Apr 07 2012
Good For NBC
In what should be a normal occurrence when any news organization evidence of misinformation in a story (see RaThergAte), we are now living in a day and age when we find the rooting out of liars a rare and special event. With so much bias and filtered news out there (filtered to hide the full story, or all sides of the debate, or miss the fact pronouncements of ‘truth’ are standing on foundations of massive scientific uncertainty, etc – all lies of omission) it truly is a spectacle to behold when a fraud is canned in today’s news business:
NBC News has fired a producer who was involved in the production of a misleading segment about the Trayvon Martin case in Florida.
…
The segment in question was shown on the “Today” show on March 27. It included audio of Mr. Zimmerman saying, “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”
…
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.” Then the dispatcher asked, “O.K., and this guy — is he white, black or Hispanic?” Only then did Mr. Zimmerman say, “He looks black.”
If there is positive evidence for George Zimmerman in any this mess it is this segment of the 9-11 tapes. He does not appear (as of yet) to even know if Trayvon is black or not. The ‘looks’ caveat in his off-the-cuff response indicates uncertainty. Hit does not sound or appear to be laced with anger (yet – that does come later in the call when he starts to chase Trayvon down).
I applaud NBC for its quick and decisive action. One wonders, then, how buffoons like this keep getting paid millions of dollars to spout similar misinformation:
The news media has a long road back to ‘respectable’.
Well, now we know who the nominee is, so like him or not, we better get behind him and defeat this guy that is presently trying to destroy America. Pick an excellent VP nominee please…
RT:
You caught me. Since the news of the last day has been that the prosecutor is going to handle the case herself (and not go to the grand jury) that is what I thought you were talking about. I should have known that you were skipping the entire process of discovery, indictment, filing charges, jury selection, and trial – and going straight to the jury’s “Not Guilty” verdict. My bad.
How about wreckless endangerment? 1) A guy on “patrol”, carrying concealed, 2) Following a “suspect” (remember he was out of breath from chasing Trayvon prior to the dispatcher’s admonition to back off). 3) Not staying in his vehicle until the police arrived. RT: Bet even you could make that case! 😉
Layman, yes, but it would be meaningless. first, Zimmerman was not on ‘patrol’ and he has a concealed carry permit. Now, first let me say I have not ‘prejudged’ anyone, I’m just going by what I’ve heard and read which is not yet ‘evidence’ but only what someone has said.
But Zimmerman had gone somewhere, (a store I heard) and was returning home when he say Martin. Now, it was not illegal or improper in anyway for a person with a CCP to Conceal carry. (verdict, not guilty) 2, next following a suspect, well, I’ll be truthful, I would not pursue this. It is not illegal to walk behind another person, either for observing or ‘reporting to the police what he thinks they are up to. (verdict, clearly not guilty) 3, oh may. Who is required, under any circumstances, to remain in their vehicle? Not only could I not make this case, I wouldn’t pursue it. Verdict, clearly not guilty.
I will say I didn’t bypass jury selection since they would be necessary to render the not guilty verdict.
I know not which one is ‘actually guilty’, I just have not seen or heard one single piece of evidence that indicates that Zimmerman did anything wrong. Once the chips are on the table and all the true facts(presumably) are known, then I will decide what I think is the truth. I personally think everyone should wait til all the truth’s are known before passing judgment.
But you’ve already decided Zimmerman shouldn’t even be charged with something as minor as wreckless endangerment.”
So much for “everyone should wait til all the truth’s are known before passing judgment’.
jan, ran across this quote and wondered what you might think about it. “When Romney decided to seek the presidency for the second time, his moderate to liberal record in Massachusetts was bound to trigger a challenge from the right and set up a showdown, framed in shorthand, as the establishment of the party versus the conservative base. Had Palin been in the race as the conservative alternative, it would have been very difficult for Romney to attack her given the passionate following she has among many conservatives, because he wouldn’t want to risk alienating them. ”
what I was wondering is why so many think he’s not ‘conservative’ while others think he is a conservative. just wondering.
Layman: really? you really should read what I say before you decide if I’m right or wrong. Where did I say I didn’t think he should be charged with wreckless endangerment? You said you thought that “Bet even you could make that case! ” I didn’t say I couldn’t ‘make the case’ I only said I wouldn’t pursue it because, of the known evidence, there is nothing to indicate that he did anything wrong. I did say: “Once the chips are on the table and all the true facts(presumably) are known, then I will decide what I think is the truth.” which to me means that if and when the ‘truth’ is revealed and it indicates guilt then I will go with that. There is certainly evidence that might be used either way, but as far as evidence that clearly indicates that Zimmerman is ‘guilty’ I just haven’t seen it and I certainly would be entertained to read any fact that is known to be a fact (not simply someones interpretation) that does indicate guilt of either party. Stating that the facts aren’t known is not novel. I think when the special prosecutor releases some info, then we’ll have their best guess as to what happened. If and when that info is presented to a jury, if it ever is, and they find someone guilty or not guilty, then we will have a fairly good guess as to what is fact and what is not.
Layman, just curious. Is your mind made up? who caused Martin’s death? What evidence have you seen or heard that convinces you ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ of which one was the instigator? What is there about this ‘evidence’ that leads you to the conclusion that it’s not just ‘someone’s version’ of the truth? I’ve read all the info on this site and a lot other places and I just really don’t know. There is nothing that is ironclad to me either way. I strongly suspect a lot of emotion is involved. I’m sure that soon we will have a better handle and can then make an educated guess/or determination. We give people trials for a reason, not all of the people that go on trial are convicted. I think it is without question that 100% of the people that go to trial are believed to be guilty by the DA. If 100% got convicted,there would be no reason to have a trial, would there?
Alan Dershowitz, noted liberal and longtime Harvard Law Professor, has a very good piece out on this today which is probably the most professional estimation I’ve seen yet. Well worth reading, since he’s actually gone through the self-defense statute and tried to figure how both prosecution and defense would use it to make their case.
this statement I can agree with completely:
“On the basis of the evidence currently in the public record, one likely outcome of the case against George Zimmerman is a mixed one: There may be sufficient evidence for a reasonable prosecutor to indict him for manslaughter, but there may also be doubt sufficient for a reasonable jury to acquit him.
Any such predictions should be accepted with an abundance of caution, however, because the evidence known to the special prosecutor, but not to the public, may paint a different picture. It may be stronger or weaker.”
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/10/opinion/dershowitz-trayvon-prosecutor-nightmare/index.html?hpt=op_t1
he also goes on to make the same point I made previously in this thread; under the statute, what matters more than anyone else is who initiated the physical confrontation. If Zimmermann tracked down Trayvon and grabbed him, then it’s not self defense, but if Trayvon doubled back and sucker punched him, then it probably is.
He has a good rundown of just how thorny the legal issues are here:
“Though this statute is anything but a model of clarity, it does suggest that whoever “provokes” a deadly encounter has a heavy burden of justification in claiming self-defense. But the statute doesn’t define “provokes,” and that ambiguous word may hold the key to the outcome of this tragic case.
If provocation is limited to a physical assault, and if Zimmerman’s account that Martin blindsided him with a punch is believed, then Zimmerman did not provoke the encounter. But if provocation includes following the victim and harassing him, then Zimmerman may well qualify as a provocateur. Moreover, a jury may believe that Zimmerman started the physical confrontation by grabbing Martin. This would almost certainly constitute provocation.
But to complicate matters further, even a provocateur has the legal right to defend himself under Florida law if he can’t escape and if he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, as Zimmerman claims he was.”
and with regard to whether or not he will be indicted:
“All she needs in order to indict is probable cause that a crime has been committed. A jury that ultimately decides whether the defendant is guilty needs much more: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But what if a prosecutor concludes that there is both probable cause and a reasonable doubt?
That is the nightmare scenario that this prosecutor may well face. In ordinary circumstances, most prosecutors would not bring such a case, because it would be a waste of resources to indict someone who will probably be acquitted. But this is anything but a run-of-the-mill case.”
God!!! I AM SO DEPRESSED!!!
Home sick today and listening to local talk radio. Call after call from self identified conservatives who announce that they won’t vote for/support Romney or worse – that they’ll vote for Obama. Theory is let him burn the country down so “a true conservative” can take over and make the country rise like the Phoenix from the ashes.
Came here for therapy and then read RT’s post on the previous thread (now closed) and this thread. Drinking is out since I’d puke. Maybe ritual suicide…
Layman, I share your pain. While I’m depressed that we couldn’t nominate anyone to run that is even slightly conservative, I still can’t believe there are people in this world that think Obama would be better for 4 more years and almost anyone else. Now if he’ll just pick Ryan to run with him, I’ll feel okay about voting for him. It’s hard to listen to some of the loons on tv trying to tell us how great Obama is and how great the economy is going. They had to be the Ritalin babies, normal people don’t think like they do.
For those wondering, a ritalin baby is a normal person that has had their brain altered to slow down their thinking.
correction:
I still can’t believe there are people in this world that think Obama would be better for 4 more years ‘than’ almost anyone else.
RT:
Ryan is great but I’m not sure he is the best choice. I’d rather have him in the House as champion of sane budgets. Also, we need a solid majority in the Senate, let’s not forget that.
On the previous thread I stated Sarah Palin wasn’t ready for prime time. You went into a diatribe about Obama not being ready for prime time. I never mentioned Obama once. Of course he wasn’t ready! But I thought everyone knows that he has the mainstream media behind him, refusing to vet him, making excuses for all his shortcomings. The post wasn’t about Obama.
The flip side of the coin, as I thought everyone knows, is that the MS media is going to go after any conservatice/republican/Obama opponent. They will do their best to make them look bad. Being ready for prime time means knowing this, being prepared for the attack, and being able to turn the tables. Sarah Palin was not ready for prime time in 2008. Sorry but it’s a fact. She couldn’t even come up with a coherent answer to Couric about her reading habits. She is much better now and if her current persona could be transplanted back to 2008 she’d kick butt.
So as you’re fond of saying, please read what I wrote. I offered a challenge. Please name me a conservative/Tea Party favorite who has at least four years in the national spotlight and has handled him/her self well. That is a person who is ready for prime time. Its about their ability to handle the upcoming shameless media assault. It has nothing to dowith Obama.
Layman, you are absolutely correct. I did read what you said but I threw in the statement about Obama just to show that nominations aren’t always made on qualifications. But, I think I do agree with you on Palin. She would/should get a good woman’s vote, conservatives vote. I do agree she is much better prepared having dealt with the MSM for 4 years now. She seems to be an intelligent person, and I certainly have no problem with her, in fact, I’m gonna go along and say she is now my first choice. You made your case.
As I said in another place, the thing we have to fear most in this election is ‘voter fraud’. Supported by the DOJ, it will be rampant.
Just out. WAPO saying Zimmerman will be charged. Notice that leak was to the MSM?
As I predicted, Zimmerman will be “offered up” and I predict will be convicted, to please the gods of political correctness, and the Obama voters.
No verdict of innocence can be allowed, or there will be Rodney King type eruptions all over the country. Zimmerman is a dead man regardless.
The result, self defense laws, gun laws, will be changed in some states and cities. If your “white,” defending yourself against assault by a non-white assailant will become legally much more dangerous.
The insane are in charge!
No surprise about Zimmerman. The all seeing eye predicts…
They’ll charge him with a count of manslaughter, a count of wreckless endangerment, a count of unlawful discharge of a firearm, a count of political uncorrectness, whatever.
They won’t plea bargain, that would make them look bad, and they must appease the peasants with the pitch forks. They’ll go to trial and he’ll get convicted of some very minor offense, maybe parking his truck illegally. Then they can say, “See! The system works.”
OL: What are you talking about? This doesn’t effect white people. Zimmerman isn’t white. He’s a white hispanic. Don’t you read the (toilet) paper of record?
Chuckle
Redteam
Just saw your question regarding Romney —> “I was wondering is why so many think he’s not ‘conservative’ while others think he is a conservative. just wondering.”
I’m probably going to be repeating myself in my answer…however, I am correlating Reagan with Romney, more and more as time goes on.
Reagan was viewed suspiciously by many conservatives too, when he ran in 1980. He was a former democrat, was governor of a ‘moderate’ state (CA), had made some unfavorable decisions (such as signing an abortion bill) showing to many that he didn’t have the right credentials to be called a good conservative. Romney has a similar background: was a former independent, was governor of a deep blue state (MA), and signed into legislation an unfavorable state HC bill to conservatives, and was more a moderate on abortion views until 2005.
Conservatives, basically, are more comfortable and supportative with those who dramatically wear their values on their sleeve, more than the ones who come by them slowly through trial and error.
However, I have to say that I am mystified by those who have been so supportive of Santorum and Gingrich (not meaning to step on your toes, as I know you liked Gingrich). In my eyes, both of these men have erratic records themselves, indulging in big government remedies, Santorum dealing with union, axing RTW laws etc., and Gingrich flirting with global warming, the big HC industry lobby, doubling earmarks when he was speaker, and being a philanderer to boot — why aren’t these more in the conservative headlights?
So, maybe there is a personal nuance to conservatives being hesitant to support Romney. Maybe there is a religion problem or even a wealth one.
???????????????????
As for why do some think Romney is conservative..here are my own reasons: I like someone who lives by conservative values rather than just preaching them. And I think Romney’s personal/professional life has shown this value. I am also comfortable with someone who has acknowledged an evolution to their value system. When one is younger they tend to be more liberal, than when they mature and essentially grow up. I was that way, making the political rounds in my youth, and ended up being a “pulling-yourself-up by the bootstraps conservative” when I became a self-supporting adult.
Ironically, the DNC is making the case for Romney as to why he should be considered ‘severely conservative’ by the voters, with the admission of this political ad.
BTW: I don’t know if any of you saw this or not —> George Zimmerman to be charged in Trayvon Martin shooting, law enforcement official says.
Layman,
For the sake of the “sacrifical ceremony”, the priests race mongering, have clearly deemed him “white”. And may God have mercy on this man because the Attorney General of the United States will not.
OL
Perhaps Alan Dershowitz will take his case.