General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy does the media want Zimmerman to be found not guilty?
Why does the media want Zimmerman to be found not guilty?
it proves Jesus rode a dinosaur?
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)I don't know that I do. I have only seen one tv report on it amazingly and it seemed fair. I still see it as a 50/50 situation in court.
dkf
(37,305 posts)I think it will be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not in fear of his life.
I guess the prosecution will have to prove Zimmerman illegally profiled Martin and therefore has no right to self defense?
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)The prosecution has more avenues than the one you suggest. They don't "have" to prove your point.
As much as you may try to constrain them, they have far more latitude than you suggest.
dkf
(37,305 posts)In the articles I've seen, there isn't a witness saying it was Martin. Martin's parents lawyers are relying on "ear witnesses" who say they thought it was a young person screaming, but I would think eye witnesses are better for ID.
Also Tracy Martin didn't ID the voice as being his son.
sendero
(28,552 posts).... I'm 99% sure it is ABSOLUTELY POSSIBLE to determine who was screaming.
And personally, as I have said all along, the entire case hinges on that fact.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)Voice prints and filtering techniques have been around for decades. I'm surprised the media hasn't been reporting extensively on this, perhaps offering reports on past cases that were solved using this technology.
I know it was fiction but I was intrigued with the plot from "The Conversation" (1974) with Gene Hackman and how he was able to electronically manipulate a recorded conversation so that he could hear the words clearly that were originally muddled by distracting noise. Fiction? Yes, but the movie was made 38 years ago and I doubt if it strayed too far from what could have been done at the time.
And that was 38 years ago.
I tend to believe both sides of the Z-Man case know who it really was, but won't say in fear of tainting their trail strategies...
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)By the CNN Wire Staff
updated 1:07 AM EDT, Sat April 7, 2012
...
Who yelled for help?
...
"From the very beginning and I still do feel that it was the young boy," the witness, who wants to remain anonymous, told CNN Friday.
The witness lives in the apartment complex where the shooting occurred and saw the incident through her window.
...
When pressed if she could determine who was yelling, the witness said "it was the younger, youthful voice (rather) than it was the deep voice I heard when they were arguing."
...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/07/us/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
The video of this CNN interview is here:
http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/04/07/ac-trayvon-martin-eyewitness.cnn
This has been posted here multiple times. Strange that you missed it...
randome
(34,845 posts)That's not going to work at trial.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)...but her eyewitness testimony on the witness stand is what will count, not her phrasing in a media interview.
How can you tell that her testimony won't "work at trial" when the trial hasn't begun and she hasn't yet testified?
randome
(34,845 posts)Even at trial, a good defense attorney will quote that statement to give doubt to the jury.
Zimmerman is going to get manslaughter at best. It's sad but that's how this is shaping up.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Why is that?
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Why is it that, from the get-go, you have insisted on defending Zimmerman?
dkf
(37,305 posts)If the law said what he did was manslaughter I would be arguing for that.
I am viewing this case as if I was on a jury.
Also, the recently released evidence seems to support Zimmerman's account which goes to his credibility.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Like this interview, which has been posted here multiple times. Why is that?
frylock
(34,825 posts)TBF
(32,109 posts)Spin, spin, spin ... but you can not change that fact. If he had stayed in his vehicle like 911 told him to none of this would've happened.
randome
(34,845 posts)At least not from the standpoint of a murder charge.
Not staying in his vehicle is not a crime.
Hopefully, causing a kid's death will still be viewed as a crime and Zimmerman will get at least manslaughter.
TBF
(32,109 posts)I hope you're prepared for the riots if this is manslaughter or less.
randome
(34,845 posts)Yavin4
(35,447 posts)Please explain.
dkf
(37,305 posts)TBF
(32,109 posts)Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)Between police foul ups, the prosecution's unwillingness to look in to official misconduct, and the nature of the district where the trial will be held, I don't see much hope for a conviction.
randome
(34,845 posts)From the standpoint of reporting on something that viewers will want to hear more and more about if only to be outraged.
But I don't think the media has been that biased in this case so far.
SDjack
(1,448 posts)and those stories increase sales of newspapers and TV time.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)found OJ Simpson not guilty.
Legally he was exonerated, but everyone will know he did it.
razorman
(1,644 posts)When this incident first came to light, there was talk of 'Stand Your Ground' as a factor, but I haven't actually heard of it being officially used. I could be wrong, though. Does it really have any bearing here?
dkf
(37,305 posts)razorman
(1,644 posts)spanone
(135,897 posts)Iggo
(47,574 posts)I really believe they know they are attempting to stoke the flames.
razorman
(1,644 posts)I am concerned that the Martin/Zimmerman incident might inflame the already-touchy relations between the African-American and Hispanic communities in Florida. No matter which way the verdict goes, one group or the other will likely feel cheated. I just hope it doesn't lead to violence.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)It's why the media has done nothing to slow down the war machine. No offense meant to Jews, Armenians, or any other genocide victims, but if the media found way to make money off of concentration camps, they would.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)That can only happen on terms acceptable to a conservative institution, such as corporate-owned media, if white men with guns are allowed to continue shooting black youths in hoodies with impunity.
Armed vigilantes, such as Zimmerman, are characters in an eternal morality play that is supposed to teach us lowly consumers of TV news how to maintain our proper place in society - that includes obedience to men with guns. Note the central role of ABC in releasing exculpatory evidence. A conviction would undermine that narrative, and might deter future spontaneous violence against lower-class Black youths. Programmed acts of social violence not only "sells newspapers", it keeps money and power in the hands of the One Percent, and many reporters seem to relish working these racially-tinged crime stories to death. Look at the OJ Simpson spectacle.
As for race/class, and the role of individuals that's become more complex, and more difficult to handle in recent decades. There is still racial avarice at work in this narrative ("F-cking coons), but it is no longer acceptable to attack an adult black man wearing a suit or in uniform, as it was in the '50s in many parts of the US. There's a reason that Obama is rarely seen in public without his trademark power suit. That signifies his elevated status as a non-target, which maintains the existing power structure, despite his race.
I know that's very dry and academic, but it's also the answer that fits your question.
it may be dry and academic but it's also the correct answer imo.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)good insight...
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)I think at least some of the higher-up media execs want to troll the president...Once he gave an opinion on this, it was open season...
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Any "trolling" would be superficial turf-marking - little more meaningful than dogs peeing on trees.
One second thought, perhaps you are right. The takedown of Murdoch is a significant event (even though the authorities seem to be publicly ignoring the larger crimes of Murdoch and NewsCorp -- political influence-buying in the UK, Australia and US as a corporate agent of Saudi Arabia and its chief propagandist in the west).
But, I don't really think this is so much directed at Obama as it is a way to reaffirm the traditional narrative of social control over poor minorities. Can't allow a heroic "Neighborhood Watch Captain" to be fed to the rabble. Better to uphold him as a National Hero and protector of all that is good and safe in Florida.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Last edited Fri May 18, 2012, 11:12 AM - Edit history (1)
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)which spans from the pre-history of the country to today, Juan Gonzalez found that the media has always taken a leading role in reaffirming the narrative of social control over poor minorities, even to the point of organizing violence.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)They want to sell advertising space so that other companies can sell shit. They'll respond to ANY outcome of the case in whatever manner they believe will make them the most money.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...a for-profit enterprise is to make money.
They media will publish things that run counter to the politics of their masters when it suits them. That's why people like Rachel Maddow can get long-running shows at the most prime times.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)I don't think that Rachel runs counter to the acceptable lines of political discourse in America today. She helps define them for one market segment. The fact that she's still working, and won't touch certain subjects, should tell you that.
If it were all about ratings, Olbermann would still be on Countdown five nights each week.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...exactly what she believes.
I believe that if significant restrictions were put on what she could say, she would quit.
If it were all about ratings, Olbermann would still be on Countdown five nights each week.
Sometimes working with a person becomes so much of a PITA that bosses just can't take it any more.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)The media needs to get you to read their site, buy their papers, etc. I don't think there is a real agenda here so much as a drive for sensationalism to make profits. For example, every media outlet yesterday and today are doing Donna Summers retrospectives. Tomorrow it will be the next shiny thing.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)it in a country with the diversity and growing inequality of America, today. The agenda is property, and those with most of it holding onto what they have by any means necessary. Always has been.
You're trying to deny the obvious, I'm afraid.
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)control and profits. That "property" has lost a lot of its clout
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Shift from soft to use of hard power domestically is a leading indicator of our loss of world power and the breakdown of gov't legitimacy.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)watch or read MSM after Operation Shocking and Awful (other than rare link outs from DU or DailyKos), so I honestly have very little idea how MSM is spinning the story.
This is the self-same MSM that pretty much signed on wholesale (McClatchy chain excepted) to the idea of WMD in Iraq.