Trayvon Case Investigation - Page 14

**Reba** · 04-14-2012, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

Whatever, wait and see in court!

That's all I ask.

**TXgolfer** · 04-14-2012, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

Whatever, wait and see in court!

That is exactly what we are saying. That's great advice.

Grayma · 04-14-2012, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

the point is - when you call 911... it's obviously a potentially dangerous situation.

he should not be checking out the situation. that's a cop's job.

the evidence and testimony will not reveal what he felt at that time. the only person who knows is Zimmerman himself and he's certainly not going to put himself on stand.

I'm not sure he called 911. it looks like he called a non-emergency number that neighborhood watch types use.
https://www.google.com/search?q=zimm...ient=firefox-a

Grayma · 04-14-2012, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

That is exactly what we are saying. That's great advice.

To be fair, that's mostly what Trayvon's family wanted, too. That's what they initially were most upset about- that there wasn't going to be any kind of trial where they got answers.

Al Sharpton et al got in on the deal with the frenzied race-bating and whipped up the media, which told the usual lies and half truths.

Grayma · 04-14-2012, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

Anybody with common sense and carrying a concealed gun knows very well that a situation can get POTENTIALLY bad if you confront a person whom you believe is very suspicious. Why in the god's name would you ever put yourself in a possibly dangerous situation especially if you're not a cop?

You're avoiding my question. I asked you - "What I said is that an armed citizen should never ever put himself in a potentially dangerous situation where somebody could get hurt or killed. Do you agree or not?"

This is the same question that I've been asking for weeks and nobody has answered this question. You and I both know why.

lol! have you ever seen a defendant taking a stand especially in murder trial? (the exception is a psychopathic person who prides in his work)

does it matter? no need to create many threads about same thing but you are free to make one.

No, I do not agree, and I have told you so before and I explained why. You seem to believe that owning a gun reduces your rights, which is false. Neighbors have the right to ask strangers in the neighborhood what they are doing. That right doesn't change just because they also carry a legal weapon. I think that's being a good neighbor, not a bad citizen.

Also, you are assuming facts not in evidence, we do not know if Zimmerman confronted Trayvon or not.

It's also silly. You cannot make blanket statements about what a person should 'never' do, regardless of whether he is carrying a legal weapon or not. You do not always know what is or is not a 'dangerous' situation until too late. And what one person thinks is obviously a dangerous situation, another person would not agree with. It's just your opinion that keeping an eye on a stranger in the neighborhood is 'dangerous.' I disagree. Attitudes like yours are behind the disgraceful situations where people are raped or murdered in public while their screams for help were ignored by people who believed they should never put themselves "in a potentially dangerous situation where somebody could get hurt or killed".

My husband has a concealed weapon permit precisely so that he can defend the defenseless, not so he can run away and hide from a potentially dangerous situation just in case somebody gets hurt. He carries a weapon to make sure that innocent people do not get hurt.

once upon a time in this country neighbors looked out for each other, and crime rates were much lower.

CrazyPaul · 04-14-2012, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

To be fair, that's mostly what Trayvon's family wanted, too. That's what they initially were most upset about- that there wasn't going to be any kind of trial where they got answers.

Al Sharpton et al got in on the deal with the frenzied race-bating and whipped up the media, which told the usual lies and half truths.

I would say, the mass media usually gives misinformations, not telling lies. If they tell lies, they would be out of business.

CrazyPaul · 04-14-2012, 11:41 PM

One commenter at CNN.com made a good point about the first confrontation, if that is a fact that there were two confrontations. During the 1st confrontation, why didn't TM answer GZ that he was visiting his father who lives in that area and then walk away instead of getting out of control so the 2nd confrontation would not happen?

**TXgolfer** · 04-15-2012, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyPaul

One commenter at CNN.com made a good point about the first confrontation, if that is a fact that there were two confrontations. During the 1st confrontation, why didn't TM answer GZ that he was visiting his father who lives in that area and then walk away instead of getting out of control so the 2nd confrontation would not happen?

Good question

kokonut · 04-15-2012, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyPaul

I would say, the mass media usually gives misinformations, not telling lies. If they tell lies, they would be out of business.

I disagree somewhat, some in the media give out disinformation in the effort to whip up the people into a frenzy frothing mass of ......

**TXgolfer** · 04-15-2012, 03:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

I disagree somewhat, some in the media give out disinformation in the effort to whip up the people into a frenzy frothing mass of ......

You mean like this....

Quote:

Where is the outrage? More to the point, where is the news coverage?

You may have missed it. Actually, unless you were searching for it (or are a frequent viewer of Sean Hannity's show), you probably did.

It seems that a version of the 911 tape that we all heard over and over again of George Zimmerman calling the cops to report suspicious behavior by 17-year-old Trayvon Martin just before fatally shooting the boy was like something out of the Nixon White House -- edited. Sure, we all heard it with our own ears, but it is what we didn’t hear that’s key to understanding the confrontation between the neighborhood watchman and the Skittles-toting youngster.
Back on March 27, a full month after the shooting, NBC’s Today Show aired Zimmerman’s call to the police, featuring these words: “This guy looks like he's up to no good … he looks black.” The recording then went viral as did the presumption of racism in Zimmerman’s overreaction. The juxtaposition of Martin looking suspicious and looking black was enough to accelerate a firestorm of anger and protest.

Apparently, hearing is not exactly believing, or rather shouldn’t be. The folks at the the Today Show had shortened the Zimmerman tape for broadcast (as if the show didn’t have lots of time to devote to the story).

Here is the fuller version of the recording:

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."
911 dispatcher: "OK, and this guy -- is he black, white or Hispanic?"

Zimmerman: "He looks black."

And so, Zimmerman’s description of Martin as looking black came only in response to a specific question about race/ethnicity.

Earlier this week, NBC revealed its blunder. "During our investigation it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret," said the network said in a prepared statement. "We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future and apologize to our viewers."

It surely helps that NBC has apologized for altering the tape. This should alter how we all view the incident and perhaps we should collectively apologize for prejudging, if not misjudging, the circumstances surrounding divisive episode.

NBC has to answer for its error of "omission" -- omission of a few key seconds from the 911 recording. But so too does the broader news media need to answer for its decision largely to ignore NBC's distortion after having reported heavily on the response.

http://boston.com/community/blogs/cr...immermans.html

CrazyPaul · 04-15-2012, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

I disagree somewhat, some in the media give out disinformation in the effort to whip up the people into a frenzy frothing mass of ......

If the media gives out disinformation (false or inaccurate info intentionally), they can get in trouble for slander/libel/defamation. Misinformation is a false or inaccurate info that is spread unintentionally which the media usually gives out ("jump to conclusions").

Earlier this week, NBC revealed its blunder. "During our investigation it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret," said the network said in a prepared statement. "We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future and apologize to our viewers."

That means that they didn't make a mistake on purpose.

**Jiro** · 04-15-2012, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

Which, they don't know about until someone observes something and gives them a call. He did that.

right and that should be the only extent of his civil duty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

Are you saying that if you see something going on at a neighbor's house you wouldn't check it out? Don't you and your neighbors look out for each other?

so if I see something "suspicious".... I should walk over to my neighbor w/ a shotgun?

I hope my neighbor doesn't get freaked out and mistakenly shot me or other neighbor frantically calling cop on me because he/she sees a "suspicious person" holding a shotgun, checking out a house. I'm pretty sure it will end quite ugly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

I guess you haven't observed many trials.

ok. I guess we'll see if Zimmerman will go to stand or not.

**Jiro** · 04-15-2012, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyPaul

If the media gives out disinformation (false or inaccurate info intentionally), they can get in trouble for slander/libel/defamation. Misinformation is a false or inaccurate info that is spread unintentionally which the media usually gives out ("jump to conclusions").

Earlier this week, NBC revealed its blunder. "During our investigation it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret," said the network said in a prepared statement. "We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future and apologize to our viewers."

That means that they didn't make a mistake on purpose.

that's why I'd like Congress to pass a new law to fix a media frenzy problem.

**Jiro** · 04-15-2012, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyPaul

One commenter at CNN.com made a good point about the first confrontation, if that is a fact that there were two confrontations. During the 1st confrontation, why didn't TM answer GZ that he was visiting his father who lives in that area and then walk away instead of getting out of control so the 2nd confrontation would not happen?

You don't think this is a good point - why didn't Zimmerman mind his own business if Trayvon didn't commit any crime?

You seem to think it's ok for armed citizen to act like a cop.

CrazyPaul · 04-15-2012, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

that's why I'd like Congress to pass a new law to fix a media frenzy problem.

You have to understand that the media are doing it for the public who have no patience to wait for new info. However it's their responsibilty not to twist a story.

**Jiro** · 04-15-2012, 04:22 AM

Wrong on all counts. Let me correct you then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

No, I do not agree, and I have told you so before and I explained why. You seem to believe that owning a gun reduces your rights, which is false.

You have every right to defend yourself as per your state laws but you automatically lose that right to self-defense if you willfully put yourself in potentially dangerous situation. If you have a habit of willfully putting yourself in danger, then why not be a cop?

I fail to see any logic in getting into unnecessary confrontation especially when nothing happened in the first place. Why would you do that? Mind your own business. Every citizen has a right to privacy and peace without fear. They do not need to explain themselves to any paranoid person. In fact, they have a right to defend themselves when they get confronted by a paranoid armed person so why turn it into a Wild West when that person is not doing anything wrong? Just because he looks suspicious doesn't mean he's committing a crime. You should be minding your own business.

The only reason for an armed citizen willfully putting himself in danger is this -"come on. give me a reason to shoot you".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

Neighbors have the right to ask strangers in the neighborhood what they are doing. That right doesn't change just because they also carry a legal weapon. I think that's being a good neighbor, not a bad citizen.

And a person has a right to privacy and peace without fear. Why don't you mind your own business if that person isn't committing any crime or disturbing the peace?

What would prompt you to ask a stranger what they're doing? What qualifies suspicion? their skin color? the way they dressed? the way they walked?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

Also, you are assuming facts not in evidence, we do not know if Zimmerman confronted Trayvon or not.

What do you think what Zimmerman intended to do after getting out of his car?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

It's also silly. You cannot make blanket statements about what a person should 'never' do, regardless of whether he is carrying a legal weapon or not.

no I didn't make a blanket statement. I'm getting it from state laws regarding self-defense on what you can do and what you can't do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

You do not always know what is or is not a 'dangerous' situation until too late.

there's a difference between calling 911 to report a suspicious person and getting mugged. It's pretty obvious that if you're calling 911, then it must be potentially dangerous. Getting involved makes no sense. The law doesn't give you a license to kill.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

And what one person thinks is obviously a dangerous situation, another person would not agree with. It's just your opinion that keeping an eye on a stranger in the neighborhood is 'dangerous.' I disagree.

Prosecutors disagree. That's why Zimmerman was arrested.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

Attitudes like yours are behind the disgraceful situations where people are raped or murdered in public while their screams for help were ignored by people who believed they should never put themselves "in a potentially dangerous situation where somebody could get hurt or killed".

You are gravely gravely confused. Let me help you then. There's a difference between a crime that DID actually happen and a crime that NEVER happened.

Trayvon didn't commit any crime.... therefore there's no reason for Zimmerman to confront him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

My husband has a concealed weapon permit precisely so that he can defend the defenseless, not so he can run away and hide from a potentially dangerous situation just in case somebody gets hurt. He carries a weapon to make sure that innocent people do not get hurt.

I have a serious problem with armed citizen with a cop-wannabe mentality. Those kind of people are much more despicable than thugs who prey on weak people. I hope he doesn't have a cop-wannabe mentality. It's despicable.

Since your husband has a CCW permit precisely for a reason to defend the defenseless.... so why don't your husband be a cop then? As a cop, he would have legal authority and badge to confront any suspicious person and that would be his job to defend the defenseless. But since he's just a citizen... as a citizen, it's citizen's duty is to report any suspicious person to cop... not get involved and act like a cop.

If somebody's live is in danger and your husband is witnessing a crime in progress, I have no problem with him saving them but on most cases, police strongly advise against this because people can get hurt when a criminal with a gun had no intention to kill anybody but that can change if he saw your husband with a gun.

plus this can create a massive confusion where your husband could be mistakenly identified as a shooter and can get shot by another armed citizen or off-duty cop or responding officers.

I too have a concealed weapon permit and I have a great deal of self-defense training in weapons. and I'm a firm believer of Stand Your Ground law. I don't think it would end quite nicely if he confronted me especially when I didn't commit any crime and when I was just minding my own business. I could have mistaken him as a mugger or crazed mentally-ill person so I'm entitled to rights to defend myself from a paranoid armed person confronting me. I know what behavior and posture that an armed person would show in a potentially hostile situation. Or maybe I felt very fearful of my life because he's acting all hostile on me and he may be twice bigger than me. So why create unnecessary confrontation? nobody should ever have to die or get hurt over misunderstanding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

once upon a time in this country neighbors looked out for each other, and crime rates were much lower.

Sounds like you prefer a Charles Bronson style. Despicable.

**Jiro** · 04-15-2012, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyPaul

You have to understand that the media are doing it for the public who have no patience to wait for new info. However it's their responsibilty not to twist a story.

right..... I wasn't born yesterday, you know?

hence.... that's why I said Congress should create a law to ensure that media give out correct information. Example - publishing edited 911 transcript would be criminal.

CrazyPaul · 04-15-2012, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

right..... I wasn't born yesterday, you know?

hence.... that's why I said Congress should create a law to ensure that media give out correct information. Example - publishing edited 911 transcript would be criminal.

I don't think Congress cares because of taxes. No new (accurate) info = no news = less revenue (for media) = less taxes (for government).

**Jiro** · 04-15-2012, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyPaul

I don't think Congress cares because of taxes. No new (accurate) info = no news = less revenue (for media) = less taxes (for government).

kokonut · 04-15-2012, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyPaul

If the media gives out disinformation (false or inaccurate info intentionally), they can get in trouble for slander/libel/defamation. Misinformation is a false or inaccurate info that is spread unintentionally which the media usually gives out ("jump to conclusions").

Earlier this week, NBC revealed its blunder. "During our investigation it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret," said the network said in a prepared statement. "We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future and apologize to our viewers."

That means that they didn't make a mistake on purpose.

There's the term media malpractice, fake reporting, or providing an opinion as if it were a fact knowingly it's not true is put in the same league as disinformation. It's not just the reporters but the media on allowing people that were interviewed to make opinions as if they were fact to the viewers while the media give them a pass. A good example of this media malpractice was when Wolf Blitzer in CNN a few days ago interviewed Zimmerman's new lawyer where Blitzere claimed that Zimmerman continued following Martin after the "suggestion" from the dispatcher on the phone without even considering all available evidence that would make that case true. And Blitzer tried to get the lawyer to agree when the lawyer correctly commented that he's not in the position to say anything because he has to review all of the available evidence first and determine exactly how that timeline transpired. This is the danger when the media make themselves the "authority" to make such irresponsible claims over the air when in fact they do not have access to ALL evidence. Blitzer not once turned to the audience to remind them that not all evidence have been presented to determine the correct timeline. Let the court determine that...not the media...on deciding what really happened.

kokonut · 04-15-2012, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

You mean like this....

Altered meaning of Zimmerman’s 911 call - James Alan Fox - Crime & Punishment blog - Boston.com

Willful media malpractice. Whoever did the editing knew what he/she was doing. Simply no excuse to do that. None.

**Jiro** · 04-15-2012, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

There's the term media malpractice, fake reporting, or providing an opinion as if it were a fact knowingly it's not true is put in the same league as disinformation. It's not just the reporters but the media on allowing people that were interviewed to make opinions as if they were fact to the viewers while the media give them a pass. A good example of this media malpractice was when Wolf Blitzer in CNN a few days ago interviewed Zimmerman's new lawyer where Blitzere claimed that Zimmerman continued following Martin after the "suggestion" from the dispatcher on the phone without even considering all available evidence that would make that case true. And Blitzer tried to get the lawyer to agree when the lawyer correctly commented that he's not in the position to say anything because he has to review all of the available evidence first and determine exactly how that timeline transpired. This is the danger when the media make themselves the "authority" to make such irresponsible claims over the air when in fact they do not have access to ALL evidence. Blitzer not once turned to the audience to remind them that not all evidence have been presented to determine the correct timeline. Let the court determine that...not the media...on deciding what really happened.

eh - everybody's free to make an opinion. even Glenn Beck when he was insinuating that Trayvon is a thug.

my only problem is that media is reporting edited version or misconstruing actuality to fit its agenda.

**TXgolfer** · 04-15-2012, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

so if I see something "suspicious".... I should walk over to my neighbor w/ a shotgun?

Was Zimmerman carrying a shotgun? Was Zimmerman's gun drawn as he was following?

rolling7 · 04-15-2012, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Willful media malpractice. Whoever did the editing knew what he/she was doing. Simply no excuse to do that. None.

Not only that, how do we really know this person was fired if we have no name.

**Jiro** · 04-15-2012, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Was Zimmerman carrying a shotgun? Was Zimmerman's gun drawn as he was following?

No need to ask me questions that you know we both know the answers to. And you must be confused. We're just speaking hypothetically about me, not Zimmerman....

kokonut · 04-15-2012, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

Not only that, how do we really know this person was fired if we have no name.

Quite true.

**TXgolfer** · 04-15-2012, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

that doesn't really make any sense if Zimmerman didn't think it would be a dangerous situation otherwise why would he be calling 911? but no I don't need to presume what Zimmerman thought. I'm questioning Zimmerman's poor judgment and lack of common sense.

and you know very well that any armed citizen would never put himself in a POTENTIALLY dangerous situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

He called 911 so that they could dispatch police to the area to check out a suspicious activity.

Did he say in his 911 call anything about being in fear for his life, or that it was a dangerous situation?

Like I said, he may have felt safe when he first started checking out the situation.

Neither of us know how he felt at that time. We have to wait for the trial to find out all the evidence and testimony.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

the point is - when you call 911... it's obviously a potentially dangerous situation.

he should not be checking out the situation. that's a cop's job.

the evidence and testimony will not reveal what he felt at that time. the only person who knows is Zimmerman himself and he's certainly not going to put himself on stand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reba

Which, they don't know about until someone observes something and gives them a call. He did that.

Are you saying that if you see something going on at a neighbor's house you wouldn't check it out? Don't you and your neighbors look out for each other?

I guess you haven't observed many trials.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

right and that should be the only extent of his civil duty.

so if I see something "suspicious".... I should walk over to my neighbor w/ a shotgun?

I hope my neighbor doesn't get freaked out and mistakenly shot me or other neighbor frantically calling cop on me because he/she sees a "suspicious person" holding a shotgun, checking out a house. I'm pretty sure it will end quite ugly.

ok. I guess we'll see if Zimmerman will go to stand or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

No need to ask me questions that you know we both know the answers to. And you must be confused. We're just speaking hypothetically about me, not Zimmerman....

Ok, if you say so. Just following the conversation.

**Jiro** · 04-15-2012, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Ok, if you say so. Just following the conversation.

Right. There you go. She was asking me about me, not Zimmerman.

**TXgolfer** · 04-15-2012, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

Right. There you go. She was asking me about me, not Zimmerman.

Uh huh.

**Reba** · 04-15-2012, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyPaul

...That means that they didn't make a mistake on purpose.

So they say.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

04-14-2012, 11:41 PM	#397 (permalink)
CrazyPaul Registered User Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 2,992	One commenter at CNN.com made a good point about the first confrontation, if that is a fact that there were two confrontations. During the 1st confrontation, why didn't TM answer GZ that he was visiting his father who lives in that area and then walk away instead of getting out of control so the 2nd confrontation would not happen?