: "racial prejudice or discrimination".
Again, you have the definition wrong. racism is, "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others".
The purpose of affirmative action is to counter the effects of a history of discrimination. Affirmative action is anti-racist.
dmarks: If an affirmative action program discriminates by race (treats people differently based on their skin color) it is by definition racist.
The purpose of affirmative action is to counter the effects of racism. What you say would only be true if those implementing it were giving preference to individuals who were the same race as them... because they believed their race is superior. That isn't what is happening.
dmarks: I heard [Al Gore's] actual unedited quotation. He used the word create, which is a synonym of invent [therefore Al Gore said he invented the internet].
You may have heard the words, but you misunderstood what he was talking about. I, on the other hand, knew he was talking about the following...
Wikipedia: "In the 1990s [Al Gore] promoted legislation that funded an expansion of and greater public access to the Internet".
According to Snopes your self-serving interpertation of Al Gore's words is FALSE. Snopes says, "Al Gore did not claim he invented the Internet, nor did he say anything that could REASONABLY be interpreted that way".
Obviously dmarks believes Al Gore said he invented the internet because he is not a reasonable person.
dmarks: I have listed the large number of terrorist leaders and antisemitic idealogues who run this radical organization. Again, I provide evidence, and the only evidence you had [was] your own ignorance.
My evidence is not "my own ignorance". I quoted Gareth Porter who said "the OIC... is a moderate Islamic organization. I believe it is a fair presumption that bin Laden being tried by an OIC international panel of jurors would certainly result in a guilty verdict for the 9/11 attacks".
Will: We know beyond a shadow of a doubt who cried for help during the confrontation. False (hopefully technology will eventually help us along in this regard).
Audio experts now say the voice crying out for help was not George Zimmerman. Whether or not it was Trayvon Martin cannot be determined, as no recording of his voice exists (or the experts interviewed by Lawrence O'Donnell did not have one when they did their analysis).
Just posted on it, wd. No, it doesn't look all that good for Mr. Zimmerman now.
Post a Comment