Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
danielost

zimmerman's rights are our rights.

264 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

danielost

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!

Its not to late to sue. What they reported last year is still here with us. Many people still believe he is a raciest. Someone has put a bounty on his he'd because of it. He won't be able to work until this blowes over. Just read the other zimmerman threads

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

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.

First he had a carry concealed linse.

Second I agree with you here.

Third he shot in self defense.

Four trayvon had no reason to confront george. Unless he had drugs on him or in his house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Its not to late to sue. What they reported last year is still here with us. Many people still believe he is a raciest. Someone has put a bounty on his he'd because of it. He won't be able to work until this blowes over. Just read the other zimmerman threads

Well then what are they picking on NBC for? CNN reported he said "****g Coons!" What NBC edited isn't even racist. At all! What is the bloody problem here folks? Can we not even say someone looks black without being prompted first by the 911 dispatch without having a volcanic eruption? It's patently absurd. Zimmerman can identify who he's following without needing his hand held by someone else on the other end of the phone. If the guy looked black then woop de woo, we're all going to have to put our big boy pants on and deal with it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

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.americant..._for_libel.html

http://www.thegatewa...eporting-video/

Already started, eight months after the incident. The Today Show edit occurred on March 27 2012, the editor was fired April 7 2012, the lawsuit was reported on December 7, 2012, eight months after the firing. If you have a source indicating a lawsuit in an unedited article postdated earlier than April 7 2012 what is it?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/06/us/florida-zimmerman-nbc-lawsuit

What is wrong with this entire debacle isn't what NBC did, it's wrong because of our REACTION to what NBC did. Look man, if I was in Zimmerman's position that night, I wouldn't be waiting for dispatchers to ask me questions about what the suspect looked like. I'd be volunteering that information immediately. Does that make me a racist?

Dispatch: "911 what is your emergency?"

Yamato: "I'm pursuing a suspicious looking person on foot who isn't walking straight to a destination but walking around and looking about. He's a young male wearing jeans and a dark hoodie and he looks black."

Dispatch: "Okay what is your location?"

....

....

Zimmerman is milking a particular media outlet because his reputation was dragged through the mud over peoples' reaction to what they heard on TV and the lawyers smell money. Republicans love frivolous litigation when a liberal outlet is targeted the same way Democrats love it when a conservative outlet is targeted. It's all BS, both parties deserve to be annihilated from the political landscape with equal force and velocity, this is another example of rummaging about over group-think mentality of polarized partisan unenlightened bigoted people in this country and as always I'm not going to let my personal politics distract me from what's really important. People are prejudiced and dumb as rocks, Zimmerman and all the rest of us have to deal with it. He's famous for what he did. He doesn't need to be rich too, but some of you folks' prosecutorial lust is noted.

As legal and moral and justified as George Zimmerman was to do what he did, as exonerated by the justice system as he is, a teenaged kid didn't go home to his mother that night. Let's let this tragedy go to rest like it deserves and stop kicking the dust in peoples' faces already.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Well then what are they picking on NBC for? CNN reported he said "****g Coons!" What NBC edited isn't even racist. At all! What is the bloody problem here folks? Can we not even say someone looks black without being prompted first by the 911 dispatch without having a volcanic eruption? It's patently absurd. Zimmerman can identify who he's following without needing his hand held by someone else on the other end of the phone. If the guy looked black then woop de woo, we're all going to have to put our big boy pants on and deal with it.

They will be sued as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

Already started, eight months after the incident. The Today Show edit occurred on March 27 2012, the editor was fired April 7 2012, the lawsuit was reported on December 7, 2012, eight months after the firing. If you have a source indicating a lawsuit in an unedited article postdated earlier than April 7 2012 what is it?

http://www.cnn.com/2...man-nbc-lawsuit

What is wrong with this entire debacle isn't what NBC did, it's wrong because of our REACTION to what NBC did. Look man, if I was in Zimmerman's position that night, I wouldn't be waiting for dispatchers to ask me questions about what the suspect looked like. I'd be volunteering that information immediately. Does that make me a racist?

Dispatch: "911 what is your emergency?"

Yamato: "I'm pursuing a suspicious looking person on foot who isn't walking straight to a destination but walking around and looking about. He's a young male wearing jeans and a dark hoodie and he looks black."

Dispatch: "Okay what is your location?"

....

....

Zimmerman is milking a particular media outlet because his reputation was dragged through the mud over peoples' reaction to what they heard on TV and the lawyers smell money. Republicans love frivolous litigation when a liberal outlet is targeted the same way Democrats love it when a conservative outlet is targeted. It's all BS, both parties deserve to be annihilated from the political landscape with equal force and velocity, this is another example of rummaging about over group-think mentality of polarized partisan unenlightened bigoted people in this country and as always I'm not going to let my personal politics distract me from what's really important. People are prejudiced and dumb as rocks, Zimmerman and all the rest of us have to deal with it. He's famous for what he did. He doesn't need to be rich too, but some of you folks' prosecutorial lust is noted.

As legal and moral and justified as George Zimmerman was to do what he did, as exonerated by the justice system as he is, a teenaged kid didn't go home to his mother that night. Let's let this tragedy go to rest like it deserves and stop kicking the dust in peoples' faces already.

I really have no idea what you are on about. They filed a defamation lawsuit, agreed to wait until after the criminal trial and now the stay will be lifted. It is a civil suit based on the doctoring of the tapes to make the man a racist, something the FBI proved he most certainly wasn't. I am quite certain they will go after the rest of these b******* as well but the smart move was to wait until the inevitable acquittal was reached.

As far as your ridiculous republican statement, politics has nothing to do with this. You are all over the place so it is hard to follow what the hell you are thinking.

Edited by Merc14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I really have no idea what you are on about. They filed a defamation lawsuit, agreed to wait until after the criminal trial and now the stay will be lifted. It is a civil suit based on the doctoring of the tapes to make the man a racist, something the FBI proved he most certainly wasn't. I am quite certain they will go after the rest of these b******* as well but the smart move was to wait until the inevitable acquittal was reached.

As far as your ridiculous republican statement, politics has nothing to do with this. You are all over the place so it is hard to follow what the hell you are thinking.

I requested that you cite the source for the date of filing of the defamation lawsuit that you implied was started before the firing. That's the first thing I'm on about. A fact-based discussion about the suit including its actual timing will be possible from there.

The acquittal was valid, the lawsuit frivolous, the rabble rousers despicable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

I requested that you cite the source for the date of filing of the defamation lawsuit that you implied was started before the firing. That's the first thing I'm on about. A fact-based discussion about the suit including its actual timing will be possible from there.

The acquittal was valid, the lawsuit frivolous, the rabble rousers despicable.

I posted two articles with the date. Google it yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

They filed the defamation suit on Thursday, December 6, 2012. Eight months after the firing of the editor on April 7 2012 which was two weeks after the controversial March 27 2012 edit aired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babe Ruth

First he had a carry concealed linse.

Second I agree with you here.

Third he shot in self defense.

Four trayvon had no reason to confront george. Unless he had drugs on him or in his house.

Yes, he had a CW license, but equally true and more relevant is that in his role working as Neighborhood Watch captain, the rules say NW should not be carrying.

He initiated the confrontation, not Martin. If Z had followed the instructions of the dispatcher, this would not have happened. If he had followed the rules of NW, this would not have happened.

That is, if there is blame or guilt to be assigned, it was Z who was the guilty party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bama13

Yes, he had a CW license, but equally true and more relevant is that in his role working as Neighborhood Watch captain, the rules say NW should not be carrying.

He initiated the confrontation, not Martin. If Z had followed the instructions of the dispatcher, this would not have happened. If he had followed the rules of NW, this would not have happened.

That is, if there is blame or guilt to be assigned, it was Z who was the guilty party.

Are you finished? Allow me to retort.

Was Zimmerman arresting for carrying? No. Why not? Because it wasn't against the law. No law broken, no arrest.

Did Zimmerman assualt Martin? No, Martin assualted Zimmerman. Zimmerman defended himself.

So the blame or guilt belongs to Martin. You know, the guy that actually broke the law and initiated the attack.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bama13

Are you finished? Allow me to retort.

Was Zimmerman arresting for carrying? No. Why not? Because it wasn't against the law. No law broken, no arrest.

Did Zimmerman confront Martin? No. Martin confronted Zimmerman.

Did Zimmerman assualt Martin? No, Martin assualted Zimmerman. Zimmerman defended himself.

So the blame or guilt belongs to Martin. You know, the guy that actually broke the law and initiated the attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Yes, he had a CW license, but equally true and more relevant is that in his role working as Neighborhood Watch captain, the rules say NW should not be carrying.

He initiated the confrontation, not Martin. If Z had followed the instructions of the dispatcher, this would not have happened. If he had followed the rules of NW, this would not have happened.

That is, if there is blame or guilt to be assigned, it was Z who was the guilty party.

If he hadn't been ared he would be the one who died. The police wouldn't have any idea who killed him.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gummug

In the other thread I posted a link to Hillary Clinton "not" saying that she thinks GZ should be put in prison. She danced around actually saying it like a career politician.

I also posted a link to a "Boycott article". Where people are now saying that there should be a boycott on Florida till the verdict is reversed, or the SYG law is removed. Stevie Wonder says he'll never go to Florida till they fix the laws.

Well, I guess that's good news for Florida then. *snicker snicker*

Also posted a Chicago Tribune article that points out that even the FBI says there is Zero evidence of racism. Actually the opposite is true... GZ performed various community vollinteer activities to help under privaleged black youth.

edited to get a more readable color. :P

Edited by Gummug
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gummug

Holder wants to remove all of the self defense laws. He got a thunders apollize from naacp crowd.

I'll never get it...why are the ones so strongly against self-defense laws usually the ones who need them the most? Makes no sense to me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bama13

edited to get a more readable color. :P

So Stevie Wonder doesn't believe in Self-Defense? Hope he enjoys life abroad since every state allows you to defend yourself if attacked.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babe Ruth

Are you finished? Allow me to retort.

Was Zimmerman arresting for carrying? No. Why not? Because it wasn't against the law. No law broken, no arrest.

Did Zimmerman assualt Martin? No, Martin assualted Zimmerman. Zimmerman defended himself.

So the blame or guilt belongs to Martin. You know, the guy that actually broke the law and initiated the attack.

No sir, I did not say Z had broken the law, other than beginning the sequence of events that led to the death of another.

I understand that as far as State Of Florida was concerned he had broken no law by carrying that night. But it is equally true that he was violating the rules of NW by carrying that night.

You place the guilt on the dead man. I place the guilt on the man who 1) should not have been carrying in his capacity as NW guy, and 2) as NW guy should have followed the directions given him by the dispatcher, and 3) who lied on several occassions, and 4) had an axe to grind with "those punks".

Besides being the judge of the law and the facts of the case, any jury also sits as the conscience of the community. He's lucky I was not sitting on his jury because I would have voted for conviction, considering the proverbial big picture. If he had done as he was supposed to, none of this would have happened. He realized he had bitten off a bit more than he could chew, but he was prepared. The humorous part is that he was whipped by a 17 year old. :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bama13

No sir, I did not say Z had broken the law, other than beginning the sequence of events that led to the death of another.

I understand that as far as State Of Florida was concerned he had broken no law by carrying that night. But it is equally true that he was violating the rules of NW by carrying that night.

You place the guilt on the dead man. I place the guilt on the man who 1) should not have been carrying in his capacity as NW guy, and 2) as NW guy should have followed the directions given him by the dispatcher, and 3) who lied on several occassions, and 4) had an axe to grind with "those punks".

Besides being the judge of the law and the facts of the case, any jury also sits as the conscience of the community. He's lucky I was not sitting on his jury because I would have voted for conviction, considering the proverbial big picture. If he had done as he was supposed to, none of this would have happened. He realized he had bitten off a bit more than he could chew, but he was prepared. The humorous part is that he was whipped by a 17 year old. :w00t:

I place guilt on the guy that 1) started the confrontation and then 2) commited assualt. I do not blame the guy that was confronted and assualted. Z did not approach M, M approached Z. Z did not assualt M, M assualted Z. If M hadn't "whipped" Z, M would still be alive.

I hope you never sit on a jury if you plan on ignoring the law. Any person, anywhere, should have the right to defend themselves if attacked.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

If he hadn't been ared he would be the one who died. The police wouldn't have any idea who killed him.

Spot on!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Merc14

I'll never get it...why are the ones so strongly against self-defense laws usually the ones who need them the most? Makes no sense to me.

They truly believe the state will protect them. They refuse to believe the statistics the show, 100% of the time, that violent crime drops significantly when CCW is legalized. Then there are the real leftists that are looking for the socialist state which requires that the citizenry be docile, vulnerable and completely at the mercy of the government. Complete dependence for your safety, your health and your income ios what they want. Guys like ninja and that other turd that was posting here defending Obamacare like he wrote the thing.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

Yes, he had a CW license, but equally true and more relevant is that in his role working as Neighborhood Watch captain, the rules say NW should not be carrying.

He initiated the confrontation, not Martin. If Z had followed the instructions of the dispatcher, this would not have happened. If he had followed the rules of NW, this would not have happened.

That is, if there is blame or guilt to be assigned, it was Z who was the guilty party.

I can't recall where I read it, but I'm pretty certain that the Neighbourhood Watch rules were suggestions, not hard-and-fast rules. In other words, they don't recommend the carrying of a weapon, but it isn't expressly forbidden. In other words, he wasn't breaking any rules. And yes, if Z had listened to the police and not followed TM then there would be no problem. However, it is not against the Law to not listen to a dispatcher. Which brings me neatly to your next comment:

Besides being the judge of the law and the facts of the case, any jury also sits as the conscience of the community. He's lucky I was not sitting on his jury because I would have voted for conviction, considering the proverbial big picture. If he had done as he was supposed to, none of this would have happened. He realized he had bitten off a bit more than he could chew, but he was prepared. The humorous part is that he was whipped by a 17 year old. :w00t:

With your attitude I'd hope that the screening process would have filtered you out of any prospective jury, because you are essentially admitting that you would ignore the law and condemn a man innocent of murder to the crime of murder. As I've said elsewhere, Zimmerman's only crime was being stupid, but being stupid isn't against the law.
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Which is what the left keep saying on tv. The jury should have found zimmerman guilty dispite the law, because it was the right thing to do. Dispite the fact that trayvon attacked george that night.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babe Ruth

I place guilt on the guy that 1) started the confrontation and then 2) commited assualt. I do not blame the guy that was confronted and assualted. Z did not approach M, M approached Z. Z did not assualt M, M assualted Z. If M hadn't "whipped" Z, M would still be alive.

I hope you never sit on a jury if you plan on ignoring the law. Any person, anywhere, should have the right to defend themselves if attacked.

Don't get me wrong Bama--I fully support the SYG statutes in Florida and elsewhere.

The point is that Z was not some innocent bystander that fell victim to M. No. If Z had followed the instructions of the dispatcher and backed off, we would not be having this discussion today.

He was effectively stalking Martin, and that is obvious.

When I sit on a jury, I judge the law being applied, as is the duty of any juror acting in accordance with our Common Law heritage. As a juror, I judge the law at hand, and how it was applied in any given case.

If Z had followed instructions, and if he had NOT been looking for some sort of confrontation, we would not be having this discussion today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost

Then you should have no problem with this jury's judgement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

He was effectively stalking Martin, and that is obvious.

And yet stalking is not enough reason to initiate a SYG defense. There has to be an immediate and deadly threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.