zimmerman's rights are our rights.

[+Paranoid Android]

In a word, slander. In all of those cases the media vilified them as guilty before they were eventually exonerated. Casey Anthony was the she-devil incarnate until she was acquitted of all charges. Back in the infancy of Fox News Channel, the most important news story in the world was framing Democrat Gary Condit as the murderer of Chandra Levy. Just like the Jodi Arias trial was wall-to-wall coverage on HLN this year, as Casey Anthony two years ago, Gary Condit was wall-to-wall on Fox News.

http://www.skepdic.c...ptimedia41.html

Condit sued three tabloid newspapers, his wife sued 'National Enquirer' and additionally Condit sued Dominick Dunne for an undisclosed amount.

http://www.foxnews.c...dominick-dunne/

http://www.foxnews.c...t-writer-dunne/

Disciplining employees wouldn't be relevant to the nature of this kind of behavior since the outlets are generally responsible for their own content. If there was one op-ed that was deliberately misleading, that's one thing. A publisher can simply remove the article and publish an apology. But with this kind of behavior like in the Condit case that would never go away, the discipline would have to reach the highest levels in the organization, and they're too protected by too much bureaucracy and too many fall guys in our legal system of "at-will" employment.

All that said, with the Zimmerman case of sabotaging material and NBC, I don't think there's any chance of suing NBC for the actions of a few of its employees that it promptly disassociated itself from.

So where did these people actually lie in order to obfuscate the truth? They may have played angles in order to get particular slants, but where was there actually a piece of evidence that was doctored to make it appear as if they were something they were not.

Forgive me, I don't feel like wading through large sections of text. For example, with George Zimmerman, I can look and say that the phone call he lodged with the police was doctored. Nice and easy. What such evidence is available in these other cases, and who was fired for such obvious malpractice?

[Babe Ruth]

Zimmerman's rights are our rights, and his crimes are our crimes, thanks to a jury with no idea at all of what justice is.

Edited July 18, 2013 by Babe Ruth

[+Paranoid Android]

Zimmerman's rights are our rights, and his crimes are our crimes, thanks to a jury with no idea at all of what justice is.

What is "justice", and how was it not met in this instance?

[Merc14]

Zimmerman's rights are our rights, and his crimes are our crimes, thanks to a jury with no idea at all of what justice is.

Actually, you are completely wrong. 180 out from the truth. They considered the evidence alone and left out all the personal bias people such as you have and then applied the law as it was written and came to the only conclusion an honest group of people could come to, Zimmerman was not guilty of any crime. That is justice, not guilt by popular demand people such as you seem to suddenly desire.

[Yamato]

So where did these people actually lie in order to obfuscate the truth? They may have played angles in order to get particular slants, but where was there actually a piece of evidence that was doctored to make it appear as if they were something they were not.

Forgive me, I don't feel like wading through large sections of text. For example, with George Zimmerman, I can look and say that the phone call he lodged with the police was doctored. Nice and easy. What such evidence is available in these other cases, and who was fired for such obvious malpractice?

If you don't want to look it up, then suffice it to say it's the substance that the lawsuits were won on. Remember, my point wasn't that people did or didn't get fired so I don't feel compelled to dredge up such evidence for you. My point was that if Zimmerman is worth $500 million from an NBC lawsuit (for what?) then these other characters would be worth millions or billions by comparison. If people were fired at NBC in the Zimmerman case and not in the other cases I mentioned then it validates my position that much more as firing wrongful employees disassociates you from them and relieves you of liability for their actions. You go to court and say "Of course what they did was wrong, that's why I fired them."

[danielost]

What is "justice", and how was it not met in this instance?

he's talking about mob justice. Mob justice is not justice, it is murder.

[Yamato]

On a darker note, Nancy (dis)Grace had plenty to say about the Zimmerman trial too, HLN's disgusting prime time host Nancy Grace has had way more disciplinary action taken against her than she needs to keep her job and keep polluting our airwaves with her putrid bile.

"I'm so glad they didn't miss a lacrosse game over a little thing like gang rape!"

http://en.wikipedia....rial_misconduct

http://www.thesmokin...-wrongful-death

http://www.huffingto..._n_2426731.html

http://video.foxnews...ued-for-15-mil/

http://en.wikipedia....sse_allegations

Suing this sewer of prosecutorial dysentery again likely won't be frivolous. But her show is #1 on HLN so they're willing to keep tolerating her for now.

[media=]

[/media] Edited July 18, 2013 by Yamato

[Merc14]

If you don't want to look it up, then suffice it to say it's the substance that the lawsuits were won on. Remember, my point wasn't that people did or didn't get fired so I don't feel compelled to dredge up such evidence for you. My point was that if Zimmerman is worth $500 million from an NBC lawsuit (for what?) then these other characters would be worth millions or billions by comparison. If people were fired at NBC in the Zimmerman case and not in the other cases I mentioned then it validates my position that much more as firing wrongful employees disassociates you from them and relieves you of liability for their actions. You go to court and say "Of course what they did was wrong, that's why I fired them."

I threw the sum of $500M out there knowing that he would never get that much but that NBC may choose to settle out of court just to get themselves off the Drudge Report. Zimmerman's lawyers have already begun the case, as per them, and feel they have a pretty good shot at winning. The ugliness they can dig up should be eye opening as we can all assume this travesty of a story wasn't perpetrated by some low level editor all on his own, as NBC would have us believe but had to have gone through several levels of the executive board to make the evening news over and over again. If I was one of those execs I'd be pushing hard to settle the case quickly as Zimmerman may choose to start suing each person individually.

This doesn't preclude Zimmerman from going after some other people with big mouths and a television show, specifically Al Sharptton. I'd love to see that old thief taken to the cleaners for slander.

[+Paranoid Android]

If you don't want to look it up, then suffice it to say it's the substance that the lawsuits were won on. Remember, my point wasn't that people did or didn't get fired so I don't feel compelled to dredge up such evidence for you. My point was that if Zimmerman is worth $500 million from an NBC lawsuit (for what?) then these other characters would be worth millions or billions by comparison. If people were fired at NBC in the Zimmerman case and not in the other cases I mentioned then it validates my position that much more as firing wrongful employees disassociates you from them and relieves you of liability for their actions. You go to court and say "Of course what they did was wrong, that's why I fired them."

It's not that I don't want to "look it up", it's just that I don't really want to invest time in cases that are history now, cases that are not relevant to where I live. The Zimmerman case was a recent case that came to my attention and I looked at it. I can find a link from several sources that show how evidence was doctored to make it appear as if Zimmerman was racist, and I can find an equal number of links that show that those responsible of such have since been sacked by the news company.

This isn't about me wanting to look it up or not. I was just wondering what evidence there was that the news companies deliberately doctored evidence to make someone appear more guilty than they were. That is not to be confused with a company repeating claims made against a person, or bringing up a person's past. It's about the deliberate doctoring of evidence. As I said, I don't know the situations of these cases. But at the same time if there is doctoring then surely you can provide one or two links. Just as I have provided one or two links proving that the recording of Zimmerman talking to the police was doctored by the news station.

This isn't a hard question to answer. Either the links are there or they are not. Simply linking me to a general account of the whole situation won't help me to see, since I'd need to research the entire case, which is something I'm not going to do simply because it doesn't really interest me. I'm getting the feeling that you are mistaking bias for doctored evidence. That you are mistaking hearsay for intentionally false statements. Otherwise I'd have specific links by now. For example, if I knew nothing of the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case and I asked how exactly did the media doctor evidence, I could easily be pointed to a link where a recording was edited to make it appear as if Zimmerman was racist. How hard is it to provide such evidence of these other cases?

[Yamato]

It's not that I don't want to "look it up", it's just that I don't really want to invest time in cases that are history now, cases that are not relevant to where I live. The Zimmerman case was a recent case that came to my attention and I looked at it. I can find a link from several sources that show how evidence was doctored to make it appear as if Zimmerman was racist, and I can find an equal number of links that show that those responsible of such have since been sacked by the news company.

This isn't about me wanting to look it up or not. I was just wondering what evidence there was that the news companies deliberately doctored evidence to make someone appear more guilty than they were. That is not to be confused with a company repeating claims made against a person, or bringing up a person's past. It's about the deliberate doctoring of evidence. As I said, I don't know the situations of these cases. But at the same time if there is doctoring then surely you can provide one or two links. Just as I have provided one or two links proving that the recording of Zimmerman talking to the police was doctored by the news station.

This isn't a hard question to answer. Either the links are there or they are not. Simply linking me to a general account of the whole situation won't help me to see, since I'd need to research the entire case, which is something I'm not going to do simply because it doesn't really interest me. I'm getting the feeling that you are mistaking bias for doctored evidence. That you are mistaking hearsay for intentionally false statements. Otherwise I'd have specific links by now. For example, if I knew nothing of the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case and I asked how exactly did the media doctor evidence, I could easily be pointed to a link where a recording was edited to make it appear as if Zimmerman was racist. How hard is it to provide such evidence of these other cases?

I'm not mistaking bias for doctoring evidence. I wasn't talking about doctoring evidence. I still don't know what NBC "did" that Merc was talking about before you jumped in. You brought it up and then asked me for evidence of it. I'm not talking about it, never made a connection to it, so why are you asking me? I don't care whether anyone was fired or not, PA. It has nothing to do with what I said. I'm not linking to anything to answer that question because I don't care about that connection. The cases I brought up have nothing to do with materials tampering, or people getting fired. Whether there are links or not it is completely irrelevant to my point.

If that's what you want to discuss with me, the only thing I have to say about it is what I already asked so I'll ask again, is the materials tampering and people getting fired during the Zimmerman trial why NBC is sue-worthy? If not, what is?

[Yamato]

I threw the sum of $500M out there knowing that he would never get that much but that NBC may choose to settle out of court just to get themselves off the Drudge Report. Zimmerman's lawyers have already begun the case, as per them, and feel they have a pretty good shot at winning. The ugliness they can dig up should be eye opening as we can all assume this travesty of a story wasn't perpetrated by some low level editor all on his own, as NBC would have us believe but had to have gone through several levels of the executive board to make the evening news over and over again. If I was one of those execs I'd be pushing hard to settle the case quickly as Zimmerman may choose to start suing each person individually.

This doesn't preclude Zimmerman from going after some other people with big mouths and a television show, specifically Al Sharptton. I'd love to see that old thief taken to the cleaners for slander.

Okay so you shoot for the moon and settle for less. Not a bad idea the way the system works. What does this case allege, or what is it going to allege? What did NBC "do" exactly?

Is it someone at NBC saying this?

“If Zimmerman is convicted, that fact alone will constitute substantial evidence that the destruction of his reputation is the result of his own criminal conduct, and not of the broadcasts at issue which, like countless other news reports disseminated by media entities throughout the country, reported on the underlying events.”

[+Paranoid Android]

I'm not mistaking bias for doctoring evidence. I wasn't talking about doctoring evidence. I still don't know what NBC "did" that Merc was talking about before you jumped in. You brought it up and then asked me for evidence of it. I'm not talking about it, never made a connection to it, so why are you asking me? I don't care whether anyone was fired or not, PA. It has nothing to do with what I said. I'm not linking to anything to answer that question because I don't care about that connection. The cases I brought up have nothing to do with materials tampering, or people getting fired. Whether there are links or not it is completely irrelevant to my point.

If that's what you want to discuss with me, the only thing I have to say about it is what I already asked so I'll ask again, is the materials tampering and people getting fired during the Zimmerman trial why NBC is sue-worthy? If not, what is?

If you weren't talking about doctored evidence, then with as much respect as I can summon, you really aren't asking any relevant question whatsoever!!!!! You started this discussion by using the comment *quoted below*

Unless other exonerated defendants who got ridiculous media coverage from NBC in a criminal trial is also supposed to be win-worthy in such a lawsuit. The entire Duke Lacrosse team is worth millions. Casey Anthony is a budding billionaire. Gary Condit's vast fortune would rival Warren Buffett's for the sleaze Fox News Channel put out on him.

This was a direct and 100% absolute no alternative possible commentary on the Zimmerman case, where Zimmerman has taken the step of suing NBC for libel. You replied by arguing that if Zimmerman were to be successful then several other people would be equally deserving of such money - the Duke lacrosse team, Casey Anthony, Gary Condit.... Since Zimmerman's suing of NBC is directly a result of their doctoring of a recording, then all these other names you mentioned as equally deserving of compensation must have equal rights to appeal. So what evidence was doctored? And if there was no doctored evidence in these cases, then why are you making a link between them and Zimmerman's attempt at suing them for doctoring evidence?????? Edited July 18, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[Yamato]

If you weren't talking about doctored evidence, then with as much respect as I can summon, you really aren't asking any relevant question whatsoever!!!!! You started this discussion by using the comment *quoted below*

This was a direct and 100% absolute no alternative possible commentary on the Zimmerman case, where Zimmerman has taken the step of suing NBC for libel. You replied by arguing that if Zimmerman were to be successful then several other people would be equally deserving of such money - the Duke lacrosse team, Casey Anthony, Gary Condit.... Since Zimmerman's suing of NBC is directly a result of their doctoring of a recording, then all these other names you mentioned as equally deserving of compensation must have equal rights to appeal. So what evidence was doctored? And if there was no doctored evidence in these cases, then why are you making a link between them and Zimmerman's attempt at suing them for doctoring evidence??????

Oh Sweet Jesus Cupcakes! One more time and I'm done asking: Is Zimmerman suing NBC for doctoring evidence or not?

Source, please.

If so, then it's a frivolous lawsuit because the tamperers got fired. NBC isn't going to be liable for association with malpractice like that when they already disassociated themselves from it. That's all I have to say about evidence tampering. I'm sorry you didn't understand what I was talking about but "ridiculous media coverage" encompasses more than evidence tampering. Relevant examples have been provided; it's your fault if you don't look.

[Beckys_Mom]

They found absolutely zero evidence for racism with Zimmerman so how did you come up with your "facts"?

Why was it even pegged as racism? So, if a white man shoots an intruder who happens to be black, that was the result of racism? ..I am not saying you have said this, I am just asking is that what others are saying?

[Yamato]

Here's the relevant information:

Here’s how NBC News, in a March 27, 2012, broadcast of the “Today” show, abridged the tape of Zimmerman’s comments to a police dispatcher on the evening of Feb. 26, 2012:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

The full tape went like this:

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.

http://patterico.com...g-the-911-call/

If we're in any doubt that media outlets routinely cut up statements made by people and just give us a blurbs, I've got news for you guys. This particular case is harmful because it leads us to believe that Zimmerman was focused on Martin's race when he was not. And so NBC fired him. Was it done with malice or deliberation to throw the case against Zimmerman? If CNBC kept this editor on and the court deemed that it was so, CNBC would be in a precarious position and I wouldn't agree for a moment that Zimmerman has a frivolous lawsuit with this.

The fact is, they fired the guy. Over a year ago. It's too late.

http://news.yahoo.co...-201124740.html

What kind of nonsense is this where a media outlet can fire someone and still get sued eight or 15 months later for an incomplete soundbyte/edit that fired person made which distorted the truth?

Suddenly because we're Drudge Report reading republicans who think NBC is the root of all evil, we demand perfection from NBC and we don't even care if you fired the bad editor mere days after the error or not? There's no forgiveness! It's Lawsuit Nation. Muhahahaha!

?

This one's for you, Bill O'Reilly.. Politiks, Ho!

Edited July 18, 2013 by Yamato

[+Paranoid Android]

Oh Sweet Jesus Cupcakes! One more time and I'm done asking: Is Zimmerman suing NBC for doctoring evidence or not?

Source, please.

If so, then it's a frivolous lawsuit because the tamperers got fired. NBC isn't going to be liable for association with malpractice like that when they already disassociated themselves from it. That's all I have to say about evidence tampering. I'm sorry you didn't understand what I was talking about but "ridiculous media coverage" encompasses more than evidence tampering. Relevant examples have been provided; it's your fault if you don't look.

I'm basing my comments on posts such as the following:

His lawyers have already started. Once the verdict was in they started with the lawsuit against NBC.

This lawsuit against the NBC is a direct result of their doctoring of evidence. If no such lawsuit is taking place then I retract my statement 100% completely. I have honestly not searched in 100% detail on this, though a quick Google search finds THIS.

Remember, it wasn't I or anyone who brought up the Duke Lacrosse team (or Casey Anthony or Gary Condit). You chose to put that up in opposition to George Zimmerman launching a lawsuit. So I ask once again - on what basis are you comparing George Zimmerman's case to the Duke Lacrosse team? Did people working for NBC doctor evidence to make it appear as if the Duke Lacrosse team did something wrong? If yes, then you have a point. If not, then you are comparing apples and oranges. Whether or not NBC has a case to answer or not (and they DID fire those responsible for the evidence doctoring) the fact that such doctoring took place allows for a lawsuit. What situation in the Duke Lacrosse team allows for such a suit? If the answer is "none", then your entire premise is void (same goes for Casey Anthony and Gary Condit).

Edited July 18, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[Yamato]

I'm basing my comments on posts such as the following:

This lawsuit against the NBC is a direct result of their doctoring of evidence. If no such lawsuit is taking place then I retract my statement 100% completely. I have honestly not searched in 100% detail on this, though a quick Google search finds THIS.

Remember, it wasn't I or anyone who brought up the Duke Lacrosse team (or Casey Anthony or Gary Condit). You chose to put that up in opposition to George Zimmerman launching a lawsuit. So I ask once again - on what basis are you comparing George Zimmerman's case to the Duke Lacrosse team? Did people working for NBC doctor evidence to make it appear as if the Duke Lacrosse team did something wrong? If yes, then you have a point. If not, then you are comparing apples and oranges. Whether or not NBC has a case to answer or not (and they DID fire those responsible for the evidence doctoring) the fact that such doctoring took place allows for a lawsuit. What situation in the Duke Lacrosse team allows for such a suit? If the answer is "none", then your entire premise is void (same goes for Casey Anthony and Gary Condit).

I asked Merc14 about that quote already in reply #61above. Before clinging to what he says as sacrosanct and pummeling me with things I'm still asking about, wait until I get the answer to the question that you're just assuming from reading a post of his is true, and this kind of misunderstanding wouldn't happen.

There's no evidence that the editor on NBC did anything deliberately misleading by "doctoring", otherwise known as editing. And it's a MOOT POINT ANYWAY BECAUSE HE WAS FIRED OVER 15 MONTHS AGO. That's all I have to say about that. If you disagree, then I'll see you in court so to speak.

The only thing my examples have to do with doctoring is that they'd require doctoring to get them out of trouble, not get them into it.

[Yamato]

What situation in the Duke Lacrosse team allows for such a suit? If the answer is "none", then your entire premise is void (same goes for Casey Anthony and Gary Condit).

S.L.A.N.D.E.R.

My entire premise was ridiculous media coverage, I didn't say spit on a stick about editing soundbytes. Stop changing my premise to something I wasn't even talking about.

Either you're really being honest about this (i.e. my "premise is void" in your mind because the definition of ridiculous media coverage to you must be equivalent to editing audio and nothing else) or you're engaged in a bad case of trolling.

[+Paranoid Android]

I asked Merc14 about that quote already in reply #61above. Before clinging to what he says as sacrosanct and pummeling me with things I'm still asking about, wait until I get the answer to the question that you're just assuming from reading a post of his is true, and this kind of misunderstanding wouldn't happen.

There's no evidence that the editor on NBC did anything deliberately misleading by "doctoring", otherwise known as editing. And it's a MOOT POINT ANYWAY BECAUSE HE WAS FIRED OVER 15 MONTHS AGO. That's all I have to say about that. If you disagree, then I'll see you in court so to speak.

The only thing my examples have to do with doctoring is that they'd require doctoring to get them out of trouble, not get them into it.

Ok, can we press Stop, Rewind, and Delete? I'm feeling like you are commenting from one point of view, and I'm commenting from a completely different point of view. As noted, I'm simply going by comments that Zimmerman was suing NBC, and your reply that it was useless, for if it were not then the Duke Lacrosse team would be millionaires, as would be Casey Anthony or Gary Condit. My reply was a specific request to find out why Zimmerman's case was equally worth fighting compared to these other cases. I understand that NBC has fired those responsible, so any case Zimmerman attempts will probably fail. However, that is irrelevant.

Why do you think Casey Anthony has the same Right (or lack of right) to challenge NBC? Did she have doctored evidence? Did NBC fire several staff members as a result of working on her case?

I'm really trying to find a common ground here, but I can't find it.

[Yamato]

I understand that NBC has fired those responsible, so any case Zimmerman attempts will probably fail. However, that is irrelevant.

It's irrelevant to what you are all but forcing me to talk about, it's not irrelevant to what I said in the first place.

Why do you think Casey Anthony has the same Right (or lack of right) to challenge NBC?

No. Nothing inherent about NBC is relevant to anything I said about ridiculous media coverage on HLN in the example of Casey Anthony.

Did she have doctored evidence?

No. Doctored evidence is not equivalent to ridiculous media coverage. It is perhaps only one example of it at best.

Did NBC fire several staff members as a result of working on her case?

No. Nothing inherent about NBC is relevant to anything I said about ridiculous media coverage on HLN and Fox News Channel in the examples I provided.

I'm really trying to find a common ground here, but I can't find it.

It's because you're asking me questions about doctoring evidence that are completely irrelevant to the content of what I said.

Seriously PA? Let me explain it to you another way then. If you want something more sue-worthy than doctoring evidence, you don't need a bigger and better instance of doctoring evidence. Capish?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/slander

[+Paranoid Android]

Seriously PA? Let me explain it to you another way then. If you want something more sue-worthy than doctoring evidence, you don't need a bigger and better instance of doctoring evidence. Capish?

http://legal-diction...ary.com/slander

Ok, I admit it, you lost me.... I know what you THINK you are aiming at, but in the context of this discussion I don't know WHY you said what you said???

[Merc14]

Oh Sweet Jesus Cupcakes! One more time and I'm done asking: Is Zimmerman suing NBC for doctoring evidence or not?

Source, please.

If so, then it's a frivolous lawsuit because the tamperers got fired. NBC isn't going to be liable for association with malpractice like that when they already disassociated themselves from it. That's all I have to say about evidence tampering. I'm sorry you didn't understand what I was talking about but "ridiculous media coverage" encompasses more than evidence tampering. Relevant examples have been provided; it's your fault if you don't look.

They had in fact already started a lawsuit ofr defamation but it was stayed until the conclusion of the criminal trial. Once the stay is lifted they will commence immediatley with the lawsuit. NBC is only one of several targets.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/07/zimmerman_lawyer_says_hell_move_to_sue_nbc_for_libel.html

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/07/report-george-zimmerman-will-move-quickly-to-sue-nbc-for-fraudulent-reporting-video/

[Babe Ruth]

What is "justice", and how was it not met in this instance?

Justice is similar to obscenity--nobody can really define it, but everybody knows it when they see it, or can recognize its opposite.

It was not met in this situation because the reckless behavior of Zimmerman, being armed when he should not have been, and disregarding advice from the authorities, resulted in the death of another. Justice delivered would have been a conviction for manslaughter at the very least.

If I had sat on that jury, I would have convicted for the 2nd degree charge.

[Heru]

Justice is similar to obscenity--nobody can really define it, but everybody knows it when they see it, or can recognize its opposite.

It was not met in this situation because the reckless behavior of Zimmerman, being armed when he should not have been, and disregarding advice from the authorities, resulted in the death of another. Justice delivered would have been a conviction for manslaughter at the very least.

If I had sat on that jury, I would have convicted for the 2nd degree charge.

If i was on the jury im not sure how I would have voted(or whatever they do). I dont think he plotted to kill the guy it was more like he just made alot of stupid choices. Wish the prosecutor went for negligent homicide or something. But even then it might have been to much. Might be because of to much religion but I always lean toward that jewish law when it comes to accidental deaths.

[danielost]

Why was it even pegged as racism? So, if a white man shoots an intruder who happens to be black, that was the result of racism? ..I am not saying you have said this, I am just asking is that what others are saying?

Because al sharpton, say a white man shoot an eighteen, unarmed boy. It's been a while since sharpton has sunk his teeth into a racial case. But, when it turned zimmerman was hispanich it was too late for sharpton to back down with thefoot he had in his mouth. The true racest in this case was al sharpton and the msnbc crew.