Slashdot Mirror
NBC Apologizes For Editing Zimmerman 911 Call
Hugh Pickens writes "The Washington Post reports that NBC has completed its investigation into the Today show's mishandling of the police dispatcher's conversation with George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case with a finding of error, plus an apology. The apology addresses the show's failure to accurately abridge the conversation between Zimmerman and the dispatcher in this high-profile case. This is how the program portrayed a segment of that conversation: Zimmerman: 'This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black' Here what was actually said: 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.' In an appearance on Fox News's Hannity, Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center, called this omission on the part of Today an 'all-out falsehood' — not just a distortion or misrepresentation. 'On the good front, [NBC] acknowledges the mistake and apologizes to viewers for the bad editing. It's a forthright correction and spares us any excuses about the faulty portrayal. On the bad front, the statement is skimpy on the details on just how the mistake unfolded,' writes Erik Wemple. 'In light of all that's happened, Zimmerman may be a tough person for a news network to apologize to, but that's just the point: Apologies are hard.'"
Some stupid moron in the editing room or a producer did it on purpose. At least they didn't strap a bomb to him and blow him up like they did the cars.
We apologise for the fault in the subtitles. Those responsible have been sacked.
This was intentional, they knew exactly what they were doing..
To say this was a mistake is just another lie and therefore renders their apology meaningless.
The current admin and media seem to love racial divide.
Better fire a couple warning shots into his chest just in case.
The only mistake was that the Today show miscalculated the reaction to their editing, when they tried to push their agenda instead of reporting the truth. Many news outlets have tried to make this a race issue, claiming an innocent young black man was hunted down by a WHITE hispanic and shot. Many of the facts have proven that this narrative is wrong yet little to no retraction has happened, at best NBC was trying to sensationalist the story, at worst they were pushing a narrative about racist America and were trying to hide the evidence to the contrary.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Reporting that Zimmerman was white when he self-identifies as Hispanic. Outdated photos of Martin made people think he was a little kid who could never be dangerous in a fight. It turns out he was 17 and 6'+, visiting his dad because he was suspended from school. (There are a lot of smaller issues like the story he was watching basketball with his dad when it appears his dad wasn't even home at the time. It's not even clear where some of this information came from.)
I'm not saying it's 100% conclusive that Zimmerman's story was true, but this wouldn't have blown up into the story it's become if they hadn't gotten it so wrong about the age, size and race issues. How will anything change though when it seems like these media outlets benefit from selling false information? The more sensationalistic they make it, the more hits they get.
Zimmerman and his parents probably care that they were libeled on national TV in an attempt to rile a mob to literally murder them.
That apology and a few million dollars should make the hurt feelings go away.
It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
Guilty guilty GUILTY! A thousand counts of guilty for ... um ... being bored in public? "I demanded he present his papers and pointed out that any self-respecting member of the proletariat would not lethargically meander about and instead optimize his steps in an effort to better serve his comrades."
... look at those servers cook!
And NBC? Why, they were giving you the best news money can buy. You wanted George Zimmerman to be super guilty, super racist and super scumbag and that's what they kindly provided you. Your eyeballs and mouse clicks lead NBC to place money over justice or facts (the true Capitalists that we all are). SO either stop watching them or just forgive them for entertaining you a little too well. A young man was killed by some power-tripping neighborhood watch? We can easily incite a race war with our reporting, you say? NBC sees dollar signs! Just a touch of editing and
Normally I would feel unqualified to make any comments on this case unfortunately it's unclear if this will ever be brought before an actual court so this might end up being the only thing done -- mock trials in the worst format of all: the 24 hour news cycle.
My work here is dung.
word choice, subject choice, what is delicately omitted, what is unnaturally focused on, what is purposefully ignored or ignored as an artifact of honest subconscious prejudicial mistake... these all create media bias. and there is no objective guide to these issues. every reader has their own agenda, and every reader has a different idea of what is important to focus on and what to ignore
so there will always be some reader somewhere outraged by bias. and the only way to say he is wrong is to compare to the average set of concerns in society, which are always shifting, and are complex
bias is impossible to root out, or even define
the best that can ever be hoped for is to minimize bias as much as possible. it is up to the reader to have a good bullshit meter functioning, no matter what they are reading. the person who implicitly trusts the media, any media, is a fool. trust only your own judgment, and verify, by referencing international sources, different ideological sources, etc. it is the best you can ever hope to do
but obviously, NBC completely screwed up here. this is a situation where bias is obvious and huge. therefore, as an organization whose word and integrity depends upon minimizing bias, they have hurt their brand image
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Please stop, this is not news for nerds.
Editors stay in your lane. There is nothing relevant in this case to tech, or nerd issues.
Nerds frequently walk around looking awkward, wearing hoodies, and scaring simpletons who think they must be D&D satan worshippers. Seems relevant to me.
(And, yes, the D&D satan thing probably is dating me ...)
I think you have improperly equated "news for nerds" with "nerdy news".
I'm a nerd. This interests me. Therefore this is news for nerds. Get off your high horse.
This isn't news for nerds, is it? It's not even stuff that matters, really. It's just more spam from Hugh Pickens, slashdot definitely needs to stop posting all of his offtopic submissions.
Its political, but not overtly so. It'll probably cause some big partisan shitstorm, though. Slashdot editors aren't stupid. Ads pay their salaries, and shitstorms drive ad views. The content of the front page will make a lot more sense if you always keep that in mind. Slashdot hasn't been a place for intelligent discussion on topics of interest to "nerds" since the 90's.
An unarmed kid is dead because someone with a gun pursued and shot him. The ethnicity of the two parties is irrelevant. The shooter should be on trial for murder.
If it bothers you, stay away. Each and every day I see people here bitch about how crap Slashdot has become. It has been crap for years. Misleading titles, bad edits, slashvertisements, you name it. And the crap is exactly what people make come back day after day (so Slashdot gets rewarded for it), to bitch about it all, how shitty Slashdot has become (like it was really that much better a few years back). If you really care, stay away. If enough people do this, maybe things will change. But I doubt it. The Slashdot of the 90s has been dead a long, long time.
Perl Programmer for hire
This just goes to show you that Fox News is not the only one who will happily edit or take out of context something they feel will boost their ratings or meet their internal bias/views. It's why I've stopped watching/reading all mainstream news. I just occasionally glance at "smaller"news sites and browse /. (though most /. summaries also twist the facts to meet the submitter/editor's own bias/views, but the topics are generally more interesting to me.)
Considering the weight we put on our Jury system, this kind of reporting should actually come with heavy penalties. AFAIK, Zimmerman has yet to go to trial (if ever), and reporting like this will only improperly skew the potential jury pool one way or another. And because many Americans still trust "news" (be it Fox News or NBC or CNN), they will take things like this as absolute fact; a correction never gets as much time or weight as the original story, so they're far more likely to miss that. This American Life's correction a few weeks back was the proper way to go about it, and that's likely a millennial event. And I'm too lazy to look it up, but a few months back there was a report on /. that even after someone is told that a previously stated "fact" was actually a mistake or outright lie, an alarming portion of people still hold the previous "mistruth" as fact.
Furthermore, an incident like this actually helps Zimmerman--there's plenty of evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, to lob against this guy, so when you go out of your way to make up or twist such things it only lends credence to the idea that the guy isn't as bad as he seems.
Editors stay in your lane. There is nothing relevant in this case to tech, or nerd issues.
Manipulation of recorded data by a major media outlet to change peoples' perception is not relevant to tech?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
dont exist to inform viewers of current events in a timely and accurate manner as part of their FCC mandate to offer the public a general good. Commercial television networks offer a news program to sell advertising air-time by finding stories and topics that revolve around easily exploitable human emotions. The abuse of context and deliberate indulgence with which networks engage in editorializing a story to the point of satire should be all the proof you need.
This isnt an NBC, CNN, FOX or ABC problem, its a problem with formerly independent news sources suddenly being treated as some sort of cash-cow revenue component of a television stations earnings, instead of a service offered to people without cost, as the FCC license intended.
get the sponsorship out of television news entirely. it should be unbiased objective reporting that sounds like C-SPAN and repeats itself every 30 minutes to an hour and holds itself accountable to some sort of law that requires truthfulness in journalism. The kind of standard that explicitly keeps fox out of canada.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Please stop, this is not news for nerds.
Editors stay in your lane. There is nothing relevant in this case to tech, or nerd issues.
Really? I thought there was an interesting lesson for nerds here: Get your news from more than one source.
This lesson even applies in the Great Slashdot Smartphone OS War. We've seen omission due to bias a number of times on this site yet we still continue to fall for it. Lots of people shouting RTFA!! It'd be nice if we could look at this story where we're not standing on either side of a line, flipping the bird, and learn from it.
Until this site transforms from being a debate forum to an area of discussion, stories like this are totally relevant.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I'm going to have to ask for a citation for that outlandish claim.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Original quote:
I hate racists who discriminate against black people!
Quoted quote:
I hate ... black people
Is 1563649 a prime number?
(And, yes, the D&D satan thing probably is dating me ...)
Whatever kind of guys you're into. We're not here to judge.
None of us know everything. Therefore we're all naïve.
pursue [per-soo] Show IPA verb, -sued, -suing.
verb (used with object)
1.
to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, etc.; chase.
2.
to follow close upon; go with; attend: Bad luck pursued him.
3.
to strive to gain; seek to attain or accomplish (an end, object, purpose, etc.).
4.
to proceed in accordance with (a method, plan, etc.).
5.
to carry on or continue (a course of action, a train of thought, an inquiry, studies, etc.).
There is no evidence Zimmerman was attacked.
This article refers to things that NBC decided, did, or said regarding their outrageous editing of George Zimmerman's 911 call.
But NBC exists only in a legal sense. It has no brain. It makes no decisions. And it's really incapable of giving a rat's ass about criticisms it might receive from the right of the political spectrum.
The things that NBC "says" or "does" are really said or done by the people who work, mostly anonymously, inside the protective bubble we refer to as NBC.
We're not permitted to know which of those people made the "error" in question. But we know who is the one ultimately responsible for it.
That would be Steve Capus, the president of NBC news. As the top guy, he is ultimately responsible for everything NBC "says" or "does".
And now, Steve Capus is responsible for the whitewashing of this "error."
Steve Capus must be held accountable for this travesty that happened on his watch. Steve Capus must step down as the president of NBC News.
Every post about this issue should frame it as what it really is: Malicious malpractice, committed and covered up by Steve Capus.
That's a very serious misrepresentation of the phone call. NBC obviously did this to rile up viewers and try to create the story (and central character) to be larger than life. Journalistic integrity at its worst.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
Or, were they actually trying to stir up a crowd of people to *literally* (not figuratively) murder GZ?
One of their front page website stories is titled "Trayvon's parents to lead nighttime rally in Miami" so ... yeah, they're "literally" trying to round up a night time lynch party and get them fired up by slandering him. Imagine how many will tune in to watch, if/when the media manages to get Zimmerman lynched, which seems to be the media gameplan.
Would you see it through such hyperbolic lenses if it were a network that hewed closer to your personal worldview?
Lets see if that network matches my worldview.. lets look at their non-zimmerman slandering stories right off their own website ... "Beard shares struggle to be ‘beautiful, thin and perfect’" (apparently she's a female athlete) ... "Kate and William wax figures unveiled at Madame Tussauds" ... "Where to buy Kate and Pippa Middleton's favorite jeans " WRT to worldview, those clowns are not on the same planet as I am. We're talking about not even being able to compare due to lack of common ground.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Well at least you got SOMETHING to date you. Hey, that reminds me, I need to get a mini for my new character for this weekend!
"...NBC has completed its investigation into the Today show's mishandling of the police dispatcher's conversation with George Zimmerman..."
Wow, isn't that like the fox in the hen house letting another fox in the hen house????
WTF? Seriously, what is wrong with them???
are you saying NBC purposefully distorted the call? for what purpose?
it wasn't an overworked intern? or maybe it really was an employee with malicious intent... then that employee represents NBC's intentions fully?
i don't think there's malice on the part of NBC here. maybe an employee, but most probably a stupid mistake
if you say that my willingness to give NBC a pass reveals my bias, then it is easy to respond your willingness to castigate them reveals your bias
we are operating on limited information here as to NBC's intent, just like we are operating on bias when understanding what happened with zimmerman
everyone is biased
"liar" implies a level of malicious intent that you only find in hollywood movies. the real world is not a cartoon
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
This is hardly shocking. This is the same NBC that 'proved' GM pickups would catch on fire with a side impact by rigging the gas tank with incendiary devices for the 'test.'
[See General Motors v. NBC section for an overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dateline_NBC ]
This brings up one of the reasons I have no objection to either the stand your ground law or a fair unbiased trial that will likely let a guilty man go free..... its a self limiting problem. If he does it one or two more times.... them someone is just going to shoot him "in self defense".
So... I figure we either have:
1) an innocent man: He wont be involved in another incident most probably (except that the 911 call does seem to indicate he goes around looking for trouble)
2) A guilty man who knows better than to do it again, and will find a new hobby. Well punishing him wont fix anything so, if this debacle stops him from causing more trouble and killing again, then at least something positive was achieved, if not much and its not very satisfying
3) A guilty man who will eventually be emboldened. He may cause another incident, he may kill agaon, he may get away with it again. He wont get away with it many times before some random person kills him.
Um...did I miss any? Cuz I am seeing no problem here.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
This wasn't a mistake, it was a deliberate misrepresentation on the behalf of whoever did the editing or ordered the editing done.
When the corporation claims 'oops' when it is obviously deliberate, it leads to distrust. There most definitely should have been firings over this.
While absolutely true, this doesn't improve what the Today show did; as well, from reading the article it looks like they didn't apologize until they were caught. The only difference between the two is that Fox News is a kid that's willing to lie for its own wants; NBC, on the other hand, is an adult that's willing to lie for its own wants.
They're still both ready and willing to intentionally misinform, and thus both still complete bullocks.
The operator on the phone telling Zimmerman that he "didn't need to follow" Martin is meaningless. The only questions that matter are:
1. Who started the fight?
2. Did Zimmerman have a reasonable belief that using his gun was the only way to escape serious injury or death?
Now they just have to apologize for letting MSNBC dissolve into a bigger joke than Fox News.
So your excuse for not staying away like you preach is that you need to tell others to do so?
Your comments don't portray that, though.
"Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
The very definition of 'pursue' is 'to follow' so your attempt at semantic word games falls flat.
Some witness accounts, and IIRC the official police report state that Zimmerman actually headed back to his vehicle after being told not to follow, and was approached and attacked from behind. I wasn't there, didn't witness it, but this is of course why we have a judicial system at all. I hope you're never one of my jurors.
None of us know everything. Therefore we're all naïve.
oh yes, thankfully we have the 'fair and balanced' fox news to sort it all out for us,...
In the beginning I thought the same. I've been through the concealed carry class, I know that if you start a confrontation you aren't protected. But if the confrontation breaks off then everything starts over.
Zimmerman follwing him, confronting him and shooting wouldn't protect him. That's what the initial story that hit the press said. That's why I was initially on Martin's side.
But Zimmerman's version is that he lost Martin, which legally ends that confrontation. Then Martin came up to him, beginning another confrontation. Martin confronted him, and proceded to physically assault him. If that is the case, then shooting Martin was clearly self defense.
Remember to ignore the "little kid" image being projected in the press. Martin was 17 years old and 6'2" tall, easily able to be a real physical threat to Zimmerman.
Just main stream news if you ask me....
Could we stick to our own stuff please?
he may kill agaon [...] I am seeing no problem here.
*cough* (and no, I'm not referring to the typo)
So you were there and witnessed everything? He may be a murderer, he may be guilty of manslaughter, or maybe he's not guilty and it was actual self defense. I would say 99%+ here on slashdot don't have all the facts. And if you just think because he killed that 17 year old man (not kid BTW, 6'3" 170 or something) regardless of circumstances, he's a murderer, well I strongly disagree. I'm all for stand your ground laws. My state, they want you to run away, by then I'd prolly be dead if my life was in danger.
A friend of mine is the neighborhood watch captain here and patrols regularly. He has called the police on many blacks under the same circumstances because that behavior is often associated with scoping out houses for robbery. However, he never gets out of the car. He calls and lets the police handle it.
Oh, and he's black. Do any whites he's called the police on get to claim racism?
Well, there was that audio engineer who claimed percentages of likelihood the tape was each person.
And got mercilessly shredded on skeptic and tech fora.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Reminds me a bit of a situation in the UK where people riled against Jeremy Clarkson for a comment he said in a talk show. It was around the time when some of the public sector were striking over cuts.
The clip that went around on the internet was his saying "...they should be taken outside and shot".
The full clip, however started with him saying something in support of the strikes, and then saying "but as this is the BBC, we need to cover both viewpoints so..." (the BBC is required to show both sides of stories). The clip that was going round was fairly obviously of him being cut off mid sentence, but people didn't seem to care enough to try and find the context and ranted about it.
It is a shame that people in general don't care enough about finding the full story and are quite happy to just hear bits edited to provoke a reaction, resulting in them reacting in the way that was intended by the editor.
If...attempt was made to indicate an truncation had occurred...it...constitutes...trust.
Yes, because when I edit your quote above using ellipsis it doesn't show that I'm trying to twist your words around.
Hence problem with taking this to court now. So many people think he is guilty with just hear-say. In reality there are 2 conflicting stories about what happened and people will believe what they want. Most juror's they pick to be in this game are gonna believe he is guilty no matter how iffy the evidence is against him. So far from what i seen of this case and what has been released to the public there isn't enough to prove he murdered the kid and what he said isn't what happened. Which is reasonable doubt which is why he hasn't been charged yet. They couldn't get a conviction less the jury was hell bent on convicting him which then he could appeal cause bad jury.
I've learned to live with the crap, here. Do you see me start threads about bad edits, slashvertisements, etc? No, thought so.
Perl Programmer for hire
I am a news hound. Because of my interest in actually finding and learning about news developments, I can barely stand any video news, be it broadcast news or an online clip. Video is just an unbearably slow way to get a news story. It's much faster to read copy to myself than it is to wait for someone else to read that copy to me out loud. The format is as annoying as a powerpoint presentation where the lecturer reads the text off of every slide.
There are exceptions, such as where video footage is itself an essential part of the story. But even in this particular story --audio feed of an emergency call-- transcripts are a much faster way to consume the facts of the story than listening to the actual audio itself. Reading through an accurate transcript of the 9-11 call in this story would have not only been faster, but it would have also eliminated the problem with the deceptive audio editing.
The one thing that I find interesting about the actual transcript is that is Zimmerman as saying " It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.". Now there has been a debate going about (Thanks to Geraldo Rieveria) about how the Hoodie's make you look like a gangsta. OK, so regardless wheather its raining or not we better not were our hoodies else we may get mistaken for a gangsta.
To me, the issue is the reason so much is unclear, i.e. the local police department took Zimmerman's word that is was self-defense and did no more than take witness statements. Based on the admitted killer's assertion it was self-defense, the local cops chose not to investigate. So valuable time was lost before more responsible law enforcement was brought in, as I recall in response to the parents claiming it was a racially motivated crime. Race shouldn't be the issue, but law enforcement was unwilling to investigate the death of a citizen at the hands of another until race was used to force the issue. That's the real story, to my mind.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
Don't need any more. You've beclowned yourself enough.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Yes, you missed
4) An innocent man who, thanks to the media and people on social networking sites, will be branded a murderer and, with the rest of his family, live in fear for the rest of his life.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
This brought to you by the same race war inciting media that's barely whispered the fact that Treyvon was caught with a burglary kit and women's jewelry and suspended from school. Oh yeah, love the fact that they're digging back two or three years for the most baby faced picture they could find.
Note that presumption of innocence doesn't apply here as the accused admits to killing the victim, but is claiming he did so in one of the rare cases where it's not a crime to kill someone (self defense). For that to be true he has to prove that he didn't have the option of just walking away.
Presumption of innocence most certainly applies. Everyone will agree that he is not innocent of killing a person. It is up to the prosecution to prove that he murdered Trayvon. Otherwise, they will have to try to prove that he is guilty of a lesser charge. The prosecution would have to prove that Zimmerman was NOT acting appropriately under the Stand Your Ground law.
But every person has different interests. And the intersection of news that interest nerds is nerdy news.
If Martin WAS smashing Zimmerman's head onto the ground what was Martin holding on to to do so?
Zimmerman's hair from the video was really short. So Martin wasn't holding onto Zimmerman's hair.
Or are people claiming that a 160 pound kid could lift Zimmerman's torso by grabbing Zimmerman's shirt and use that to smash Zimmerman's head onto the ground? That sounds even less likely.
In the heirarchy of victim classes, outrage manufactured by the media only happens when a higher victim class is attacked by a lower one. For example, anybody but a black attacks a black, it's outrage. White attacks Hispanic, outrage. Black attacks a Hispanic, no problem. Black gang beats a while kid within an inch of his life just for being white in the wrong place, no problem, no hate crime.
This also works for sexual orientation. Straights kill a gay, HUGE outrage even when their motive wasn't over the sexual orientation. Gays kill a straight, who cares?
It disproves statements like this very quickly.
...and scaring simpletons who think they must be D&D satan worshippers.
Nowadays we say "scaring simpletons who think they must be Harry Potter demon worshippers.
The police have yet to explain all the things that they did NOT do in this case.
No drug/alcohol test for Zimmerman.
No checking Martin's cell phone.
No photos of the damage to Zimmerman that would support Zimmerman's claims.
The cops are looking rather incompetent. So WHY are the cops incompetent?
From Martin's point of view, how would that be possible?
Some guy is pursuing you.
You run and hide.
You look out and see the guy.
How can the guy legally shoot you now?
And he weighed either 140 or 160 pounds. That does not sound like much of a threat. Particularly when Zimmerman has a GUN!
If Martin's fingerprints are NOT on the gun then Zimmerman has not excuse for killing Martin.
If dude was beating Zimmerman the way Zimmerman claims to have been beaten then he has no reason to apologize for "murdering" anyone, b/c he didn't "murder" anyone. He could express his sadness for the mom and dad who no longer have a child, but he has no reason to "apologize" as he did nothing wrong in attempting to keep his own person intact.
You let me know if next time you are involved in a car accident in which you are not at fault.... you let me know how your attorney feels about you "apologizing" to the person for their f-cked up ride. Your attorney will tell you to zip it and MAYBE they'll prepare a statement on your behalf because, well... obviously someone must be guilty if they apologize...
My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
In an appearance on Fox News's Hannity, Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center, called this omission on the part of Today an 'all-out falsehood' — not just a distortion or misrepresentation.
Oh boy. Not only does he go on Fox News to complain about misleading editing, but he goes on the Hannity show where the misleading editing would put Michael Moore to shame.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Of course it was on purpose, from the very beginning it was meant to increase ratings. This is a local story, one you would find on many nightly news local stations. In what way is this a story deserving of national headlines? Why? Because they can make it such and inflame the viewership to create controversy which sells ratings. They are using the death of a teenager to increase ratings pure and simple.
Has malcom X fessed up that what he did was massively wrong and not only publically apologized, but also paid the people he wronged for their trouble?
Also I still hear "journalists" making crap up about this story. NPR even said, "Zimmerman GUNNED DOWN the teen." Really? Are all journalists scumbags that make crap up for sensationalism?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
He's lived here for 30 years and watched crime go up and up over that time. Every week he tells us of another house that's been broken into. In almost all instances, the house was cased prior to the robbery to determine when it would be unoccupied.
Crime is best prevented by the people knowing their neighborhood and being able to spot anything out of place. If an unknown 6'2" black guy in a hoodie walking apparently randomly at night is out of place in a neighborhood, then so be it.
Oh no, that would be profiling! Racist! Hate to break it to you, but NOT profiling according to statistically relevant criteria is plain stupid and a waste of resources.
Then the statement is meaningless.
It implies it will be news that is nerdy. This isn't. Break down of the enhanced video? Break down of the voice analyses? sure. The case in general? no.
Some nerds like football, but this isn't the place to discuss Tebow.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I like a couple of her songs. Sorry to not jump on the music today's sucks bandwagon..on the other hand, I'm not a hater joiner dipshit.
Just for the record: There can be a difference between good music, and enjoyable music. Her music isn't good. But some songs are fun.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
NBC didn't just make a "slip of the edit wheel." This was a willful act of defamation designed for the express purpose of both defaming Mr. Zimmerman's character, and tampering with potential jurors to create a predisposition towards guilt.
It is obvious.
"Actions by either side"? This is a false dichotomy. Zimmerman didn't have to get out of his car, against the instructions of the 911 operator. He didn't have to confront Martin. He could've continued his observation, safely in the car, and left Martin alone. After all, Martin was simply walking around in the dark, looking suspicious, but not actually doing anything illegal.
What did Zimmerman think would happen when confronting someone doing nothing wrong, in their own neighborhood? Zimmerman knew there was going to be trouble, even if he had to cause it.
Please don't try to tell us both parties are equally wrong: they're not. Not even close.
What was really impressive to me was not when the media decided to start removing parts of the discussion (eg. Looks no good... is black). That's easy. Just a little tricky editing and hope no one catches you. [fail, btw, NBC]
What was actually amazing though was when they started ADDING words that would have changed the investigation to be a hate crime investigation rather than just two normal citizens.
Did he say 'coon'.... I think he did... did you hear it? No? Yes you did... listen again. Right.... THERE! You hear it? No? Are you Eff-ing deaf? Listen. He said 'coon'! I swear that eff-ing spic --- I mean, honky... we can't call this guy hispanic or we really lose the ratings ---... said 'coon'.
After they did that it was a no brainer to expect the editing out of important content to get the same bs race baiting idea across. This is why they (atleast used to) teach people to get more than one source of information and when possible make use of primary sources before fixating one's opinion.
My present is the activity I am currently engaged in with the purpose of turning the future into a better past.
Since when did walking in the rain become a suspicious activity? Some of the most beautiful times I've experienced in my life have been doing just that--"walking around, looking about". When you finally say "screw it", because you know you're going to get wet anyway, it's amazing how peaceful and refreshing a walk in the rain can be.
I don't know what happened there that night, but I sure hope they get enough decent evidence together to settle the matter entirely, no matter the outcome.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Showing an intent to talk to someone on a public street is not the same as showing an intent to get into a struggle with that person and shoot them.
Tragedy struck today as Gene Kelly was shot dead while singin' in the rain. "It was raining and he was just walking around, looking about," said shooter George Zimmerman.
Do you need more?
Yeah, could you add the part where Gene Kelley broke George Zimmerman's nose and pounded his head on the concrete? 'Cause that would be totally cool!
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
Not true. Fox is way worse then another media outlet. Read their court documents, read why that can't call themselves news in Canada.
And Mapes was the villain in the Killian story, not Dan Rather.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Truth is defense against libel in America. Maybe they could sue him in England.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The only reason you care at all is because the guy who got shot is black.
The only reason so many people on slashdot are defending the killer is because the guy who got shot is Black.
If you were just wandering about and some guy started following you with a gun, wouldn't you get a bit suspicious, maybe even take an opportunity to attack and disarm that person before they could shoot you?
Sounds to me like he should at least be facing manslaughter charges - if he hadn't decided to go after the unarmed guy with a gun there's good odds that at worst a punch up would have happened and noone ends up dead.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
Sooooooo .... they can claim that they have photos that support their actions .... but they are not going to show them to anyone.
Really? That's the best you have?
Ah, so you're the exception that rules the proof.
Seriously, I have a lot of respect for your courage in coming right out and admitting it like that.
I would think that you're just working up the nerve to reveal something even more embarrassing about yourself, but I can't think of anything more embarrassing than that.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Yeah. I got that.
My question was about how the original victim (Martin) would know that the situation had changed and that he (Martin) (the original victim) was no longer a victim.
First off, how was he pounding his head against the concrete? Zimmerman's hair was pretty short. Unless you claim that 160 pound Martin was lifting Zimmerman's torso.
Secondly, did you read my post? How is Martin supposed to KNOW that Zimmerman is not following him any more?
You seem focused on that yet the available evidence does not support any means for Martin to accomplish that.
Where, specifically, was Martin grabbing Zimmerman in order to provide the leverage for such?
NBC failed to apologize to Zimmerman, the person who was most harmed by their editing.
A very hollow apology, considering no one got fired.
Intent to get into a struggle? That's a laugh.. Since when can you attack someone for "intent to struggle?" As if young black males have _never_ attacked anyone unprovoked.
You proved my point for me.
I'm suspicious of your quote because you included ellipses, so I would refer to the source before using this quote as justification for anything.
But most people probably don't look at an ellipses that way, which is why I explicitly stated it was ok for ME.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
If I wanted to read some Fox News apology for hate crime, I'd go to Fox News.
We have a right to defend ourselves (regardless if we are white, black, hispanic, asian, etc). You would have us be like sheep, so the criminals could happily stab us over and over 'til dead. You are an idiot.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
In definition 1 he did not pursue as he had no intentions of overtaking. He wanted to keep him in sight.
In definition 2 he did not pursue since he managed to lose him so clearly he wasn't close.
Other definitions do not apply at all.
You say you have a right to defend yourself.
But here you are, bending over backwards to defend a man that chased down and killed an unarmed teenager.
There was no knife. Just a gun toting vigilante who chased down an unarmed kid and killed him in cold blood while he screamed for help.
Not just that... you're defending the fact that he hasn't been charged with a crime, even though it's blatant that he chased down and killed an unarmed teenager.
I know what you people are up to. You don't carry guns around to threaten the government and preserve freedom regardless of your overheated rhetoric.
Your threatening us. The people just minding their own business walking home from the store that don't match your expectations are your real target.
Well, I don't plan on taking that lying down, dumb ass.
Except that the local cops did investigate. They were at the scene for over seven hours and interviewed multiple witnesses. Additionally, they had not closed the case, they are still investigating and have been since the event happened.
The reason so much is unclear is because the media has chosen to distort the facts in their reporting.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Show a closeup of the AR-15, then show someone interviewing a white guy, then concentrate on the issue of the AR-15 while talking about white guys with guns around a black president.
When it was a black guy with the AR-15, most carefully edited out.
Did you miss the part where the cop on the 911 call told Zimmerman not to follow Martin?
If Zimmerman was following Martin than Zimmerman was the aggressor.
Yet the video does not show such damage to the front of Zimmerman's face.
Again, the video does not seem to show a broken nose. Nor have such records been released.
Your claims don't seem to be supported by the available evidence.
Clearly he deserves to be murdered for potential prior crimes for which he wasn't tried, and which he wasn't in the process of committing considering he was carrying iced tea and not burglar's tools. It's good that a psychopath subverted justice and ended a teenager's life because he may have at one point stolen something.
In all literature covering legal self-defense that I've read, it was said that if you provoke someone into attacking you (even with an e.g. verbal insult), you don't get to claim self-defense when they attack you - or at least it will be extremely hard to argue that in court.
There is no legal obligation to do what the 911 operator tells you to -- or even the police, unless the request is being made in a particular way.
Slandered.
And everyone talks like this is unique to the Stand-Your-Ground law. All that law says is that the police have to have reasonable suspicion that you didn't fire in self-defense to arrest you -- just like every other damn crime.
And in fact Zimmerman was arrested.
The other thing the Stand Your Ground law does is eliminate the duty to retreat. In states with a duty to retreat, if a criminal attacks you intending serious bodily harm, you have to run away if you can; if you use deadly force instead, you're guilty of some form of homicide.
Here's Connecticut's model jury instruction on that doctrine: (yeah, I know, it's not Florida)
So you're right about provocation spoiling a self-defense argument, but (at least in Connecticut, and if you have the Florida equivalent please post it) it's a very limited and specific form of provocation -- you have to be deliberately trying to get the other guy to attack you. Just asking someone what he's doing doesn't meet that standard.
Why don't you try that? Pick a woman you don't know and follow her around a bit.
How about you look up the term "stalking"? Not only is it aggressive, it is illegal.
It has been claimed. It has not been substantiated.
From a broken nose? Without any sign of bruising or damage in the video? Those are pretty good paramedics.
Wow! Unwarranted charges of racism now.
But I am not surprised based off of your inability to understand the evidence already provided.
Looks like you lose.
Certainly -- I was speaking to the fact that many people have said that that law somehow makes it more difficult than it should be to arrest someone who has committed an act of violence and claimed self-defense.
So despite no one else claiming that there are photos. .....
And no one claiming that photos were ever taken.
And no photos being presented as evidence
You still believe that there are photos.
And that the cops are concealing the photos.
Her piano Edge of Glory on Howard Stern is pretty good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_GMgkcc2KM
"The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
There is no legal obligation to do what the 911 operator tells you to -- or even the police, unless the request is being made in a particular way.
Zimmerman was from the neighborhood watch. Maybe you live in Somalia or some other third-world lawless hellhole where the police effectively non existent, but in the US the neighborhood watch is supposed to watch. Zimmerman went way beyond watch. If he would have just stayed in his truck like he was told, we wouldn't be having this conversation and Zimmerman wouldn't have murdered this unarmed 17 year old kid.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
I didn't expect logic from you and I am not disappointed.
Sorry, but when you make unwarranted allegations of racism, you lose.
You lose.
I already understand. I'm using this thread to show what a troll you are.
Keep it going.
YOU were the one that accused ME of racism.
You lose. But keep this going because I'm going to bookmark it.
The incident occurred at approximately 7 pm.
You aren't close to understanding.
He's their eyes and ears in the neighborhood.
Calling when a crime is in progress is too late. The purpose of neighborhood watch is to stop crime from happening in the first place.
I understand that you made unwarranted allegations of racism.
You are a troll.
You are a troll that makes unwarranted allegations of racism.
(And, yes, the D&D satan thing probably is dating me ...)
...but not as much as your UID
Mainly from the liberal media, sometimes from Fox:
Referring to the more scary-looking semi-automatic rifles as "assault rifles." By definition, they aren't.
If they don't do that, they call the rifles "assault weapons" which is a more vague term in its political use designed to demonize these rifles, but also has a military meaning that doesn't include these rifles.
Also, note the use of the words "high-powered" that often accompanies the description of the "assault rifle" or "assault weapon." In almost all cases, they are referring to a rifle that fires an intermediate-powered round, not a high-powered one.
And then there's "armor-piercing" to describe a rifle as being especially dangerous by being able to fire rounds that can pierce body armor. News flash: All intermediate-powered (AR-15, AK-47) to high-powered (most hunting rifle cartridges for medium to large game) rifles with standard ammunition can pierce all but the strongest body armor.
3) A guilty man who will eventually be emboldened. He may cause another incident, he may kill agaon, he may get away with it again. He wont get away with it many times before some random person kills him.
Um...did I miss any? Cuz I am seeing no problem here.
WTF? Regardless of whatever is going on in your head around the events of the situation involving Zimmerman, the idea that someone who kills and is not brought to justice because if they kill more people they'll get caught is retarded. We (as a society) don't want those extra people killed. At the very least, there is a problem there.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
I disagree. Slashdot articles have classical liberalism tendencies. I would have use the word "libertarian" but that word has baggage attached to it. I think it's common and natural in logical people, which techies tend to be. This topic has the elements of such tendencies.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
that they didn't edit the conversation to have the 911 dispatcher only ask if he was black.
Then again the whole media portrayal of this case has been embarrassing. I don't recall anything this bad since CBS and Dan Rather.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I'm a nerd. This interests me. Therefore this is news for nerds. Get off your high horse.
So, what do you think of Tiger's chances in the first round The Masters?
Or just because some nerd finds it interesting doesn't make it News For Nerds. Hell, I expect their are some who follow NASCAR, but even how Jeff Gordon is doing doesn't belong here.
Slashdot is supposed to by news for nerds, not news for people with classical liberalism tendencies. I have a lot of interests outside of technology, but I don't expect slashdot to be the place to go to read about them. I want tech news, not political junk that's not related to technology (other than the fact that the audio was edited, which is a trivial task now.)
You can't save every one. Its always a trade off. You say it like this situation has no limiting factors and no negative feedback. it clearly does... its a self limiting problem. In fact, its probably more limited than the problems caused by trying to solve it any other way... I would prefer that to putting people in jail for defending themselves.
Ever heard its better to let 100 guilty men go free than to convict 1 innocent man? Well... I say thats true on moral grounds but also... the damage of guilty men is limited. The damage done trying to catch them at all costs is not.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
>>> to defend a man that chased down and killed an unarmed teenager.
You have that backwards.
- Teen attacked. Man acted in self defense.
- Stop voluntarily allowing yourself to be brainwashed by known liars like NBC News.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
So you made an unwarranted charge of racism to get me to call you on your unwarranted charge of racism.
Ah, so when you make a racist statement then it is "sarcastic".
Keep it going. I'm bookmarking this.
Smackdown, laid. Thank you for the defense, anonymous friend!
Zimmerman did ?
As a former patrol supervisor for a security company, I simply can not relate to Zimmerman's actions, and I don't understand why people feel so compelled to take sides with him.
He was not a law enforcement official, he had no business stalking and confronting anybody, and he created a dangerous situation of conflict that was not only unnecessary, but dangerous and ignorant.
He made a series of assumptions, took actions that were compleatly contrary to what ANY private security non-law enforcement official is supposed to do, and it resulted in him using a concealed weapon to kill an unarmed 17 year old.
If he had approached me and demanded anything from me, I would have told him to go fuck himself.
Shooting maybe, or preferably calling the police, or even that roving neighborhood watch presence so they know someone's watching.
Isn't this exactly the reason for the sub judice laws?
Or does America not have sub judice laws?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Guilt is for a court to decide. They can take it to another venue. That's no reason to skip out on trying him. A non-neighborhood watch member basically stalks a kid, follows him when he tries to get away, gets out of the car at some point, draws a gun at some point, and then kills out of self-defense when the kid tries to defend himself. That definitely needs to go to court.
The jury is still out on what actually happened. The news reporting keeps changing on the event, and we (the public) probably do not have all the information. However, it does not help to turn the event into a racial conflict by editing some key words of a very divisive event. All of the politicians and celebrities taking sides on an event that they don't have all the information on only serves to further divide people in this county.
rally != lynchmob
You forgot about the Florida law that specifically prohibits an arrest of a self defense claimant unless they have good reason. Zimmerman was arrested and stuck around and talked to police of his own free will, without a lawyer. The police cobbled together what they could and offered up a charge on the original police report, and once the chief saw it and the first DA saw it the whole thing was dumped because it was a non-existent case that didn't in any way satisfy the rules of Florida law.
Why do you anonymous shitbirds always leave out the part about the towering thugged out gangster wanna be beating the guy who shot him?
There was not enough evidence to even arrest Martin for the burglary tools thing(aside from the video of him tagging the school), so he wasn't, let alone go to trial. Sorta like, Zimmerman doesn't have enough evidence against HIM to go to trial.
Anyway, the jewelry probably wasn't identified because it didn't come from the Miami area (where he was caught with it) but rather his dad's girlfriend's area, Sanford. The point is moot, but there may be a lot more to the belief that Martin looked suspicious like he was casing houses because he WAS casing houses.
There is enough info out there to know what path Martin was on in life. He just didn't get a chance to develop fully into a thug with assaults, rapes, robberies and so on. He rolled his dice and lost the first time.
Especially lies that have as an end goal the elimination of constitutional rights.
Guns happen to be an area where the lies are quite clear and are broadcast daily to the entire country.
Wow, you're either really classist or racist for assuming Martin was set up for a life of crime, and you're definitely a huge fucking moron for thinking there's not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman of, at the very least, manslaughter. It's pretty easy to find out whether it was his gun used in the crime, and it's pretty easy to comb the area around the body searching for anything Martin could have used as a weapon (hint: there weren't any).
If you never did anything even remotely illegal when you were young then you're an anomaly, nobody deserves to be killed for it (except maybe you for having such awful, awful opinions).
Because the facts aren't on your side, you resort to baseless personal insults.
>>Sorry but 911 operators have exactly zero authority to tell or order anyone to do anything.
No, but that establishes pretty clearly that Zimmerman is acting of his own initiative, not in cooporation with authorities. It establishes his recklessness. It establishes his responsibility. I can't believe that disregarding police dispatchers are how neighborhood watches are supposed to operate.
I too am not comfortable with a trial in the court of public opinion, and one reason is that I don't think that this a murder, and the word "murder" gets used all the time. Bleeding heart liberal that I am, I feel sorry for Zimmerman. He's just an idiot who fucked things up with his recklessness. I don't really care if he's a racist; that goes to what kind of idiot he is. If Zimmerman committed a crime, and I suspect that he did, the name of the crime is very likely "manslaughter", which is what they call it when your ill-advised fuckup cost someone his life. Zimmerman started an unnecessary confrontation with a kid carrying a bottle of iced tea, and whatever the kid did wrong, he paid for that. Should Zimmerman pay, too? Not with his whole life, but, yes, I think he should probably pay. There should be a trial.
Any armed man who is halfway competent should be able to prevent an unarmed kid from killing him with his bare hands, without taking the kid's life. It looks like Zimmerman blundered himself into a bad situation, and he took away the kid's life while blundering his way out of it.
This brought to you from conservative cockbag false equivalencies.
You mean a screwdriver in a backpack.
Ever proven to have been stolen or that Martin was the one who stole it?
For having an empty bag that once contained pot.