Thread: One thing I don't get about this Zimmerman/Martin thing

Originally Posted by OSECS

Yeah, but that's just it, he didn't just walk.

It's a question of semantics. Zimmerman was taken into custody and questioned for a couple hours. In my book that's getting off pretty easy when you've just shot and killed an unarmed kid.

Can someone who is following this more closely confirm did I overhear correctly that he's now disappeared/in hiding?

If so. This again seems like awesome law enforcement work while still subject to investigation.

He's in hiding, no info where, his Mom is peruvian and lives in Peru, his ex-lawyers said he is far from FLA despite the fact that they never met him in person. Who knows.

Originally Posted by The AD

It's a question of semantics. Zimmerman was taken into custody and questioned for a couple hours. In my book that's getting off pretty easy when you've just shot and killed an unarmed kid.

I get what you're saying, and agree that walking without at least manslaughter charges being filed is beyond strange, but don't agree that it's just semantics.

The reports said he was released at the scene of the crime with little questioning. Actually he was treated for wounds (not reported), taken to the station (not reported), questioned for hours, and officers wanted to charge him (not reported) but were over ruled by the DA. That's not semantics.

Known, relevant, factual details that contradicted a clear cut case of murder were left out of the reported it seems.

I'd go into seclusion as well if a bounty/death threats had been placed on my head (see: Salmon Rushdie). If this is indeed the case.

Originally Posted by OSECS

a bounty/death threats

I hadn't heard this.

Details?

Originally Posted by OSECS

I get what you're saying, and agree that walking without at least manslaughter charges being filed is beyond strange, but don't agree that it's just semantics.

The reports said he was released at the scene of the crime with little questioning. Actually he was treated for wounds (not reported), taken to the station (not reported), questioned for hours, and officers wanted to charge him (not reported) but were over ruled by the DA. That's not semantics.

Known, relevant, factual details that contradicted a clear cut case of murder were left out of the reported it seems.

It's also a question of what was known at the time. Not having cable, I'm spared from a lot of the wasteland of sensationalism but from comments in this thread is seems like another parallel narrative floating around was that Martin is killed and the next day Sharpton & Jackson turned up and the following day their supporters took to the streets—even though the shooting occurred towards the end of February.

So even before more facts became widely known, in one corner there were the Martin supporters and in the other there were those who took to attacking Sharpton & Jackson and claiming that black-on-black crime is never protested even though, in fact, it is. As a result, what might have been a conservative story about government incompetence instead became another example of the usual sides squaring off against each other.

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

I hadn't heard this.

Details?

Just what I've seen on a couple internet sites, a local radio talk show (the host, a politically middle of the road to liberal kind of guy, was discussing it with callers yesterday I believe) Supposedly the new Black Panther party has put a bounty on his head. May turn out to be false, but would anyone be surprised by an action like this regardless of race ?

Originally Posted by OSECS

Just what I've seen on a couple internet sites, a local radio talk show (the host, a politically middle of the road to liberal kind of guy, was discussing it with callers yesterday I believe) Supposedly the new Black Panther party has put a bounty on his head. May turn out to be false, but would anyone be surprised by an action like this regardless of race ?

I thought we weren't leaping to unsubstantiated conclusions anymore?

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

I thought we weren't leaping to unsubstantiated conclusions anymore?

and you think he did that?

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

I thought we weren't leaping to unsubstantiated conclusions anymore?

Is that what I did ? OK ya got me. Hope that little boner ya just got gets put to good use...

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

and you think he did that?

It's certainly seems possible.

His follow up ad hominem is a bit of a tell also.

This is from NPR Do they jump to unsubstantiated conclusions ?


You can googles it @ npr.org/blogs






New Black Panther Party Offers $10K Bounty For George Zimmerman
Categories: Race in America, National News
01:13 pm

March 26, 2012

Twitter (52)
Facebook (5497)
E-mail
Share
Print
Comments (112)
Recommend (20)

by EYDER PERALTA


EnlargeMario Tama/Getty Images
Mikhail Muhammad of the New Black Panther Party speaks to the media next to a memorial to Trayvon Martin outside The Retreat at Twin Lakes community where Trayvon was shot and killed by George Michael Zimmerman.
Over the weekend, members of the New Black Panther Party showed just how tense the situation in the Trayvon Martin shooting has gotten: They offered a $10,000 bounty for the capture of George Zimmerman, who shot and killed the unarmed teenager.

The Orlando Sentinel reports that Mikhail Muhammad announced the reward during a protest on Saturday, and when a Sentinel reporter asked if he was inciting violence, Muhammad said, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

Nationally the shooting death has brought up questions about whether Zimmerman, who was on a Neighborhood Watch patrol, profiled Martin and whether Sanford police's failure to arrest Zimmerman had to do with racism.

The New Black Panther's bounty just heightens that narrative.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the New Black Panther Party has been rejected by the Black Panther Party of the '60s and '70s. The SPLC says the group is "a virulently racist and anti-Semitic organization whose leaders have encouraged violence against whites, Jews and law enforcement officers..."

The Sentinel also reported that the group "called for the mobilization of 10,000 black men to capture Zimmerman."

The paper adds:

"Sanford city officials issued a statement late Saturday, condemning the group's appeal and asking citizens to leave all arrests to the police. The statement was sanctioned by Sanford Police Captain Robert O'Connor — one of two Captains now leading the department in the wake of Police Chief Bill Lee's temporary suspension.

Originally Posted by OSECS

This is from NPR Do they jump to unsubstantiated conclusions ?

http://wanewscouncil.org/2012/04/02/...t-wnc-hearing/

Maybe

Originally Posted by OSECS

[SIZE=5]This is from NPR Do they jump to unsubstantiated conclusions ?

So now you've researched your unsubstantiated conclusion.

Until you've found a source that you'd more normally reject.

That's awesome.

Like I said earlier.... I hadn't heard about it.

Zimmerman about to be charged with something this afternoon.

Originally Posted by Tippster

Zimmerman about to be charged with something this afternoon.

Based on all that new evidence

Hope Sanford/Florida/The US is happy with our new policy of letting people we think just committed a murder just walk around while we...? what was it we were doing all that time anyway?

Originally Posted by Triage

It's also a question of what was known at the time. Not having cable, I'm spared from a lot of the wasteland of sensationalism but from comments in this thread is seems like another parallel narrative floating around was that Martin is killed and the next day Sharpton & Jackson turned up and the following day their supporters took to the streets—even though the shooting occurred towards the end of February.

So even before more facts became widely known, in one corner there were the Martin supporters and in the other there were those who took to attacking Sharpton & Jackson and claiming that black-on-black crime is never protested even though, in fact, it is. As a result, what might have been a conservative story about government incompetence instead became another example of the usual sides squaring off against each other.

yep, couldn't agree more with your observation. So doesn't that make it all the more important that the local media, breaking the news and being the source for national news orgs., would really want to make sure they get the facts straight and accurate ? Be the source thats accurate and you win credibility.

It's a local murder story made national because murder, guns and race (most prominently) are all being placed on center stage.

Good journalism exposes wrong, distorting the facts of the reporting of that story only undermines their credibility as an unbiased source.

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

Hope Sanford/Florida/The US is happy with our new policy of letting people we think just committed a murder just walk around while we...? what was it we were doing all that time anyway?

Seriously? You really think that anyone thinks this is ideal?

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

So now you've researched your unsubstantiated conclusion.

Until you've found a source that you'd more normally reject.

That's awesome.

Like I said earlier.... I hadn't heard about it.

Yer a real piece of work man. You ask a question to the board, I answer based on what I've heard or seen and then you play some strange gotcha game about conclusions cause I didn't post the source of my answer ?

Then you make a sweeping statement about my belief in NPR s editorial standards.

NPR is a news source I've relied on for 25 years or so. Listen pretty much every day for at least 30-40 minutes. The most of any source I rely on for news, besides my local newspaper.

So why did I need to research my conclusion that there was a bounty ? I heard it on several credible sources, before believing it was accurate.

Originally Posted by OSECS

yep, couldn't agree more with your observation. So doesn't that make it all the more important that the local media, breaking the news and being the source for national news orgs., would really want to make sure they get the facts straight and accurate ? Be the source thats accurate and you win credibility.

It's a local murder story made national because murder, guns and race (most prominently) are all being placed on center stage.

Good journalism exposes wrong, distorting the facts of the reporting of that story only undermines their credibility as an unbiased source.

First, cable news should be treated more as entertainment than news. Next, how do the facts come out without the fraught pilgrim's progress of further investigation? No question the media screwed up but perhaps expectations of perfection are unrealistic given the fact that the case appears to have been closed at one time with a lot of the subsequent information coming out as a result of media pressure.

That's the act of balancing mentioned earlier where not rushing to judgment can sometimes lead to bypassing judgment itself. If judging too quickly often leads to injustice, refusing to judge is the flip side that does the same. In spite of all the obfuscation on the part of the media, without hard questions being asked there would be no case, no ongoing investigation and no judgment at all.

There may not be enough evidence to overcome reasonable doubt but the lower bar of probable cause would appear to be reached by the smoking gun, the unarmed victim and the evidence of a pursuit heard on the 911 call.

Originally Posted by OSECS

Some strange gotcha game

Which is somehow different from your vague....

Just what I've seen on a couple internet sites, a local radio talk show

Which naturally would.... lead someone, who had already asked, to further question the validity of your talk of this bounty/price on head business.

And then for them to quite legitimately..... suggest that you'd likely further researched and substantiated what was apparently at one time your unsubstantiated conclusion......

Because you know you've done this before in this thread......haven't you?

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

I thought we weren't leaping to unsubstantiated conclusions anymore?

Or you know.... you could go to their fucking website?

http://dayofactionmovement.org/

Originally Posted by Rubicon

You need new news sources. NBC has made you look very uninformed. Zimmerman did not say 'coons', he said 'cold', further illustrating the oddness of someone being out in the rain, thus his suspicion of Martin.

So news sources first say he said "Fucking Coons", but then Zimmerman's side goes on TV and says says "no, he said Fucking Goons".

Now you say the tape says "Fucking Cold" ???

I wonder what else about Zimmerman's side of the story is complete bullshit ?

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

I thought we weren't leaping to unsubstantiated conclusions anymore?

You know, 20 sec with google would have avoided all of this.

New Black Panther Party Offers $10K Bounty For George Zimmerman

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...orge-zimmerman