Will you Donate to Zimmerman Website??

[Bob E.]

Over the three day St Patrick's day "celebration" in Chicago's South Side 49 people were shot. Ten died. No vast public outcry for justice has been heard.  Had Zimmerman and Martin been of the same race, I submit, no outcry would have been heard in the FL case. This is race baiting and media hype at a disheartening level.

I would submit that there would be no outcry in this case either if:

1.  The police/local DA had done a better job of explaining why charges were not warranted from the beginning.

2.  The parents had just given up and not asked for help from so-called "whores" in the media like Sharpton, Jackson, and others.  By the way, isn't it really up to Trayvon's parents to decide if folks like Sharpton were exploiting their son's tragedy for personal gain (being whores)?  After all, they are the ones who asked for their help in bringing attention to what they perceived as an injustice.

I'm not familiar with the Chicago case, but I'm guessing that they have no suspects?  Therein lies the difference with the Martin/Zimmerman case. They had the guy who pulled the trigger and let him go when all appearances (right or wrong) were that they should have arrested and charged him.  And law enforcement didn't do a very good job in managing those "appearances".

[Trynt]

Over the three day St Patrick's day "celebration" in Chicago's South Side 49 people were shot. Ten died. No vast public outcry for justice has been heard.  Had Zimmerman and Martin been of the same race, I submit, no outcry would have been heard in the FL case. This is race baiting and media hype at a disheartening level.

I'm not familiar with the Chicago case, but I'm guessing that they have no suspects?  Therein lies the difference with the Martin/Zimmerman case. They had the guy who pulled the trigger and let him go when all appearances (right or wrong) were that they should have arrested and charged him.  And law enforcement didn't do a very good job in managing those "appearances".

This was a series of shootings not a single event. And I realize S. Chicago is a quagmire. But is laughable to suggest 49 people were shot and the police haven't a single suspect. These shootings lack the racial component of the Zimmerman case. You seem to be a fairly well informed individual, but your own lack of awareness regarding the Chicago shootings underscores my contention. The media determines what gets the play and race baiting plays well.

 Regarding your past post about Zimmerman's status as a "white"; when viewing courtroom video, it is apparent that Zimmerman is hispanic.

[The Anvil]

This was a series of shootings not a single event. And I realize S. Chicago is a quagmire. But is laughable to suggest 49 people were shot and the police haven't a single suspect. This was black on black crime

Do we know this for a fact? That it was black-on-black violence?

By the way, I have a black friend who refers to masturbation as "black-on-black crime". I thought that was funny.

[Trynt]

This was a series of shootings not a single event. And I realize S. Chicago is a quagmire. But is laughable to suggest 49 people were shot and the police haven't a single suspect. This was black on black crime

Do we know this for a fact? That it was black-on-black violence?

By the way, I have a black friend who refers to masturbation as "black-on-black crime". I thought that was funny.

Since all the shooters have yet to be identified facts are difficult to come by. However the South side is divided on racial lines. The shootings took place in the impoverished black and impoverished hispanic areas and many were gang related. So I should not have singled out only blacks.

[Tx Bohemian]

. . .  supposily that's when the aspiring thug, Martin, attacked him.

Hmmmm.  Don't really recall anything about this teenager being "an aspiring thug" . . .

do you have some "secret" information you can provide the rest of us, or is that just your biased opinion?  ???

For starters, this is my opinion. We all seem to have one on this.

Goggle "t. martin drug dealer" and read for yourself.
Paints quite a different picture than what the media was trying to sell.
Has a later picture than what is plastered all over the news.

I might be barking up the wrong tree. Possibly the gold teeth, gangrelated tatoos, tweeter handle, suspected drug dealer tweets are just him expressing himself. And he just liked that style.

Maybe I'm wrong but IMO (again, my opinion) something went terribly wrong in this kids life from the time the "innocent looking 12-13yr old media picture" was taken and the pictures of him 3-4yrs later.

[The Anvil]

This was a series of shootings not a single event. And I realize S. Chicago is a quagmire. But is laughable to suggest 49 people were shot and the police haven't a single suspect. This was black on black crime

Do we know this for a fact? That it was black-on-black violence?

By the way, I have a black friend who refers to masturbation as "black-on-black crime". I thought that was funny.

Since all the shooters have yet to be identified facts are difficult to come by. However the South side is divided on racial lines. The shootings took place in the impoverished black and impoverished hispanic areas and many were gang related. So I should not have singled out only blacks.

Okay, fair enough.

I myself wondered (simply due to the VOLUME of shootings and what's been going on recently) if some of it couldn't be race related.

[Jess from VA]

this incident is why I'm a proponent of the first two rounds or one being a non-lethal round, warning shot if u will.  For the lawyers, how would one be charged if at all for stopping an incident until the police arrived by using a non-lethal round on someone?


We've been thru this before, no warning shots (maybe out on the prairie at long range and nothing but your cows to maim).  

You must not shoot at all unless you are justified in using deadly force.  Then use deadly force.  In a close scuffle where I am about to be being maimed or killed, I could do a leg shot (for the femoral... high thigh) (if I'm sure the guy does not have his own gun), but the truth is you are often better off with a dead guy than a seriously wounded guy, after the fact, in court (in both civil and criminal cases).  You know the wounded guy will swear he was only an innocent passerby or some such fairy tale.

Less than lethal rounds out there are mostly for shotguns, not pistols.  A rubber bullet in your pistol will hurt ......but you could lose your life if you need real bullets the first one or two shots.  Another bad idea.. with a pistol anyway.  

Now a neighborhood watch guy could do very well with a Taser  (not a stun gun) (but I wouldn't carry a Taser without a regular pistol with JHP backup, just like the cops.... some of these guys actually come in groups).  And who wants to be holding a Tazer when your opponent is pointing a .357 at you?

With few exceptions, the considered opinion is .... do not show or draw or shoot a pistol unless you are justified in using deadly force..... then use it.  All or nothing.

Having said this, I have twice shown (drawn, but not pointed) a pistol to make someone stop charging toward me with no good intentions.  Both times he decided he wanted to be somewhere else... and did not run home and call the cops. 

[Jeff K]

http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back

[The Anvil]

this incident is why I'm a proponent of the first two rounds or one being a non-lethal round, warning shot if u will.  For the lawyers, how would one be charged if at all for stopping an incident until the police arrived by using a non-lethal round on someone?


We've been thru this before, no warning shots (maybe out on the prairie at long range and nothing but your cows to maim).  

You must not shoot at all unless you are justified in using deadly force.  Then use deadly force.  In a close scuffle where I am about to be being maimed or killed, I could do a leg shot (for the femoral... high thigh) (if I'm sure the guy does not have his own gun), but the truth is you are often better off with a dead guy than a seriously wounded guy, after the fact, in court (in both civil and criminal cases).  You know the wounded guy will swear he was only an innocent passerby or some such fairy tale.

Less than lethal rounds out there are mostly for shotguns, not pistols.  A rubber bullet in your pistol will hurt ......but you could lose your life if you need real bullets the first one or two shots.  Another bad idea.. with a pistol anyway.  

Now a neighborhood watch guy could do very well with a Taser  (not a stun gun) (but I wouldn't carry a Taser without a regular pistol with JHP backup, just like the cops.... some of these guys actually come in groups).  And who wants to be holding a Tazer when your opponent is pointing a .357 at you?

With few exceptions, the considered opinion is .... do not show or draw or shoot a pistol unless you are justified in using deadly force..... then use it.  All or nothing.

Having said this, I have twice shown (drawn, but not pointed) a pistol to make someone stop charging toward me with no good intentions.  Both times he decided he wanted to be somewhere else... and did not run home and call the cops. 

You also have to be careful with a Taser because if you zap someone while you're physically engaged...

[Chattanooga Mark]

I live outside of Chicago in the western suburbs. Chicago has some of the nations strictest gun laws and we're typically in the top 3 nationwide in gun violence. I'm a white guy who doesn't spend time in the gang controlled areas of the city. Most (90%+) of the gun violence is gang related. One black or hispanic gang member shooting another black or hispanic gang member. You can walk down Michigan Ave. anytime and not see gun related crime. But get too far off the tourist route and you're in the deep stuff.   

Sadly, the most dangerous place for the cities black and hispanic youth is next to another black or hispanic youth. They're simply killing each other over drug, prostitution and money laudering territories. I've even seen many black men interviewed on local television saying "we don't shoot white people, they're our best customers."

So sad,

Mark

[Bob E.]

Over the three day St Patrick's day "celebration" in Chicago's South Side 49 people were shot. Ten died. No vast public outcry for justice has been heard.  Had Zimmerman and Martin been of the same race, I submit, no outcry would have been heard in the FL case. This is race baiting and media hype at a disheartening level.

I'm not familiar with the Chicago case, but I'm guessing that they have no suspects?  Therein lies the difference with the Martin/Zimmerman case. They had the guy who pulled the trigger and let him go when all appearances (right or wrong) were that they should have arrested and charged him.  And law enforcement didn't do a very good job in managing those "appearances".

This was a series of shootings not a single event. And I realize S. Chicago is a quagmire. But is laughable to suggest 49 people were shot and the police haven't a single suspect. These shootings lack the racial component of the Zimmerman case. You seem to be a fairly well informed individual, but your own lack of awareness regarding the Chicago shootings underscores my contention. The media determines what gets the play and race baiting plays well.

 Regarding your past post about Zimmerman's status as a "white"; when viewing courtroom video, it is apparent that Zimmerman is hispanic.

This goes back to my original point regarding the source of outrage over the Travon Martin case.  The outcry (and therefore, media coverage) isn't over the fact that a white guy shot a black guy.  The outrage was over the apparent lack of justice by the police.  They had the shooter and let him go with what appeared (right or wrong...the point is perception) to be little investigation. The race issue came in when it became suspected that little to no priority was given to the case because Travon was just some worthless black kid probably up to no good anyways, and the white guy said he was feeling threatened and acted in self defense, and the police seemed to be just taking his word as good enough.  That was the perception. 

I'm not convinced we have the same thing in the Chicago cases.  Do they have the shooter(s)?  If not, there is nothing to be outraged against, except maybe a perceived lack of effort in finding someone.  And if they do have the shooter and he is being charged, etc., then again, nothing to be outraged against because the system is working.

Also, it is a bit of chicken and egg.  Did the outrage start because of the media coverage? Or did the local outrage draw in the media coverage...thus turning it into a national story?

[Trynt]

Over the three day St Patrick's day "celebration" in Chicago's South Side 49 people were shot. Ten died. No vast public outcry for justice has been heard.  Had Zimmerman and Martin been of the same race, I submit, no outcry would have been heard in the FL case. This is race baiting and media hype at a disheartening level.

I'm not familiar with the Chicago case, but I'm guessing that they have no suspects?  Therein lies the difference with the Martin/Zimmerman case. They had the guy who pulled the trigger and let him go when all appearances (right or wrong) were that they should have arrested and charged him.  And law enforcement didn't do a very good job in managing those "appearances".

This was a series of shootings not a single event. And I realize S. Chicago is a quagmire. But is laughable to suggest 49 people were shot and the police haven't a single suspect. These shootings lack the racial component of the Zimmerman case. You seem to be a fairly well informed individual, but your own lack of awareness regarding the Chicago shootings underscores my contention. The media determines what gets the play and race baiting plays well.

 Regarding your past post about Zimmerman's status as a "white"; when viewing courtroom video, it is apparent that Zimmerman is hispanic.

This goes back to my original point regarding the source of outrage over the Travon Martin case.  The outcry (and therefore, media coverage) isn't over the fact that a white guy shot a black guy.  The outrage was over the apparent lack of justice by the police.  They had the shooter and let him go with what appeared (right or wrong...the point is perception) to be little investigation. The race issue came in when it became suspected that little to no priority was given to the case because Travon was just some worthless black kid probably up to no good anyways, and the white guy said he was feeling threatened and acted in self defense, and the police seemed to be just taking his word as good enough.  That was the perception. 

I'm not convinced we have the same thing in the Chicago cases.  Do they have the shooter(s)?  If not, there is nothing to be outraged against, except maybe a perceived lack of effort in finding someone.  And if they do have the shooter and he is being charged, etc., then again, nothing to be outraged against because the system is working.

Also, it is a bit of chicken and egg.  Did the outrage start because of the media coverage? Or did the local outrage draw in the media coverage...thus turning it into a national story?

I couldn't disagree with you more!

[Bob E.]

Over the three day St Patrick's day "celebration" in Chicago's South Side 49 people were shot. Ten died. No vast public outcry for justice has been heard.  Had Zimmerman and Martin been of the same race, I submit, no outcry would have been heard in the FL case. This is race baiting and media hype at a disheartening level.

I'm not familiar with the Chicago case, but I'm guessing that they have no suspects?  Therein lies the difference with the Martin/Zimmerman case. They had the guy who pulled the trigger and let him go when all appearances (right or wrong) were that they should have arrested and charged him.  And law enforcement didn't do a very good job in managing those "appearances".

This was a series of shootings not a single event. And I realize S. Chicago is a quagmire. But is laughable to suggest 49 people were shot and the police haven't a single suspect. These shootings lack the racial component of the Zimmerman case. You seem to be a fairly well informed individual, but your own lack of awareness regarding the Chicago shootings underscores my contention. The media determines what gets the play and race baiting plays well.

 Regarding your past post about Zimmerman's status as a "white"; when viewing courtroom video, it is apparent that Zimmerman is hispanic.

This goes back to my original point regarding the source of outrage over the Travon Martin case.  The outcry (and therefore, media coverage) isn't over the fact that a white guy shot a black guy.  The outrage was over the apparent lack of justice by the police.  They had the shooter and let him go with what appeared (right or wrong...the point is perception) to be little investigation. The race issue came in when it became suspected that little to no priority was given to the case because Travon was just some worthless black kid probably up to no good anyways, and the white guy said he was feeling threatened and acted in self defense, and the police seemed to be just taking his word as good enough.  That was the perception. 

I'm not convinced we have the same thing in the Chicago cases.  Do they have the shooter(s)?  If not, there is nothing to be outraged against, except maybe a perceived lack of effort in finding someone.  And if they do have the shooter and he is being charged, etc., then again, nothing to be outraged against because the system is working.

Also, it is a bit of chicken and egg.  Did the outrage start because of the media coverage? Or did the local outrage draw in the media coverage...thus turning it into a national story?

I couldn't disagree with you more!

Which part?

[f6gal]

Why the hell does everyone refer to Z as white???

He does NOT look white, he looks Hispanic.  In fact, when I first heard of the story, I was surprised when I saw his pic, because of his surname. 

I guess calling him white works better for the race baiters.

[Serk]

Why the hell does everyone refer to Z as white???

.....

I guess calling him white works better for the race baiters.

And you've answered your own question... 

[Bob E.]

So I'm a race baiter now??  I don't consider myself a race baiter.  There are some that look for race in everything.  I don't.  In fact, I don't even necessarily think Zimmerman is racist...at least not overtly. He may have "profiled" Martin because he was a young black male in a hoodie and there were reports of incidents involving suspects meeting that description.  So Zimmerman may have been suspicious of him for that reason. 

As for whether Zimmerman is "white" or not...put a pic of Martin next to a pic of Zimmerman and ask someone to pick out the white guy.  I'd bet you wouldn't get very many confused looks of "neither".

[Trynt]

Over the three day St Patrick's day "celebration" in Chicago's South Side 49 people were shot. Ten died. No vast public outcry for justice has been heard.  Had Zimmerman and Martin been of the same race, I submit, no outcry would have been heard in the FL case. This is race baiting and media hype at a disheartening level.

I'm not familiar with the Chicago case, but I'm guessing that they have no suspects?  Therein lies the difference with the Martin/Zimmerman case. They had the guy who pulled the trigger and let him go when all appearances (right or wrong) were that they should have arrested and charged him.  And law enforcement didn't do a very good job in managing those "appearances".

This was a series of shootings not a single event. And I realize S. Chicago is a quagmire. But is laughable to suggest 49 people were shot and the police haven't a single suspect. These shootings lack the racial component of the Zimmerman case. You seem to be a fairly well informed individual, but your own lack of awareness regarding the Chicago shootings underscores my contention. The media determines what gets the play and race baiting plays well.

 Regarding your past post about Zimmerman's status as a "white"; when viewing courtroom video, it is apparent that Zimmerman is hispanic.

This goes back to my original point regarding the source of outrage over the Travon Martin case.  The outcry (and therefore, media coverage) isn't over the fact that a white guy shot a black guy.  The outrage was over the apparent lack of justice by the police.  They had the shooter and let him go with what appeared (right or wrong...the point is perception) to be little investigation. The race issue came in when it became suspected that little to no priority was given to the case because Travon was just some worthless black kid probably up to no good anyways, and the white guy said he was feeling threatened and acted in self defense, and the police seemed to be just taking his word as good enough.  That was the perception. 

I'm not convinced we have the same thing in the Chicago cases.  Do they have the shooter(s)?  If not, there is nothing to be outraged against, except maybe a perceived lack of effort in finding someone.  And if they do have the shooter and he is being charged, etc., then again, nothing to be outraged against because the system is working.

Also, it is a bit of chicken and egg.  Did the outrage start because of the media coverage? Or did the local outrage draw in the media coverage...thus turning it into a national story?

I couldn't disagree with you more!

Which part?

That race is not the key factor in the national attention this case has garnered.

If this were really about the lack of  "worth" shown for black (or hispanic) lives the uproar should be ten fold more for the ten Chicago deaths (one of which was a 6yr. old girl BTW). But nothing from Sharpton and a mere peep from the "media" on these ten deaths. Apparently people of color only have value when they are killed by someone who is perceived to be white.

[f6gal]

As for whether Zimmerman is "white" or not...put a pic of Martin next to a pic of Zimmerman and ask someone to pick out the white guy.  I'd bet you wouldn't get very many confused looks of "neither".

I'd take that bet... in fact I'd give you odds.
However, the poll as you present it would skew the results, since it implies you must pick one.  That would be about the same as putting Z's pic next to a blonde, blue-eyed guy and asking ppl to pick the white guy.

A better poll would be to have Z's pic alone and ask if ppl think is white or hispanic.


BTW, I didn't quote you in my previous post and was not referring to you as a race-baiter, rather the media and the high profile, racial polarizing personalities.  The fine Americans are just following suit.

[musclehead]

This was a series of shootings not a single event. And I realize S. Chicago is a quagmire. But is laughable to suggest 49 people were shot and the police haven't a single suspect. This was black on black crime

Do we know this for a fact? That it was black-on-black violence?

By the way, I have a black friend who refers to masturbation as "black-on-black crime". I thought that was funny.

if there is no outcry it was black on black, the odds are very,very high that if a black man is shot it was a black man that did it. 9 out of 10 times according to US department of justice.

in 2009 352 blacks were killed by whites, that includes hispanics. in the same time period 4094 blacks were killed by other blacks according to FBI stats.

[Trynt]

So I'm a race baiter now?? 

As for whether Zimmerman is "white" or not...put a pic of Martin next to a pic of Zimmerman and ask someone to pick out the white guy.  I'd bet you wouldn't get very many confused looks of "neither".

I don't think you're race baiter. You just fail to recognize it when it confronts you.

The question you pose is dishonest because either answer is wrong (neither is "white").  Include a photo of Zimmerman's attorney and ask the same question.

[Bob E.]

Over the three day St Patrick's day "celebration" in Chicago's South Side 49 people were shot. Ten died. No vast public outcry for justice has been heard.  Had Zimmerman and Martin been of the same race, I submit, no outcry would have been heard in the FL case. This is race baiting and media hype at a disheartening level.

I'm not familiar with the Chicago case, but I'm guessing that they have no suspects?  Therein lies the difference with the Martin/Zimmerman case. They had the guy who pulled the trigger and let him go when all appearances (right or wrong) were that they should have arrested and charged him.  And law enforcement didn't do a very good job in managing those "appearances".

This was a series of shootings not a single event. And I realize S. Chicago is a quagmire. But is laughable to suggest 49 people were shot and the police haven't a single suspect. These shootings lack the racial component of the Zimmerman case. You seem to be a fairly well informed individual, but your own lack of awareness regarding the Chicago shootings underscores my contention. The media determines what gets the play and race baiting plays well.

 Regarding your past post about Zimmerman's status as a "white"; when viewing courtroom video, it is apparent that Zimmerman is hispanic.

This goes back to my original point regarding the source of outrage over the Travon Martin case.  The outcry (and therefore, media coverage) isn't over the fact that a white guy shot a black guy.  The outrage was over the apparent lack of justice by the police.  They had the shooter and let him go with what appeared (right or wrong...the point is perception) to be little investigation. The race issue came in when it became suspected that little to no priority was given to the case because Travon was just some worthless black kid probably up to no good anyways, and the white guy said he was feeling threatened and acted in self defense, and the police seemed to be just taking his word as good enough.  That was the perception. 

I'm not convinced we have the same thing in the Chicago cases.  Do they have the shooter(s)?  If not, there is nothing to be outraged against, except maybe a perceived lack of effort in finding someone.  And if they do have the shooter and he is being charged, etc., then again, nothing to be outraged against because the system is working.

Also, it is a bit of chicken and egg.  Did the outrage start because of the media coverage? Or did the local outrage draw in the media coverage...thus turning it into a national story?

I couldn't disagree with you more!

Which part?

That race is not the key factor in the national attention this case has garnered.

If this were really about the lack of  "worth" shown for black (or hispanic) lives the uproar should be ten fold more for the ten Chicago deaths (one of which was a 6yr. old girl BTW). But nothing from Sharpton and a mere peep from the "media" on these ten deaths. Apparently people of color only have value when they are killed by someone who is perceived to be white.

You are right in that the killings in Chicago are no less tragic.  No disagreement from me there.  However, there are killings across the country all the time.  Every one isn't going to be a national story unless there is something different or compelling about them.  Could you imagine what the news would be like if they covered every single murder in the country every single day?  There wouldn't be time for important things like sports or the weather!!  In the case of the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman, the difference was the apparent lack of justice from the police...a perceived breakdown of our social structure and institutions.  The national media didn't get involved until 3-4 weeks after the shooting after picking up on the local outrage over this perceived injustice.  If they had arrested Zimmerman that night and started the process of him having his day in court (or not caught the shooter at all), this story probably wouldn't have made the national news either.  It would have been just another killing.

[The Anvil]

If they had arrested Zimmerman that night and started the process of him having his day in court (or not caught the shooter at all), this story probably wouldn't have made the national news either.  It would have been just another killing.

I can pretty much guarantee that it would not have.

[Bob E.]

As for whether Zimmerman is "white" or not...put a pic of Martin next to a pic of Zimmerman and ask someone to pick out the white guy.  I'd bet you wouldn't get very many confused looks of "neither".

I'd take that bet... in fact I'd give you odds.
However, the poll as you present it would skew the results, since it implies you must pick one.  That would be about the same as putting Z's pic next to a blonde, blue-eyed guy and asking ppl to pick the white guy.

A better poll would be to have Z's pic alone and ask if ppl think is white or hispanic.


BTW, I didn't quote you in my previous post and was not referring to you as a race-baiter, rather the media and the high profile, racial polarizing personalities.  The fine Americans are just following suit.

I don't know...he kinda looks like he could be Italian or perhaps Greek to me.  He lives in FL so I would expect him to have a tan.  I don't even know why we are having a discussion about whether Zimmerman is white or hispanic.  What difference does it make?  I think the only reason it even came up was because that one guy who proclaimed to be Zimmerman's friend said he couldn't be racist because he was hispanic (or latino or whatever).  And besides, we're both right.  He is half white (his dad is white) and half hispanic (his mom is peruvian)

[Skinhead]

apparent lack of justice from the police...a perceived breakdown of our social structure and institutions.  The national media didn't get involved until 3-4 weeks after the shooting after picking up on the local outrage over this perceived injustice.  If they had arrested Zimmerman that night and started the process of him having his day in court (or not caught the shooter at all), this story probably wouldn't have made the national news either.  It would have been just another killing.

If the initial investigation showed no foul, the authorities should have had the stones to back up thier decision.  If the investigation was flawed, by all means, recant your  findings.  But don't cave just because Al and JJ come in and stir the pot!

The blatently biased media spin on this unfortunate event responsible for the "show" that is taking place.  I'm siding with a "not guilty" verdict, although I've learned not to underestimate the stupidity of the majority of jurors (OJ trial is a prime example).

[Trynt]

.

.  I don't even know why we are having a discussion about whether Zimmerman is white or hispanic.  What difference does it make?

Because the NY Times, CNN and Reuters, among others, used the term "white" Hispanic to describe Zimmerman in a transparent attempt to inflame passions and race bait; an effort to which you seem  oblivious.

[The Anvil]

I'd like to point out that within days (actually) HOURS of this becoming national news there were numerous pictures of an individual claimed to be Treyvon Martin. These pictures were posted by a number of hard-right leaning "news" websites. These pictures showed Treyvon Martin with a gold grille, tattoos and in some he had a gun. Problem is; none of them were actually pictures of Treyvon Martin.

Were the people who run these website innocently duped into running misleading photos? I doubt it. But even if they were, shame on them.

Did the rest of the mainstream media overplay it? Did they tug at heartstrings to sell paper and ad time? Absolutely. It was shameful. But let's not be silly enough to suggest that it only works one way and that media outlets were universally portraying Martin as a 12 year old.

[musclehead]

I'd like to point out that within days (actually) HOURS of this becoming national news there were numerous pictures of an individual claimed to be Treyvon Martin. These pictures were posted by a number of hard-right leaning "news" websites. These pictures showed Treyvon Martin with a gold grille, tattoos and in some he had a gun. Problem is; none of them were actually pictures of Treyvon Martin.

Were the people who run these website innocently duped into running misleading photos? I doubt it. But even if they were, shame on them.

Did the rest of the mainstream media overplay it? Did they tug at heartstrings to sell paper and ad time? Absolutely. It was shameful. But let's not be silly enough to suggest that it only works one way and that media outlets were universally portraying Martin as a 12 year old.

"news" ? "websites"?  I've looked all over the web early and only found the angelic 14 year old version of Trayvon.  are these pics still up? I'd like to see'um

[The Anvil]

I'd like to point out that within days (actually) HOURS of this becoming national news there were numerous pictures of an individual claimed to be Treyvon Martin. These pictures were posted by a number of hard-right leaning "news" websites. These pictures showed Treyvon Martin with a gold grille, tattoos and in some he had a gun. Problem is; none of them were actually pictures of Treyvon Martin.

Were the people who run these website innocently duped into running misleading photos? I doubt it. But even if they were, shame on them.

Did the rest of the mainstream media overplay it? Did they tug at heartstrings to sell paper and ad time? Absolutely. It was shameful. But let's not be silly enough to suggest that it only works one way and that media outlets were universally portraying Martin as a 12 year old.

"news" ? "websites"?  I've looked all over the web early and only found the angelic 14 year old version of Trayvon.  are these pics still up? I'd like to see'um

I'll have to look. But I put "news" in quotation marks for a reason. They weren't mainstream sites, but they did claim to be "news".

[Serk]

I'm assuming you're referring to the one fake picture that gained notoriety of the shirtless individual flipping off the camera, originally posted by Twitchy, proved to be fake, and they retracted it and apologized for it:

http://twitchy.com/2012/03/25/why-teamdueprocess-is-important-for-justice/

That one was indeed NOT Trayvon... however, the one with the gold gangsta grillz almost certainly IS him:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/27/media-matters-honcho-sorry-after-blasting-drudge-for-trayvon-photo/

You can choose to believe this is him or not on his twitter feeds, but it sure looks like him to me, on this twitter feed:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/second-trayvon-martin-twitter-feed-identified/

And his other Twitter feed:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/26/the-daily-caller-obtains-trayvon-martins-tweets/

Definitely paints a different story than the one the drive by media is trying to serve us of the sweet innocent twelve year old doe-eyed boy...

[Bob E.]

apparent lack of justice from the police...a perceived breakdown of our social structure and institutions.  The national media didn't get involved until 3-4 weeks after the shooting after picking up on the local outrage over this perceived injustice.  If they had arrested Zimmerman that night and started the process of him having his day in court (or not caught the shooter at all), this story probably wouldn't have made the national news either.  It would have been just another killing.

If the initial investigation showed no foul, the authorities should have had the stones to back up thier decision.  If the investigation was flawed, by all means, recant your  findings.  But don't cave just because Al and JJ come in and stir the pot!

The blatently biased media spin on this unfortunate event responsible for the "show" that is taking place.  I'm siding with a "not guilty" verdict, although I've learned not to underestimate the stupidity of the majority of jurors (OJ trial is a prime example).

Your first paragraph is really my point.  The authorities did a very poor job of shaping and controlling perceptions and appearances...which lead to the outrage.

Your 2nd paragraph...I'd suggest that one of the most important freedoms in our constitution is freedom of the press.  The reason it is important is that it is imperative that the press/media/etc. to point out and highlight areas where our government is going wrong.  It protects us from our government taking advantage of us...or is at least supposed to.  Why do you think those dictatorships in the mid-east shut down the internet as soon as they have protests?  So, based on the perceptions and appearances (valid or invalid) that the police were wrong, I'm glad they created a "show".  Now, there is a problem with "spin" rather than just reporting facts...I'll grant you that.  And unfortunately, our trust in media outlets has been eroded over time.  I don't have an answer for that.

[The Anvil]

Definitely paints a different story than the one the drive by media is trying to serve us of the sweet innocent twelve year old doe-eyed boy...

I'm not making any claims about Treyvon Martin's character. First and foremost; we are NONE OF US angels. When I was Treyvon Martin's age I did all kinds of awesome destructive, hooliganish things. I'm sure Martin had his share of scrapes and teenaged stupidity at minimum.

My only argument here is that spin and manipulation work both ways.

[Bob E.]

.

.  I don't even know why we are having a discussion about whether Zimmerman is white or hispanic.  What difference does it make?

Because the NY Times, CNN and Reuters, among others, used the term "white" Hispanic to describe Zimmerman in a transparent attempt to inflame passions and race bait; an effort to which you seem  oblivious.

I'm not oblivious, I guess I just don't take the bait.  Technically, "white hispanic" is correct since he is half white and half hispanic, isn't he? Either way, to me he looks like a white guy, and like I said before, I'd bet he does to alot of other people too.  I wouldn't consider that race baiting anyways. Why wouldn't saying he was hispanic be race baiting?  Another example, I don't think that questioning whether the police gave preferential treatment because he is white  (ok...half white) is race baiting...any more than questioning whether he received preferential treatment because his dad is/was a judge and pulled some strings is improper.  Suggesting that they did or flat out making those charges could be considered race baiting.  But questioning their motives isn't.  It is a fine line. Sure, some individuals on those channels...and I'd say Fox as well...are guilty of crossing that line and race-baiting some things with this story.  And that is unfortunate.

[Trynt]

.

.  I don't even know why we are having a discussion about whether Zimmerman is white or hispanic.  What difference does it make?

Because the NY Times, CNN and Reuters, among others, used the term "white" Hispanic to describe Zimmerman in a transparent attempt to inflame passions and race bait; an effort to which you seem  oblivious.

  Technically, "white hispanic" is correct since he is half white and half hispanic, isn't he?  

  It is a fine line. Sure, some individuals on those channels...and I'd say Fox as well...are guilty of crossing that line and race-baiting some things with this story.

And technically Obama is a "white African American".  And we all know how often the media has described him as the "first white African American president".

Regarding Zimmerman's appearance;  I know any good progressive should be "colorblind", but I always thought that was a figure of speech. I didn't realize that was a literal. I'm of German heritage and my wife is Irish. If we had a child that resembled Mr. Zimmerman, she'd have some "splainin' " to do.


To paraphrase yourself  ' why were they discussing race at all'? The simple answer is white on black violence fits the "Left's" narrative of racial injustice more easily than hispanic on black violence. Hell without the "white" is just might end up being violence.

You're smearing Fox News when it was MSNBC which deleted the segment of audio tape where the dispatcher  inquired as to the race of Martins, leaving the impression that Zimmerman focused on race? Now that's funny!

[Skinhead]

apparent lack of justice from the police...a perceived breakdown of our social structure and institutions.  The national media didn't get involved until 3-4 weeks after the shooting after picking up on the local outrage over this perceived injustice.  If they had arrested Zimmerman that night and started the process of him having his day in court (or not caught the shooter at all), this story probably wouldn't have made the national news either.  It would have been just another killing.

If the initial investigation showed no foul, the authorities should have had the stones to back up thier decision.  If the investigation was flawed, by all means, recant your  findings.  But don't cave just because Al and JJ come in and stir the pot!

The blatently biased media spin on this unfortunate event responsible for the "show" that is taking place.  I'm siding with a "not guilty" verdict, although I've learned not to underestimate the stupidity of the majority of jurors (OJ trial is a prime example).

Your first paragraph is really my point.  The authorities did a very poor job of shaping and controlling perceptions and appearances...which lead to the outrage.

Your 2nd paragraph...I'd suggest that one of the most important freedoms in our constitution is freedom of the press.  The reason it is important is that it is imperative that the press/media/etc. to point out and highlight areas where our government is going wrong.  It protects us from our government taking advantage of us...or is at least supposed to.  Why do you think those dictatorships in the mid-east shut down the internet as soon as they have protests?  So, based on the perceptions and appearances (valid or invalid) that the police were wrong, I'm glad they created a "show".  Now, there is a problem with "spin" rather than just reporting facts...I'll grant you that.  And unfortunately, our trust in media outlets has been eroded over time.  I don't have an answer for that.

I submit that freedom of the press is most definitely NOT a problem.  The problem is bias, lack of integrity, lack of objectivity, sensationalism, and attempts to influence public opinion by being less than honest.  The problem is not being accountable for your reporting unless your libel and slander is pursued through legal channels, i.e. NBC/GM sidesaddle gas tanks.  Propaganda ministry is more appropriate a term than media outlet.

[MP]

Well, now I get it.  We have our first white black President!  How stupid is that.  White hispanic is the same.

As far as Greek or Italian, you HAVE to be kidding!!

MP

[Bob E.]

apparent lack of justice from the police...a perceived breakdown of our social structure and institutions.  The national media didn't get involved until 3-4 weeks after the shooting after picking up on the local outrage over this perceived injustice.  If they had arrested Zimmerman that night and started the process of him having his day in court (or not caught the shooter at all), this story probably wouldn't have made the national news either.  It would have been just another killing.

If the initial investigation showed no foul, the authorities should have had the stones to back up thier decision.  If the investigation was flawed, by all means, recant your  findings.  But don't cave just because Al and JJ come in and stir the pot!

The blatently biased media spin on this unfortunate event responsible for the "show" that is taking place.  I'm siding with a "not guilty" verdict, although I've learned not to underestimate the stupidity of the majority of jurors (OJ trial is a prime example).

Your first paragraph is really my point.  The authorities did a very poor job of shaping and controlling perceptions and appearances...which lead to the outrage.

Your 2nd paragraph...I'd suggest that one of the most important freedoms in our constitution is freedom of the press.  The reason it is important is that it is imperative that the press/media/etc. to point out and highlight areas where our government is going wrong.  It protects us from our government taking advantage of us...or is at least supposed to.  Why do you think those dictatorships in the mid-east shut down the internet as soon as they have protests?  So, based on the perceptions and appearances (valid or invalid) that the police were wrong, I'm glad they created a "show".  Now, there is a problem with "spin" rather than just reporting facts...I'll grant you that.  And unfortunately, our trust in media outlets has been eroded over time.  I don't have an answer for that.

I submit that freedom of the press is most definitely NOT a problem.  The problem is bias, lack of integrity, lack of objectivity, sensationalism, and attempts to influence public opinion by being less than honest.  The problem is not being accountable for your reporting unless your libel and slander is pursued through legal channels, i.e. NBC/GM sidesaddle gas tanks.  Propaganda ministry is more appropriate a term than media outlet.

Yep...I agree.

[Bob E.]

Well, now I get it.  We have our first white black President!  How stupid is that.  White hispanic is the same.

As far as Greek or Italian, you HAVE to be kidding!!

MP

My point is that to me, he just looks like a white guy.  If anyone never told me he was hispanic, it never would have crossed my mind.

[Bob E.]

.

.  I don't even know why we are having a discussion about whether Zimmerman is white or hispanic.  What difference does it make?

Because the NY Times, CNN and Reuters, among others, used the term "white" Hispanic to describe Zimmerman in a transparent attempt to inflame passions and race bait; an effort to which you seem  oblivious.

  Technically, "white hispanic" is correct since he is half white and half hispanic, isn't he?  

  It is a fine line. Sure, some individuals on those channels...and I'd say Fox as well...are guilty of crossing that line and race-baiting some things with this story.

And technically Obama is a "white African American".  And we all know how often the media has described him as the "first white African American president".

Regarding Zimmerman's appearance;  I know any good progressive should be "colorblind", but I always thought that was a figure of speech. I didn't realize that was a literal. I'm of German heritage and my wife is Irish. If we had a child that resembled Mr. Zimmerman, she'd have some "splainin' " to do.


To paraphrase yourself  ' why were they discussing race at all'? The simple answer is white on black violence fits the "Left's" narrative of racial injustice more easily than hispanic on black violence. Hell without the "white" is just might end up being violence.

You're smearing Fox News when it was MSNBC which deleted the segment of audio tape where the dispatcher  inquired as to the race of Martins, leaving the impression that Zimmerman focused on race? Now that's funny!

I wasn't smearing Fox (or defending MSNBC for that matter), I just added them to your list.  If you want to think they weren't contributing to the race baiting, well I guess we'll just have to disagree there.

As for the "racial injustice", you keep ingnoring my stance that I don't believe the outrage is over a (half) white guy killing a black guy.  It was over the cops blowing it off and at least appearing to not be doing their job.  If they were doing their job, then they weren't doing a good job of conveying that to the public.  The race issue came about because the police dept's motives were under scrutiny and certainly it is valid to question whether race was part of their motive.

[The Anvil]

He looks clearly Hispanic to my eyes Bob.

[Bob E.]

He looks clearly Hispanic to my eyes Bob.

Funny thing is I think he actually looks alot like me...if I lost about 50-60 lbs.  We have the same haircut and goatee.  But ok...you guys win...he looks mexican.