Stand Your Ground in Danger

[VMI77]

Miami Herald says they got the info about what Zimmerman told the police on the scene from Sanford PD, hence the "police said." If Miami Herald is blatantly making that up for some reason, that shouldn't be hard to prove. I see no reason to question the veracity of that claim. The Sanford PD isn't.

I've just read generalities in this story....and I don't plan to follow it in detail for the simple reason that the media lies about stuff like this all the time, so I have no reason to believe they're accurately representing what happened.

In the first place, the media usually lies by omission, for the very reason that it's harder to prove they lied, or that they intended to lie, and we have no idea of what they omitted. In the second place, you're making a lot of assumptions: 1) that the Sanford PD isn't questioning the veracity of that claim --it's not like the Miami Herald is going to tell you that; 2) that the PD hasn't been told by the chief, the city council, or their personal attorneys, to shut up and say nothing to the media no matter what; and, 3) that you could prove it if the Miami Herald made something up. Just how would you do that? They'd just say the police are lying and just where would you get your "proof?"

[Jusster]

But your details about gas being poured on the kid are incorrect. See news clip.

Enlighten me please....here's a quote from the article at the link I provided:

"They rushed him on the porch as he tried to get the door open," Coon told KMBC. "(One of them) poured the gasoline, then flicked the Bic, and said, 'This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy.'"

I didn't watch the clip, just read the article.....are you saying they just poured it "at" him, not "on" him?

WMI77 I provided you the link that included the news clip. You should watch it. The boy himself stated that they lit the gas can and it sounds like it exploded. He has 1st degree burns (if that). They show his eyebrows singed and they say some of his hair is too. I would think the suspects shouldn't be hard to find since one of them had him in a headlock he should have similar burns. Its your story, you brought it up, I would think I shouldn't have to provide the details to you as well.

Jusster

[matriculated]

Miami Herald says they got the info about what Zimmerman told the police on the scene from Sanford PD, hence the "police said." If Miami Herald is blatantly making that up for some reason, that shouldn't be hard to prove. I see no reason to question the veracity of that claim. The Sanford PD isn't.

I've just read generalities in this story....and I don't plan to follow it in detail...

I figured.

[VMI77]

But your details about gas being poured on the kid are incorrect. See news clip.

Enlighten me please....here's a quote from the article at the link I provided:

"They rushed him on the porch as he tried to get the door open," Coon told KMBC. "(One of them) poured the gasoline, then flicked the Bic, and said, 'This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy.'"

I didn't watch the clip, just read the article.....are you saying they just poured it "at" him, not "on" him?

WMI77 I provided you the link that included the news clip. You should watch it. The boy himself stated that they lit the gas can and it sounds like it exploded. He has 1st degree burns (if that). They show his eyebrows singed and they say some of his hair is too. I would think the suspects shouldn't be hard to find since one of them had him in a headlock he should have similar burns. Its your story, you brought it up, I would think I should also have to provide the details to you as well.

Jusster

I told you, I didn't watch the clip, I read the article. My remark is made in reference to the article, quoted above. I provided a link for an article, the article didn't contain the information you say is in the clip. I brought it up to illustrate the difference in how the media covers various categories of crimes. It's hardly the only possible example, just the first one that came to mind.

[74novaman]

Miami Herald says they got the info about what Zimmerman told the police on the scene from Sanford PD, hence the "police said." If Miami Herald is blatantly making that up for some reason, that shouldn't be hard to prove. I see no reason to question the veracity of that claim. The Sanford PD isn't.

I've just read generalities in this story....and I don't plan to follow it in detail...

I figured.

Is that honestly such a bad thing? In the 24 hour news cycle, any random bit of supposed "insight" or "new facts" gets reported with little to no research into the actual credibility of said information.

Heck, look into the reporting from any major event from the beginning to the end of its life in the news cycle.....they ALWAYS get things wrong at first, always have new information that sometimes makes what they reported first look completely false, are constantly changing the narrative and facts of the story...

Why avidly follow a story when next hour they'll have some new revelation to invalidate what they're saying this hour?

This thing has become a media circus, and at this point we'll be lucky to ever find out what really happened.

[VMI77]

Miami Herald says they got the info about what Zimmerman told the police on the scene from Sanford PD, hence the "police said." If Miami Herald is blatantly making that up for some reason, that shouldn't be hard to prove. I see no reason to question the veracity of that claim. The Sanford PD isn't.

I've just read generalities in this story....and I don't plan to follow it in detail...

I figured.

Thank you. Very gracious. I try not to let the media appeal to my emotions instead of my brain, and I don't want anyone to think I'm dumb enough to believe MSM hype and get sucked into their frequent agenda driven hypefests. The only "details" worth paying any attention to at this point are the details that will come out in the trial, if there is one. It's heartening to learn that you're not one of those fools who follow all the 24/7 media sensationalism.

[matriculated]

Miami Herald says they got the info about what Zimmerman told the police on the scene from Sanford PD, hence the "police said." If Miami Herald is blatantly making that up for some reason, that shouldn't be hard to prove. I see no reason to question the veracity of that claim. The Sanford PD isn't.

I've just read generalities in this story....and I don't plan to follow it in detail...

I figured.

Is that honestly such a bad thing? In the 24 hour news cycle, any random bit of supposed "insight" or "new facts" gets reported with little to no research into the actual credibility of said information.

Heck, look into the reporting from any major event from the beginning to the end of its life in the news cycle.....they ALWAYS get things wrong at first, always have new information that sometimes makes what they reported first look completely false, are constantly changing the narrative and facts of the story...

Why avidly follow a story when next hour they'll have some new revelation to invalidate what they're saying this hour?

This thing has become a media circus, and at this point we'll be lucky to ever find out what really happened.

You're right about the evolution of stories as they make their way through the news cycles...generally. In this case I can't think of a single major fact that turned out to be completely wrongly reported. Maybe I missed something. There's still time, but so far so good. And also it seems like the flow of every new revelation is fairly unidirectional; in the direction of being bad news for Zimmerman. I still haven't heard any new revelation that is exculpatory in nature.

And there's nothing bad about not following the case, but if I wasn't following a case then I wouldn't be spilling a whole lot of internet ink on it either.

IANAL

[VMI77]

Miami Herald says they got the info about what Zimmerman told the police on the scene from Sanford PD, hence the "police said." If Miami Herald is blatantly making that up for some reason, that shouldn't be hard to prove. I see no reason to question the veracity of that claim. The Sanford PD isn't.

I've just read generalities in this story....and I don't plan to follow it in detail...

I figured.

Is that honestly such a bad thing? In the 24 hour news cycle, any random bit of supposed "insight" or "new facts" gets reported with little to no research into the actual credibility of said information.

Heck, look into the reporting from any major event from the beginning to the end of its life in the news cycle.....they ALWAYS get things wrong at first, always have new information that sometimes makes what they reported first look completely false, are constantly changing the narrative and facts of the story...

Why avidly follow a story when next hour they'll have some new revelation to invalidate what they're saying this hour?

This thing has become a media circus, and at this point we'll be lucky to ever find out what really happened.

You're right about the evolution of stories as they make their way through the news cycles...generally. In this case I can't think of a single major fact that turned out to be completely wrongly reported. Maybe I missed something. There's still time, but so far so good. And also it seems like the flow of every new revelation is fairly unidirectional; in the direction of being bad news for Zimmerman. I still haven't heard any new revelation that is exculpatory in nature.

And there's nothing bad about not following the case, but if I wasn't following a case then I wouldn't be spilling a whole lot of internet ink on it either.

IANAL

To clear up your confusion: the details of the case are largely irrelevant to me; my interest is in how any case like this is used by the media to further the liberal agenda, the associated legal and moral principles, and the impact of the hypefest on self-defense rights. It makes no difference to me whether the shooter is guilty or innocent, and neither does it make any difference to the media, or the leadership of the people crying about civil rights --this incident is nothing more than a tool the left is exploiting to advance a political agenda.

[VMI77]

You're right about the evolution of stories as they make their way through the news cycles...generally. In this case I can't think of a single major fact that turned out to be completely wrongly reported. Maybe I missed something. There's still time, but so far so good. And also it seems like the flow of every new revelation is fairly unidirectional; in the direction of being bad news for Zimmerman. I still haven't heard any new revelation that is exculpatory in nature.

IANAL

Great job of completely missing the point of the person you are responding to. Also, yeah, "wrong" reporting is ok, just as long as it's not "completely wrong."

[Beiruty]

Don't you hate it when CNN opens the segmenets with the controversial "SHOOT first, ask questions later" law. I thought this what is taught to military boys not to argue with their commanders.

[Jusster]

But your details about gas being poured on the kid are incorrect. See news clip.

Enlighten me please....here's a quote from the article at the link I provided:

"They rushed him on the porch as he tried to get the door open," Coon told KMBC. "(One of them) poured the gasoline, then flicked the Bic, and said, 'This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy.'"

I didn't watch the clip, just read the article.....are you saying they just poured it "at" him, not "on" him?

WMI77 I provided you the link that included the news clip. You should watch it. The boy himself stated that they lit the gas can and it sounds like it exploded. He has 1st degree burns (if that). They show his eyebrows singed and they say some of his hair is too. I would think the suspects shouldn't be hard to find since one of them had him in a headlock he should have similar burns. Its your story, you brought it up, I would think I should also have to provide the details to you as well.

Jusster

I told you, I didn't watch the clip, I read the article. My remark is made in reference to the article, quoted above. I provided a link for an article, the article didn't contain the information you say is in the clip. I brought it up to illustrate the difference in how the media covers various categories of crimes. It's hardly the only possible example, just the first one that came to mind.

Sorry but I don't believe that is the best way to start a debate if you don't know the details of the subject you introduce to the debate. You lose all credibility that way.

Differences from what I can see:
1. The white kid, though he goes to school with these kids doesn't seem to know who they are. While in the M/Z case all parties are known and there is no dispute as to whether or not Z shot and killed M
2. From what I can tell the gas can story is a few days old, compared to the Z/M story which is weeks old.
3. The suspects in the gas story have not been interviewed and let go due to a self defense claim. When there are witness who state otherwise.
4. I don't see any new laws being challenged in the gas story like there is in the M/Z story.

I could go on and on but I won't...

Similarities:
Black on White crime vs. Hispanic/White on Black crime....that's it.


Jusster

[matriculated]

To clear up your confusion...

Great job of completely missing the point of the person you are responding to. Also, yeah, "wrong" reporting is ok, just as long as it's not "completely wrong."

It's heartening to learn that you're not one of those fools who follow all the 24/7 media sensationalism.

It's clear you're being sarcastic in that last one, so you just called me a fool. Just in the interest of keeping the tone around here civil, it might not be the best idea to claim other people here are confused, do a great job of completely missing missing the point, stuffing words in their mouth that they didn't actually say, and calling them names. Just a suggestion.

[Ameer]

"They rushed him on the porch as he tried to get the door open," Coon told KMBC. "(One of them) poured the gasoline, then flicked the Bic, and said, 'This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy.'"

How many resources will Holder devote to prosecuting this Hate Crime under Federal law?

[Jusster]

"They rushed him on the porch as he tried to get the door open," Coon told KMBC. "(One of them) poured the gasoline, then flicked the Bic, and said, 'This is what you deserve. You get what you deserve, white boy.'"

How many resources will Holder devote to prosecuting this Hate Crime under Federal law?

That's funny, because I don't remember reading anything in that case stating that the two black suspects were interviewed by local PD, who decided not to press charges, because the two black males are claiming self defense due to the fact that they thought the white kid looked suspicious because they never saw him walk up to that door before. Therefore, they decided to toss gas on him to protect the neighborhood.

You go find that story then we can have a meaningful discussion.


Jusster

[couzin]

...Zimmerman was in no way conceivable "standing his ground"...he was playing police...and pursued the boy even after being told not to...he does not represent most responsible CHLers and we have no moral or ethical responsibility to support him...
...as to the fight to preserve "Stand your ground"-type laws...certainly...

This!!!