April 2, 2012

"Is the Trayvon Martin walkback becoming a stampede?"

"'Heckuva job by the media. We may have race riots in Florida so I hope they enjoyed their time on the fashionable side of this story.' Stay tuned."


«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 232 of 232
Ralph L said...

Hispanics are learning they're only a partial minority, useful depending on their utility to the issue at hand
Looks like Obama would want to shut this down, instead of stoking it. But he's been politically foolish before, esp. when race is a part of it.

Original Mike said...

"And you know it"

You're sounding like Jeremy now.

Lem said...

This is not the first time a family cries racism and the media and the politicians fall in line... until the slow wheels (help me out here Chikenlit) of justice churns and turns the media and the politicians with a severe loogie on their faces.. or something.

Michael McNeil said...

All this reliance on forensic “science” having identified with a such-and-such probability that Zimmerman or Martin was the yeller on the 911 tape is sheer fantasy. Forensic science, so called — except with regard to DNA evidence — is rife with inaccuracies and errors, probably more so with regard to voice analysis than in almost any other way.

A few years ago (Feb. 18, 2009) the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) issued a report stating (as a news article in the scientific journal Nature put it) that “the US forensic-science system is fragmented, underfunded and poorly supported by research…. The judiciary system relies on forensic science to link evidence to a suspect, but only nuclear-DNA analysis has been shown to make such connections reliably.”

Another Nature piece further stated that forensic science “is currently experiencing a crisis, which has been brewing since the advent of DNA profiling in the 1980s. Because DNA analysis had already been thoroughly validated in the academic context, its introduction raised the scientific bar for all forensic techniques — and many of them have been found wanting…. The [NRC] report pointed out, for example, that fingerprint analysts' long-standing claims of zero error rates were not scientifically plausible. Almost all of the techniques in use in forensic labs today — from ballistics to analyses of handwriting, shoe prints and blood patterns — came in for criticism. The NRC's message to forensic science was clear: either drag yourself out of the nineteenth century, or the police and the courts will sideline you.”

Here's a link to the page at the National Academies (of Science, et al.) concerning this NRC report, and to the report itself.

Lem said...

Media Manipulation..

We may be seeing the same thing all over again.

Fen said...

All this reliance on forensic “science” -

Its moot anyway.

The "experts" the Orlando Sentinel cited are only experts because they created a Board to delcare themselves experts.


This would be hysterical if a man's life wasn't at stake.

Luke Lea said...

From Wikipedia: "And according to the latest annual report on murder by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, most inter-racial murders involve black assailants and white victims, with blacks murdering whites at 18 times the rate that whites murder blacks."

If the subject is inter-racial violence why isn't this part of the discussion?

Saint Croix said...

White vigilantes?

Why the racist slip-up there, St Croix?

I was mocking you, Fen.

JAL said...

I'll go out on a limb and say that if this voice analyst said it was Zimmerman, Instapundit, you, and everyone else on the right would be his biggest backer

I can't speak for the others.

What I need to form an opinion about this kind of thing is evidence which is grounded in reality. That means tests which have demonstrated validity and can be reproduced by others. Results which are iffy are iffy, no matter who produces them.

I do some reading in other topics (not legal) where evidence and reproducability and validity are critical.

I also see that some people like being heroes. Some like being close to the drama. Some people like 15 minutes of fame.

Just saying.

Many of the comments here are pointing out the problems in some of the irresponsible and near crazy things being alleged as "truth." Many of these same commenters also state they do not know what the actual facts are and what actually happened.

How about some intellectual honesty.

Toad Trend said...

It is curious, the stampede of the press to join the race-hustling left.

Just another case of 'not doing your homework', perhaps???

There seems to be a lot of that going around, and plenty of 'folks' willing to push that rope.

So, Trayvon was out in the rain, apparently to go to the 7-Eleven for 'candy'.

Riiiiight. Anyone seen this sweet young boys' twitter feed???? Sorry, pretty indefensible.

Maybe, a better understanding of what tea and skittles is, exactly, might shed some light. Or, maybe if we had some information about what he bought that evening, and in what store??? Is that really available??? Toxicology, anyone???

Aridog said...

garage mahal said...

He could be. But ask yourself, would your reaction been the same had he stated that it *was* Zimmerman? Absolutely fucking not. And you know it.

Wow, g-m, you sure you're not Todd Rundgren ... sure do seem to insist a event that didn't happen proves something that did but is dubious. But, hey, bang on .... it's amusing.

Aridog said...

Well, Garage Mahal gets the Todd Rundgren Award for this thread. Banging away insisting something that did not happen proves the validity of something dubious that did happen. Bang away, man, it's amusing ....

Aridog said...

Damn ... it happened again, put up a comment, Blogger ignores it, this time for over 6 minutes, then posts it when I post again. Better than last time, when I got the WV right, and a remark disappeared in to the ether.

Fen said...

White vigilantes?

Why the racist slip-up there, St Croix?

Saint Croix: I was mocking you, Fen.

Oh I get it, you think I'm white.


Brian Brown said...

traditionalguy said...

The father somehow has told the locals what he expects for them to do and someone made a call to to the Florida higher ups who showed up did it

Could you be any more over the top and obscene?

Toad Trend said...

Jay, Fen, I guess we just haven't been steeped in the culture of tea and skittles.

I know, I know, he's such a good boy, and probably would look like the son of Teh Won if he had one.

Brian Brown said...

garage mahal said...

Like I said, if ABC were reporting what you wanted to hear, or if the voice analyst was saying what you wanted to hear, you'd be banging on the drum all day.

Nice bit of projection.

But it is revealing that you can't bring yourself to offer even token criticism of your little hobby horses under any circumstances at all.

Brian Brown said...

traditionalguy said...

The father somehow has told the locals what he expects for them to do and someone made a call to to the Florida higher ups who showed up did it

I still can't believe you actually typed this on the Internet.

At least the anonymity allows for us to not know who you really are, which would be so embarrassing for you, I can't really even articulate it.

I would feel sorry for you, but you're nothing but a hate monger at this point, aiming to sow racial division.

traditionalguy said...

Jay...What motivates your compulsion to go directly into the ad hominum attack mode to defend the Zimmerman's story about being attacked by the Martins?

The Zimmermans have never been the victims. They have been the ones carefully stirring up a racial call to arms as a smoke screen to hide behind.

The cover up is falling apart. Now what will you do?

Bruce Hayden said...

"Hispanic" isn't a racial group and never has been. The overwhelming majority of Hispanics are white, although there is a substantial black minority (a legacy of the slave trade, same as here).

Actually, from where I am from, esp. in the west and south-west, Hispanics tend to be a mixture of American Indian (i.e. Oriental/N Asian) and white, ranging from almost pure Indian through pure Spanish (such DoI Sec. Salazar). It is only when you get into the more Caribbean Hispanics that you see much black blood. Figure close to zero in the border and western states. More Indian than anything though throughout much of the Americas. You just don't always notice it, here in the U.S., because the leadership of these countries, esp. Mexico, tended to remain very White. You just don't always immediately think "Indian" because the predominant Indian type there is different than that we now see in the Southwest - which I believe mostly came from another, later, migration, out of a different part of Asia. Plus, the Spanish language TV tends to use European looking actors, to a very great extent. Again, the class/color dynamic.

But, we are talking here Florida, where the Hispanics traditionally were much different than we see here in the Southwest.

Bruce Hayden said...

Had the Police Chief and the State's Attorney acted as professionals from the start, there would be no "looming race riots". Had there been an arrest and a grand jury presentment, with or without an indictment, none of us would know of Trayvon or George.

I'd love to know what circumstances brought these two clowns to the scene that night. Something smells

The problem is that if there had been a presentment to the Grand Jury, there is a distinct possibility that there would not have been an indictment, and if there had been an immediate arrest by the cops, Zimmerman would have been released when it came time to go before a judge.

Much more likely than the other way, the way it often works is for cops to arrest and prosecutors to release. Why? Because the cops are working from personal knowledge, instinct, and gut feelings, while the prosecutors are operating from the record (including the 911 calls) and the law.

As a non-criminal attorney, touching this area, I have seen it more than once. For example, in one case, cops arrested a guy for refusing to take a roadside sobriety test. Eventually blew about .10, which by now is DUI. Case dismissed by City Attorney before initial hearing because state case law said that roadside sobriety test was for determining probable cause, and therefore, there was some reason to believe that there wasn't PC for the arrest, otherwise the cops wouldn't have kept insisting on the test. A subtlety that the cops didn't quite get. And, to some extent, they probably arrested because they could, and needed to because the guy had refused to comply with their request.

Here, the problem may have been the FL self-defense laws, which require that if someone asserts self-defense, that the state has to show probable cause to believe that it wasn't.

In the legal world, a lot of states view self-defense as an affirmative defense, which means that the defendant has the initial burden of proof. Not so in Florida, where the state has the initial burden of proof (and, must ultimately prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was not in self-defense).

Think about what the DA's office had the first day - the 911 tapes, the injuries to Zimmerman, his wet back, etc. consistent with his story, along with his claim of self-defense. At that point, why would they believe that the killing was more likely than not, not done in self-defense? It may not have been self-defense, but initially, there seems to have been at least as much evidence that Zimmerman's story was true, than that it wasn't. And, that means that they could not legally arrest him at that time.

Brian Brown said...

traditionalguy said...
Jay...What motivates your compulsion to go directly into the ad hominum attack mode to defend the Zimmerman's story about being attacked by the Martins?

Um, pointing out you're a liar (and basically a dupe) is not "defending Zimmerman"

I'm sorry you can't understand that.

But your silly racism and conspiracy theories are a continued embarrassment.

Brian Brown said...

The cover up is falling apart

There is no "cover up"

And every bit of available evidence indicates your preferred narrative didn't happen.

You haven't posted a single fact about this case.

Everything you've said has been abjectly false.

Which of course would leave anyone with common sense and a brain to examine what they believe.

You'll stick to the narrative.

Bruce Hayden said...

MSNBC, et al. made George Zimmerman into a public figure by falsely reporting about him, and they can't later hide behind that higher public-figure standard when he sues them for defamation (or would it be "false light," assuming FL recognizes that cause of action?). His burden of proof in a defamation action is the least of his worries, right now.

This is the way that it should work, but not clear if it is the way that it actually does.

What LM was talking about is the NYT v. Sullivan standard, where defamation claims by public figures requires proof of actual malice, while those against everyone else requires a lower standard. So, the key is in determining whether or not the victim is a public figure.

In the case of Sandra Flake, she thrust herself into the public arena through volunteering to "testify" before that fake Congressional committee. And, for that reason, I don't think that there is any good reason to believe that the actual malice standard would apply.

But, this is very different. Zimmerman didn't set out to become a national figure. And, likely, if he had any way of knowing in advance what was going to happen that night, would have stayed in his car.

There is the big question of whether the media can make someone a public figure merely by reporting about them. But, in this case, part of why Zimmerman became a national figure is that the media, and in particular, NBC and MSNBC mis-reported.

In other words, if Zimmerman is held to be a public figure, then the reality will be that if they lie, then they may be liable, but if the lie is big enough to get the national media involved, then somehow a much higher standard would be required for proving defamation claims.

That said, I would far prefer being on the Zimmerman's side in any litigation against NBC/MSNBC. The smoking gun is doctored 911 tape. Given that the doctored tape strongly implies racism on the part of Zimmerman, that is not evident from the original tape, I think that being able to prove actual malice is likely.

Remember back to Ms. Flake and her fake "testimony"? Some suggested that Rush's comments about her constituted per se defamation, based on the traditional view that a claim of unchastity was per se actionable. Of course, that wasn't going anywhere, because her testimony suggested just that - unchastity.

Showing the changing times, the one thing today that might rise to per se defamation might be to call someone a racist.

In any case, the easy proof that NBC had faked data to try to portray Zimmerman as a racist would be the type of evidence that would likely prejudice the jury sufficiently to grant him significant damages as a result of a claim by him of defamation by the media outlet.

But, making themselves even more vulnerable, last I knew, they Al Sharpton still had a show on MSNBC, and was seen down in Florida inciting the crowds of blacks around the country to consider this a racist killing. So, not only did a very visible employee of the media outlet agitate openly for the racial angle here, and for racial violence and revenge, they also reported on it in a way that would fan these flames against Zimmerman, and additionally faked data to support those claims of racism.

Like I said, I would love to be on Zimmerman's side in that litigation. Much more fun than playing defense there.

Fen said...

Trad: The Zimmermans have never been the victims.

Other than fearing for their lives, having his rep ruined, having his dreams of being a police officer dashed, and your intent that he become financially ruined by ponying up $100k to defend himself in a show trail.

That's your standard, yes? If we can't take away your right to shoot in self-defense, we'll ruin your life instead.

traditionalguy said...

Jay...The UNavailable evidence is the issue. That is why it is called a cover up.

And what you call the available evidence still needs the sifting cross examination that a trial produces from sworn witnesses who are allowed to explain their answers. And that must be done in a public hearing in a tightly judge controlled room with jurors and skilled lawyers. Then the justice system will have done its job.

Why do you demand that not happen and this end without uncovering any more of the story? Top Secret should be used by the CIA and the State Department. It is not normal to use it in a stupid shooting done in a backwater located somewhere between Orlando and Cape Kennedy called Sanford Florida.

If I am a racist for expecting law and order for all races, colors and creeds, then so be it.

Steve Koch said...


Great point that the overwhelming majority of hispanics in the USA have a significant AmerIndian component in their genetic heritage (on average, a little under 40%).

In Mexico, it seems like as you go farther south, the Mexicans are much more AmerIndian and much less of European descent.

Synova said...

People do tend to be less skeptical of information they feel "sounds right" and to that extent I'd agree with garage.

But I disagree, too. Being less skeptical is a far cry from insisting that something is proof, or failing to take an honest look if someone on the other side points out that voice recognition requires multiple recordings of the person voicing the same words in the same way. So until they get Zimmerman to lay on the ground and scream the same words while they record it through a cell phone to the 911 recording equipment three times the "experts" can't say a dang thing about if it was him or not.

As for being ready to believe what one desires to be true... I've only seen one side of this that has a clearly PREFERRED narrative. Those that have refused that preferred narrative haven't insisted on the opposite. They (we) have been saying that no honest person can be sure what happened and perhaps pointing out that emotions anent proof and fanning the flames is evil.

That's not a case of believing what we want most to believe.

Bruce Hayden said...

Great point that the overwhelming majority of hispanics in the USA have a significant AmerIndian component in their genetic heritage (on average, a little under 40%).

Living in the west and southwest, I am just surprised that it isn't higher. But, that may be accounted for by your figures being national, including Puerto Ricans, Cubans, etc., which may have less Indian blood than do many of the first generation immigrants I see here in AZ. And, I wonder if, given the class component of skin color, esp. it seems in regards to Mexicans, if maybe the skin color of the average Hispanic immigrant (including illegals) is darkening over time. At least along the Mexican border.

Bruce Hayden said...

Great point that the overwhelming majority of hispanics in the USA have a significant AmerIndian component in their genetic heritage (on average, a little under 40%).

Interesting to me though, is that Hispanics seem to overwhelmingly self-identify as "white", almost regardless of the amount of non-white blood they have. (And, I have no problem with that - if more Blacks would self-identify as White, then maybe they wouldn't spend so much time perpetuating racism).

shemish said...

this young thug got exactly whathe deserved SHOT no matter how Zimmerman got there wrong or right,he was down and being beaten and had a god given right to protect himself,only he truly knows if his life was in danger,he was the only one who could"feel"if he was getting to the point of no return,Trayvon Martin,i pity the boys parents BUT have a question for them being a father of 4 i ALWAYS knew exactly where my kids where and with who this boy was underage,how did he get into this position????? SHAME ON YOU you bear much of the resposibilty

shemish said...

all i read is during this so called encounter is this kid called a 16 year old girl to tell her he was being followed and trying to escape......has any one wondered WHY if he thought he was in trouble he didnt call his parents for help????Where were they and why didnt they know EXATCLY where he was,i posted before and i made myself an intrusive pain in my kids asses until they were over 18 some are married and have their own children now and i STILL am an intrusive pain in their asses,WHy hasnt the news media come out and ask the parents WHERE WERE YOU?HOW IS IT A 17 YEAR OLD WAS NOT UNDER YOUR THUMB?WHY DIDNT HE CALL YOU??THIS WAS A CHILD UNDER YOUR CARE!!!IF ZIMMERMAN GETS CHARGED AS FAR AS I AM COnCERNED YOU GET CHARGED WITH HIM

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 232 of 232   Newer› Newest»