Has media bias convicted a man before all the facts could come out?

AW-

There are few facts to be checked. I think it is interesting to see how this story is being reported by the various media sources, and in various parts of the country.

Many of the media sources have become so desperate for views and/or ad revenue that they will run things they know to have no basis so that the ensuing controversy brings viewers.

The internet and TV have become what used to be confined to Shock Jock radio.

Yes, if their is a riot, the media should be partly to blame for spreading hyperbole and half truths

....but I don't know how we could could hold the media accountable without throwing out our Bill of Rights.

whynot_31 said:

Many of the media sources have become so desperate for views and/or ad revenue that they will run things they know to have no basis so that the ensuing controversy brings viewers.

Can you cite some examples?

Otherwise your argument is weak.

Lets assume Zimmerman's version of the fight that occurred is correct, and he was getting beaten up, that only occurred because he APPROACHED this kid after following him down the block. Should the boy have run away instead of fighting? Probably, but to say that its unreasonable that he tried to fight off someone who was stalking him and then pulled a weapon on him is ridiculous.

Or let me put it this way. If a white guy walking down Bergen Street in Brooklyn sees himself being followed by a black kid, has the kid approach him and then attack him, would you be saying that the guy was wrong for fighting back?

whynot_31 wrote: Many of the media sources have become so desperate for views and/or ad revenue that they will run things they know to have no basis so that the ensuing controversy brings viewers.

Boygabriel said:

Can you cite some examples?

Otherwise your argument is weak.

If I want you to agree with me about the media making things up, can I just cite right wing media?

Is the left magically immune from such temptations?

I just want to say that Homeowner said it perfectly above - cops said don't follow and he did. End of story. If he was beaten so bad where are his bruises, where is his medical report, where is the police report which states where his injuries are?

As to the witness of this - where is this person, where is the report? where is the proof? Meanwhile the girl who was on the phone with Trayvon has the phone records to prove it.

Bringing up his school history is ridiculous - I had done the same or even slightly worse things than he has. I was kicked out of one school to attend another where I had my own little scrap-ups. To those who know me in the real world and those who have come to know me here - am I a bad person now that deserves to die?

As far as the photo with the grill - when we were young we wore crazy things (shell top adidas with thick laces that were never tied, shaving lines into our hair, piercing our noses, etc.) why does a gold grill make him a bad person? Is everyone who makes duck faces in photos a douche? 20 years ago if tattoos were called "thuggish" and now everyone has one.

To say a hoodie was what made him look thugish is ridiculous - I wear a hoodie on a bad hair day, my bald husband wears a hoodie to keep his head warm. Its ridiculous to even use that as an excuse.

As for the mother copyrighting she has already stated that she is doing this to make money to help other families who are going through a tough situation. I personally can think of no greater way to honor her son than to make something positive come out of this.

Boygabriel - while I usually agree with you I have to say that I too am not a fan of riots. Unfortunately when riots happen no one wins, the city pays out lawsuits, small business are ruined and/or lose money, and innocent people get hurt or killed. I DO agree with civil disobedience. I would much rather have traffic interrupted or my commute delayed than to hear of a tragic killing or damage to properties and businesses.

rezist-

You are getting very close to what I consider to be the crux of this issue:

Notably, if the law allows one to kill someone when they feel threatened, we can't just pick and choose when it should be applied.

Unless the act meets the explicit standards of a Hate Crime, we can't let the fact that Zimmerman and Trayvon were of different races influence whether Zimmerman gets the protections afforded to others under the Stand Your Ground laws.

No matter how we feel about what happened, or what kind of world we want to live in (see end of my Dorismond post above), if someone's actions are protected by law, they should not be charged with one and/or found not guilty.

If he did this in NYC, we'd likely have all sorts of charges to throw at him: gun possession, attempted murder, etc. However, we may have to accept that this type of behavior is not prohibited by law in all states.

If the people of FL don't like the law, it is their obligation to change it. The federal government swooping to the rescue is not a real answer.

Rezizt, the problem in this case is that a good civil attorney is going to be able to show that there was an intervening duty to retreat in Zimmerman's case (the direction from the 911 dispatcher not to pursue the kid). Compare that to thiscase, where the judge has rules that the killer had no duty to retreat when pursuing someone who stole his property. Also note that the SA has clearly stated that the concept of using deadly force to retrieve property is an overreach by the judge.

Bottom line is that when you contact the police, they tell you not to do something, you do it anyway and it results in someone dying, you shouldn't be able to hide behind this law. There would have been no altercation if he hadn't disobeyed the police.

SYG has not been a panneca and from what I've read have had many weird and unexpected outcomes that the public has not been comfortable with.

As for writing laws, there are at least two in NY that I've amended. Its really not that hard. You write the language, find some legislator to introduce it, and work with their staff to get it passed. Don't assume there are some really wise and learned men and women sitting in Albany coming up with laws. The reality is a lot of our laws are written by self-interested parties that are willing to do a little work (and possibly grease a few palms) in order to get laws that meet their particular needs. I guarantee that the SYG was either originally authored or significantly supported by various special interests who benefit directly from the passage of such laws. They know that in most cases the people who get killed as a result of the law aren't going to garner enough sympathy in order to make people change the law.

rezist said:

"A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use deadly force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first."

It doesn't say or describe in detail that you can only use deadly force when someone has beaten you to within 30 seconds of your life, has a gun, a knife, etc... The law, no matter ones opinion is what it is. I'd like to see those of you who are against the law find out how many times the law has worked to help victims of violence and also find out how much these types of laws work to decrease violent crime due to criminals knowing that there could be immediate consequences to their actions.

First of all I think the law is ridiculous and too broad to do any good. But lets look at it in THIS situation. If I was the DA in this case I could also make an argument that Zimmerman in fact broke the law "before" he was even in danger, i.e. stalking:

((2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.).

After the police specifically told Zimmerman not to follow this man - he "willfully" follows him. Under this law Trayvon would have been in his right (if he had a gun on him) to then shoot Zimmerman and if he did attack Zimmerman it was thus justified under this law. If Trayvon uses his hands and not a gun should Zimmerman be justified in shooting him?

I have to say that I could care less what color combination commits these crimes - I am a human being and it pains me no matter what. This hits home because I am the mother of a 16 year old son.

As far as it diminishing crime - I think no matter what it will still happen and this law will not diminish that. Criminal will just try and be "quicker on the draw".

I'm not sure how much "moral weight" I give the dispatcher's instructions.

I mean even she had said "follow him", would this have changed Zimmerman's level of responsibility?

I'd hate to think that because I call 911, the operator suddenly is put in the position of being my "supervisor". Doesn't the responsibility for my behavior still reside with me?

Likewise, different states allow varying level of privileges based on whether people are trained as security guards, or the owners of the property the incident is occurring on.

Let's assume you are allowed (and even encouraged) to follow someone; this is not the same as being able to engage them and use deadly force.

Or, if we use Zimmerman's account of the story: This is not the same as defending yourself from a beating with deadly force.

While I don't sanction such activity, I'm ok with others being able to strike someone without ending up dead. ...frankly, we have a court and penal system that is pretty full of such people.

I keep thinking about a bar fight scenario. The old standard seemed to be if a combatant picked up a weapon (bottle, knife, gun etc) they got arrested as a "perp" while the other was the "victim".

This SYG law seems to imply that no one is perp or victim; we are all free to arm ourselves.

Thank the NRA for SYG laws... They won't be satisfied until every toddler in nursery school, and every dementia-stricken nonagenarian in nursing homes, is packing heat.

booklaw said:

Thank the NRA for SYG laws... They won't be satisfied until every toddler in nursery school, and every dementia-stricken nonagenarian in nursing homes, is packing heat.

It should be interesting to see if Trayvon's death will be enough to show us that the freedom to bear arms, in combination with a SYG law, does not come without a price.

I suspect their would be more outrage directed at gun laws and SYG if the deceased was Zimmerman, and Trayvon was able to walk due to said laws.

Likewise, will the voters be able to overturn such laws? ...The laws could be found valid depending upon who gets to interpret the constitution....

At the rate is story is going, a lot of people will benefit from engaging in public displays.

The public is riveted by this story, yet there is no NEW news to report. Hence, our media sources get creative and opportunistic. Some say events such as these allow viewers to see the views of the staff.

Regardless of why, it seems any group with an opinion (no matter how offensive) stands a good chance of getting media coverage.

No matter how tangential a cause may be to this incident, now might be a good time to link it!

Fame and fortune is available!

P.S. The only way to avoid being annoyed may be to find a way to turn it off.

I agree that Zimmerman's life is ruined. Those who think he committed a crime want it "more ruined", while others just want the man to have a fair trail, and still others seem to think there is nothing we can do to help him regardless of his guilt.

But what do we, both as a society and individuals, do?

Is the answer to keep telling ourselves:

A. We will never know what really happened, and

B. No laws seem to be broken

...and that, therefore, this case is either self defense or an unfortunate tragedy"?

Do we have simply accept that we live in a world where we must allow people to occasionally die because someone states they felt their life was threatened?

Must we accept that we are unable to impose a more stringent standard than this?

While such mental work is rigorous, do we need to do anything beyond it?

Do we have to try to minimize any such incidents by changing any laws?

Or, can we just continue our lives while being very careful to look "non-threatening" in places that have SYG laws?

Is it enough to just hope that more incidents like this don't happen, and/or aren't reported upon?

Predictably, Bruce Springsteen's song about a previous fatality is getting some play again. I've found it to be a good, thought provoking use of my time. I hope you will as well:

^^ Yet another reason for conservative Fox News to make fun of their longtime opponent: liberal MSNBC.

Don't worry, I'm sure Fox News will make a similar "error" soon, and MSNBC will give it lots of coverage.

Thankfully, most people seem to watch the news for entertainment and to support their present worldview. If this weren't the case, such incidences and allegations would be damaging in the long run.