NBC: Liable for Libel?
Friday, October 12, 2012 at 7:29PM 
The very first thing that struck me as exceptionally odd in this George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin fiasco came almost immediately after the news broke that he had shot a teenage boy dead. It had nothing to do with whether he or the victim were black, white, brown, yellow or red. It had nothing to do with color at all. It was simply the fact that he got out of his vehicle with a loaded gun. He knew as soon as he slammed the door shut that he was entering a very dangerous territory; one that immediately compromised his own common sense and sanity. Given what I know today, I feel the same way.
Forget the recording with the dispatcher for a moment. Initially, I paid little attention to it. Whether Trayvon attacked him first or not was not that important to me because, as far as I was concerned, Zimmerman knew exactly what he was capable of doing with that gun when he steadied himself and sidled into the unknown. No one walks with a gun without understanding the possible consequences, and that Kel-Tec PF9 pistol empowered him. It enabled him to play police officer, judge, jury and executioner with all of the bravado of Paul Kersey, and that’s precisely what he did. Paul Kersey was the character played by Charles Bronson in the Death Wish movie franchise. Take away the weapon and George Zimmerman would never have moved stealthily into the darkness, confronting a fictional fear that was as frightful as the shadow he cast on that dreary Sunday night. There was no real danger lurking about; it was created by his need and strong passion to become some kind of legendary hero that haunted his soul for years. He had to prove to himself and others just who he was. To that end, he succeeded, but at a huge loss.
Trayvon Martin was a nobody in the sense that none of us are, but you cannot put a price tag on life. He was a typical teenager who would have spent his teen years in obscurity, like most other boys and girls his age — listening to the songs from Mac Miller’s Blue Slide Park and kickin’ to the rhythmic beats of Akon. His world was different from ours as adults and unless we are in step with the minds of today’s youth, we just don’t get it. Right on and out of sight were as out of sync to him as lunchin’ and tizzle are to us. Certainly, when Zimmerman was lunchin’ that night, Trayvon was in a tizzle. (See: Hip Hop Slang.)
Because of what George Zimmerman did on the night of February 26, Trayvon is classified as either a martyr or a gangsta, when all that really matters is that he should have been left the hell alone. Because of Zimmerman, this child will never walk in his father’s footsteps. He will never become what he aspired to be, whether his mind was made up or not. After all, he was still quite young. He was at an age when aspirations are supposed to run wild. Sadly, he was snuffed out by a thief in the night, whose only screams were for power and glory.
§
My thoughts on this matter have nothing to do with NBC or any other media organization. I think on my own two feet, thank you, and if racism ever crossed my mind because the victim was African-American and the perpetrator was not, I never jumped to that conclusion. Most certainly, had I, it would NOT have been because of something that appeared on the Today show. I’ve learned, like most people, that you cannot trust any one news source. Where the Wall Street Journal runs on the conservative side, for instance, the New York Times is at the opposite end of the spectrum; and since the advent of reporting on newsworthy events, from thousands of years ago, opinions have been an integral part. It’s the nature of the beast. Who remembers the tears flowing from Walter Cronkite’s eyes as he announced the death of JFK on live television? Who could possibly be neutral on the day the Twin Towers fell? As objective as media are supposed to be, they are not, and the only advice I can proffer is to consider all options; listen to every side, considering that all sources are multi-faceted and not always reliable. Remember when WFTV reported that George and Cindy Anthony inked a book deal with Simon and Schuster? Did you ever read that book? Was the story ever rescinded?
This leads me to whether or not NBC should be held accountable for a story that skewed the events of the night of February 26. Quietly, I will tell you that skews and news are pretty much interchangeable these days, but in this case, the report that originated at an NBC affiliate station in Miami, WTVJ, before it aired on the Today show, ran perpendicular to the actual event, where Zimmerman purportedly said:
“This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”
The New York Post reported a slightly different version on the NBC coverage:
“This guy looks like he’s up to no good or on drugs or something. He’s got his hand in his waistband. And he’s a black male.”
The actual transcript of the conversation between Zimmerman and the Seminole County emergency dispatcher clarified the error. Zimmerman did not say it like it was reported:
Zimmerman: 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.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
I will agree that the televised segment made George Zimmerman look like a racist because it appeared that he pointed out Trayvon’s color without being prompted, and that’s simply not true. However, does it rise to the level that warrants a lawsuit and monetary settlement?
I’m not here to defend Zimmerman, but I’m not going to condemn him, either; certainly not on this one. Why? Because I have experience in this field and I can genuinely empathize with him. NBC clearly did him an injustice. The network does, however, have more going for it than meets the press, so to speak. For one thing, did George Zimmerman have a “good” name at the time of the report? While the incident happened over three weeks prior, the news of the event actually broke over a week before the NBC story aired. By then, Zimmerman’s name was already festering, and rumors of racism had already abounded.
§
Many of you are aware of what happened to me during the Casey Anthony case — that I was attacked ferociously and voraciously by a fringe element that labeled me as gay, with AIDS, an alcoholic with DUI convictions, and a convicted felon. Convicted of what felonies, I do not know, but the list didn’t end there, nor did it end with me. My friends and family were insulted and accused of crimes, as well. Names and addresses were published. Online documents, such as tax records, were altered. My parents were supposedly card carrying gay communists with AIDS. Several of my e-mail accounts were hacked. I saw counterfeit documents with my own eyes, so I completely understand why Trayvon’s family shut down his social sites.
I went to the police with what I thought was hardcore evidence on my computer. Granted, it’s not easy to identify creeps that call themselves “DEAD DAVE” and other anonymous names, but they can be found. That’s what computer crimes units are for. While it went nowhere, I also contacted a defamation attorney who helped me tremendously. Ultimately, between the two resources, I gathered comprehensive knowledge of what constitutes libel and what can legally be done about it.
First of all, here’s a quick primer. If it is written, it’s libel. If it is spoken, it’s slander. Both are considered defamation. In NBC’s case, it could be all of the above because it was seen, read, and heard. The problem is, it’s tough to prove and the laws in the United States make it a very difficult nut to crack.
In my case, there was a genuine malicious design. The objective of those people was to destroy me, physically and emotionally. They wanted me dead and said so. That’s what trolls do. In NBC’s case, there was no such intent. Was there bias? Yes. Or maybe no. It depends on which side of the fence you’re on. The media are supposed to remain truthful, but we know that, in today’s world, it’s far from reality; where even reality shows are well-choreographed. While Zimmerman’s supporters will tell you NBC’s report was so slanted against him it was sickening, Trayvon’s people will tell you the complete opposite. NBC will tell you it was a matter of time constraints — editing a story to fit in a defined time slot.
While my trolls wanted me dead, I had no direct threats. No one said they were going to kill me and without any real menace, veiled or otherwise, law enforcement was powerless to act. That’s when I decided to contact a defamation attorney. While I had no money to mount any sort of lawsuit, the attorney did tell me he would freely advise me if I found a local attorney to take on my case. I never did pursue that venue, but he continued to help. One of the key aspects of proving libel deals with search engine standings. A lot hinges on how search terms stack up in the hierarchy, and engines differ in their results. If you do a search for “marinade dave”, how long do you have to scroll before something nefarious shows up? The higher the defamation in the pecking order, the more of a case you may have. Still, in my situation, I couldn’t go after any one person or even a group because no such entity existed. There was no structured organization; no corporation and no headquarters. In Zimmerman’s case, there’s NBC.
So what does Zimmerman have stacked in his favor? Not much, really. When the news broke, he automatically became a public figure. Actually, it began the moment he squeezed the trigger, whether he knew it or not, and just because it wasn’t reported right away, which it was, locally, he was no longer a private citizen. While I was merely a bit player in the Casey Anthony case, he became the star attraction; the center ring in a vast media circus. While media outlets could have looked at me as a culprit in my situation, they chose not to. In Zimmerman’s case, he is either guilty or he’s not, and there’s no in between. I think we’ve already established that the media is not always fair and impartial, and to be frank, there’s no law that forces them to be.
According to The Florida Bar, the “mere fact that a person does not like the way an article portrays him does not entitle him to damages. Rather, a defamatory communication, in its classic definition, is one that tends to hold a person up to hatred, contempt, or ridicule or causes him to be shunned or avoided by others.”
If people are shunning Zimmerman, could it be because of his own doing, not NBC’s?
In Florida law, there’s also the element of substantial proof:
While “truth is a defense” to a claim of defamation, Florida common law has taken that notion slightly further by permitting publishers of allegedly false statements to show those statements are “substantially true” or that portions that are untrue are so insignificant that a typical reader neither would realize the difference nor draw a different conclusion about the plaintiff if the false statements had not been included. In determining, then, whether an article is libelous, Florida courts review the article as if the allegedly false statements had been omitted. If the article purged of the error would not affect the mind of the reader differently, the article is not libelous. This test allows a defendant to demonstrate the general truth of the report, even though some portions may contain inaccuracies.
If we remove the NBC report from what we know to date, would it change our minds about George Zimmerman? Did the report motivate anyone (or enough people) to turn against him by altering their opinion (at that time) regarding whether or not he was a racist, and what kind of adverse effect could it have on his future? Who or what is more to blame, NBC or George himself?
It’s very difficult to prove libel. It’s very expensive, too. Who or what is prompting the defense (or George) to file a suit? Robert, Jr.? Where will the money come from? Because this would be a civil matter, how would his criminal defense attorneys fit into the equation? Zimmerman would be up against a huge corporation, so, unless he is hoping for a quick out of court settlement, what kind of risk is he willing to take considering his odds of winning or losing?
I understand that this situation is far removed from what I went through, but in the case of media, there are issues concerning time constraints that would work in their favor. I question how difficult it would be to prove that the network set out to destroy George Zimmerman’s reputation. One other thing to take into consideration is the competitive nature of an industry where advertising revenue is based on ratings. Scoops are what count. Yes, news outlets should strive for the truth, but tell me honestly, aren’t shocking stories what we really want ? Aren’t they called headlines?
I have one more question that I’d like to address, and this one goes to George Zimmerman’s most ardent supporters. It deals with the goose and the gander. If NBC should be held responsible for destroying his “good” name, who should be held accountable for the horrible smear campaign against Trayvon Martin? What Website(s) wrote: “TRAYVON MARTIN WAS A DRUG DEALER” and “A YEAR OF DRUG USE CULMINATES IN PREDICTABLE VIOLENCE…” with nothing to legally substantiate the claims? Do they fit the description of defamation?
Incidentally, George Zimmerman was on drugs, and that’s the truth. You can’t sue me. Whether he took them that day is something else, but why not try Googling “trayvon martin was a drug dealer” and see what you get on the first page? Hmm… Could that be a lawsuit just waiting to happen?
Cross posted on the Daily Kos
Dave Knechel | tagged Akon, Charles Bronson, Death Wish, Defamation, Hip Hop, Libel, Mac Miller, Paul Kersey, Slander, Walter Cronkite | in Dave Knechel, David B. Knechel, David Knechel, George Zimmerman, Kel Tec PF 9, Kel-Tec PF-9, Marinade Dave, Marinade Dave Knechel, Mark O'Mara, Slimm v. Zimm, Trayvon Martin, Zimm v. Slimm, Zimmerman, marinadedave | Share Article 
LEGAL NOTICE
©David B. Knechel. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this site can be reproduced in it's entirety or in part without expressed written permission by the owner/administrator of this site in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Section 512(c)(3) of the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §512(c)(3). The charges against defendants are mere accusations and the subjects are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.
Reader Comments (123)
Well written, Dave. A lawsuit might also bring some unintended risks and granted, I do not know the answers but I would wonder.
Would discovery in a civil case be more elastic than in criminal court? To my knowledge, a defendant or plaintiff can be asked just about anything in a civil deposition, like prescription rx use. I recall that in the CA, this became moot because the parties agreed to withhold discovery until the conclusion of the criminal case. But let's say some sucker agreed to take the civil case for George and George winds up in the tank for 25 years. I can't imagine that a jury would award him damages, thus said attorney is left out in the cold after years of free work.
Lastly, I see inaccurate stories and retractions all the time. What is it about this particular retraction that make this case litigious?
[Thank you, Porky3100. Yes, a lawsuit could do just that.
I know that the line of questioning is a lot more open in civil suits. NBC, for example, could ask George if he shot Trayvon in cold blood, but we laready know what his answer would be. I don't think a criminal defendant waits to file a civil suit contingent on the outcome of the criminal trial. In Oj's case, for instance, the Goldberg family filed a civil suit because of the bad outcome of the criminal trial. It wasn't money they were after since they knew they would never get paid. All they wanted was justice in one form or another, and they got it. In a case like Zimmerman's, my guess would be that, even if convicted for murder, the civil trial could proceed regardless. If he wins, the proceeds would go to the victim's family, I would say, plus whatever his attorney charges. I would also think that money would have to be set aside to guarantee the attorney's payment regardless of the outcome of the civil trial. Who would want to take a civil case for free? In this case, anyway. Another thing to consider... is he hoping to collect from NBC in order to pay for his criminal defense?
I don't think NBC ever retracted a thing, let alone give an apology. The only statement I read was that the error was due to time constraints. I could be wrong, though. Also, the firings don't amount to an admission of guilt, in case anyone is wondering. People get fired all the time for making mistakes. No way NBC is going to admit to anything.]
Dave I find this article very interesting for a couple of reasons.
1 Mr Zimmerman assaulted a police officer, had domestic violence issues and as it turned out kind of a slacker to his financial obligations.
2. After this News clip aired he sat like a potted plant while his wife lied to a Judge. He hid money and had questionable issues with his passport.
None of this stopped people from sending him money or offering him support. If 1 or 2 do not bother you about a person's character I doubt whether or not if he is a racist will bother you. So imo he has nothing to sue for. If anything they probably helped him rake in more donations. jmo
[You have an interesting perspective, Michelle. I am convinced that many of his donors contributed money because they ARE racist. A lot could just be gun owners. If so, it's a very convoluted view. Recent gunmen that shot up malls and schools legally obtained their weapons. Would the Zimmermites give them full support, too? What makes Zimmerman so right on this? He's already proven himself to be a liar. Therefore, odds are that race is a factor, but not necessarily in the case itself. It could just these fringe groups. Incidentally, O'Mara was in direct contact with one of those blogs. Hmm...]
Dave~~great post and it should generate many comments both pro and con, I hope. Can I say that the length of the post was quite a 'mouth full' and it is difficult to comment on the entire article? That is a lot to swallow and summarize in one little old comment so I may take it a few paragraphs at a time. Before I do my second read of your post, I noticed the following in your response to Porky,
Also, the firings don't amount to an admission of guilt, in case anyone is wondering. People get fired all the time for making mistakes. No way NBC is going to admit to anything.]
Soon after NBC was hauled on the mat re editing the 911 call, they made it known that 3 of their employees were let go. Is it their normal practice to tell the public that they let an employee go for being late for work or hanging around the water cooler too long?
Why did they make it known that 3 employees were fired? Any ideas? What should we take from this? Of course, after consulting with their attorneys, NBC were told how to handle this situation. Appease the public by passing out three pink slips?
You may find this of interest....
NBC has completed its investigation into the mishandling of the police dispatcher’s conversation with George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case. And the process ends with a finding of error, plus an apology. Here is the statement just issued by the network:
During our investigation it became evident that there was an error made in the production process that we deeply regret. We will be taking the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the future and apologize to our viewers.
That apology addresses the “Today” show’s failure to abridge accurately the conversation between Zimmerman and the dispatcher in this high-profile case. This is how the program portrayed a segment of that conversation:
NBC issues apology on Zimmerman tape screw-up
[I think NBC had to make the firings public because this is such a public case, and the error could have had a terrible outcome. Also, did you notice that NBC did not issue an apology directly to George Zimmerman? The network only apologized for the error made in the production process. That's not much of an apology, and it doesn't take much to get fired in the media industry. Someone wanted ratings for the network and it backfired. There had to be a fall guy. In this case, more than one. In any event, does it reach a level that shows it was done with malice? My guess is no, but a jury could easily find it the other way.]
Dave~~and here is a bit more...
NBC and its sister network MSNBC has been under fire for seemingly going out of their way to advance the narrative that Zimmerman, a Hispanic, was racially motivated to kill Martin, a black teenager.
NBC’s Today show aired a doctored 911 call where Zimmerman appears to say, “This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. He looks black.”
That edited version, though, filters out the middle of the call, where the 911 dispatcher specifically asks Zimmerman to describe Martin’s race. NBC apologized on April 3 and said three days later that they fired a producer over the edit, though it has yet to name the former employee.
Read more here....
NBC News Fires Third Employee Over Doctored 911 Call in Trayvon Martin Controversy
Dave~~one more and then I have to get back to my sandbox...a positive ID was made via DNA. It was Jessica...sry off topic..
My opinion....Zimmerman was already being portrayed as a racist before NBC edited and aired the 911 call. At this time, how many people were undecided about Z being motivated to shoot Trayvon because of the color of T's skin? IMO, once they listened to the edited 911 call, they would have thought, "there you go, he is a racist, notice how right away he told the dispatcher that he is black."
The normal person feels that when a reputable news outlet such as NBC, ABC, CNN, CBS, etc air the news, we are getting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There are instances when a news outlet airs an item in error and they immediately come back and make a retraction with an apology. Look at when CNN called Gore the winner prematurely and Bush won the election. It happens. In the case of NBC, who ever edited that 911 tape, if they had any brain matter, knew exactly what they were doing. Race sells...race sensationalizes when it comes to the murder of a black youth by a white, in this case Hispanic. Yes, NBC did Zimmerman an injustice and I hope they get sued for libel. There are many anti Zimmerman who agree with me on this one.
[How awful for Jessica and her family. I'm sorry to learn it was her, but thanks for the info.
I agree. Zimmerman was already a hero or villain by the time the NBC version aired, and that's part of my point. Did it harm his reputation? I contend that what he did to TM is what did most of the damage. Just the same, NBC made a terrible mistake, and a suit wouldn't surprise me at all.
As for getting the truth from news outlets, one need look no further than election coverage to see which political camp each venue supports. It's blatant, and it's the nature of the beast. People are opinionated. Should they strive for neutrality? Sure, but networks have tried to sway elections for generations. During the Anthony case, WFTV was outwardly pro-prosecution and they didn't hide it. Obviously, all that mattered then were ratings. This case is no different, and racism sells. To be fair, I don't see WFTV in the same role today, but they did get rid of someone who made it a point to shock, shock, shock! Just like NBC, but this was an egregious mistake. There's a difference between bias and lying, but media have been twisting and distorting the news since the beginning.]
That NBC apologized is hardly an admission of *legal* guilt. A more accurate analogy would be the reporting of the John Travolta case where a massage therapist accused him of inappropriate touching. Multiple stories were reporting, all of which were later retracted.
Zimmerman has an additional burden.Travolta also flirted with suing the media but his attorneys concluded that the likelihood of damages were slim with the retractions. Arguably, Zimmerman became a public menace by shooting an unarmed kid and THIS is where his image became tainted ( whether he is found criminally culpable or not.).
[You're right! It was not an admission of guilt. All NBC did was admit they made a mistake. The production was wrong. In the Travolta situation, it was a bit different. The media reported what his accusers said. Later, they reported what those same people "unsaid." If I said I was going to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, they could report it. If I retract my statement, they could report that, too.
That's different from Zimmerman, where the report was clearly skewed against him. Would it be easy to prove in court? I don't think so. While Travolta admitted nothing, Zimmerman did, but what NBC reported was not exactly the way it came down. The issue here is not that Zimmerman may have singled out blacks every time. It's that NBC clearly made it look like he did in this particular instance.]
Also, even it Zimmerman did manage to win the lawsuit- the Martins would surely snatch it ( unless by miracle, Zimmerman wins at SYG).
[I'm certain that NBC would come out swinging, with a barrage of high-powered attorneys chomping at the bit. A lawsuit of this kind could go on for years. Look at Casey's. How long ago was that one filed?]
Dave: This is one of the your best articles. Thanks so much for all your time and effort.
I want to add a little 'timeline of sorts'. (Sorry for any links that may be duplicates.)
1. On March 16, 2012, Mayor Triplett ordered the 'tapes' distributed. (Axiom Amnesia had them posted on March 18, 2012)
Reuters | Trayvon Martin: Before the world heard the cries
Quote:
“The mayor himself started to cry.” Jackson said. “Everybody in the room was in tears.” Mayor Triplett overruled his police chief and distributed disks of the phone calls to the media that night [March 16, 2012]. They have been broadcast unceasingly ever since.
2. On March 18, 2012, the Miami Herald ran an article reporting that Georgie had gone into hiding.
Merf. Thinking is Hard | March 18, 2012 | Miami Herald article
Quote:
After death threats and an avalanche of hate mail, Lee said Zimmerman went into hiding.
3. On or about March 22, 2012, the first 'edited' segment appeared.
Mediaite | April 25, 2012 | NBC Affiliate Aired Edited Zimmerman 911 Call Days Before Today Show Did
Quote:
The Today segment aired on March 22, and again March 27, but according to Mediaite’s review of a closed caption transcript database, WTVJ’s Jeff Burnside reported on the tape several days earlier.
4. On April 3, 2012, an article appeared stating NBC had completed its investigation into the 'incident' and issued an apology.
Washington Post | April 3, 2012 | NBC issues apology on Zimmerman tape screw-up
Quote:
NBC has completed its investigation into the mishandling of the police dispatcher’s conversation with George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case. And the process ends with a finding of error, plus an apology.
5. On May 3, 2012, an article appeared stating NBC had fired three employees over the editing of the tape.
NewsBuster | May 3, 2012 | Bozell: NBC Fires Another Producer in Fake Zimmerman Audio Scandall, But Still Hasn’t Come Clean
Quote:
NBC has now fired three people from two different offices over at least two different edit of George Zimmerman’s now infamous 911 call prior to the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.
*******************
So, it appears to me that Georgie developed his yellow streak and disappeared the day after the Sanford mayor ordered the tapes released
And not because of the NBC 'edited' version of the tape. But that is jmo.
(One more thing: I guess the apology didn't suit them. lol )
[Thank you, nan11, for the compliment, and for supplying these links. They do come in handy.
Initially, I believe Zimmerman felt he had gotten himself a bad guy and he was going to have a street named after him, along with a ticker tape parade. Had nothing developed, he would still be thinking the same way. Only because it made headlines did he change his tune, and it had nothing to do with remorse. Too bad for him. The bottom line is that he shot a kid, no matter what color he was, and because the whole thing was swept under the rug, it made things worse all the way around. The fact remains, he shot and killed a kid, and his story doesn't add up. This is a combination of a lot of things that came together, and he did nothing to help himself by opening his mouth. It made things worse and he's too stupid and egotistical to realize it.
NBC will never apologize directly to him. They must continue looking at this as an honest mistake based on time constraints. Do I believe it was? Hmm...]
My first thought when I heard about this potential lawsuit was that it was just another way to get money, and I wondered if anyone told him when it was brought up just exactly how long a defamation (or any other for that fact) lawsuit actually takes. Some people watch shows like Judge Judy etc which are small claims filings and think a lawsuit is an easy way to make a buck. My daughter worked for a lawyer who was involved with the tobacco lawsuit many years ago and through that experience I learned it takes a minimum of 18 months for anything to come to trial, because of the investigation needed. Many many take years and years to come to court. Not a fast buck, Georgie, sorry.
I think the news media was wrong in editing the NEN, but is it a lawsuit? I imagine it could be if you have enough money and time to pursue it. But if they did, they'd have to go after the others you mentioned above, and wouldn't they have to show intent? I don't think it was the intention of the media to harm GZ's reputation. Did it harm his reputation? Possibly . But is it a lawsuit that can be won? I don't know, and I really don't care one way or another. If he's convicted it won't be much good to him anyway. I imagine it's something that's going to be put on hold and we'll hear about it again if he gets acquitted. Personally, I never even heard this tape when it first came out, and I imagine there are more like me out there that didn't either. This will be like spitting into the wind if he goes ahead with it. He'll get more back that's bad than good before it's all over with.
[I agree with you, Connie. It would be a long, drawn-out battle, years in the making, but I also think he's looking at this from his own perspective; that he will get immunity and the civil suit will garner enough money that he would live comfortably for the rest of his life. Absolutely! He will do his best to make a fortune off the child he shot and killed. This is his easy way out, he thinks, because a book wouldn't cut it.]
You know I just went back and listened to the 911 call. Now I will give Mr Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt and say absolutely the dispatcher asked the question about color the FIRST time, however Mr Zimmerman did say a second time unasked "he's got something in his waistband, he's a black male." That is about 1:09 into the call.
I think many people thought he was a racist for his many calls to NEN about black males. jmo
[All of his 911 calls mentioned color. There are two curtains to choose from:
One, he singled out blacks.
Two, they were all blacks.
Depending on which curtain you pick, he could be a racist or maybe not. It's open to interpretation.]
I think many people thought he was a racist for his many calls to NEN about black males. jmo
Bingo
Porky3100 said: That NBC apologized is hardly an admission of *legal* guilt.
Me: I agree with your statement above. Not only would their apology not stand as an admission guilt, it is actually required--if punitive damages are not to be recovered.
For some of the reasons you mentioned in your earlier comment, I don't mind if they try, but I don't think they will win. : - )
The following is from a link Mimmie left on a previous thread.
Quote:
E. Legislative Acts.
Moreover, a companion statute provides that punitive damages cannot be recovered if a media defendant can show that its conduct was reasonable and that it published a correction, apology, or retraction after receipt of the notice and within the time provided by statute. The correction, apology or retraction must be given the same "play" that the original story received.
Michelle said: So imo he has nothing to sue for. If anything they probably helped him rake in more donations. jmo
Me: To repeat Porky3100: BINGO!!!
You absolutely amaze me with your insight. I am in awe. : - )
Dave~~with all due respect, I cannot make up my mind who you should be working for, NBC or the prosecution, maybe for yourself writing mystery novels. LOL
I cannot resist adding my commentary in bold plus some of your colorful words. Please don't take me too serious, afterall, it is Friday nite.
Forget the recording with the dispatcher for the moment. [ That is a difficult task as it is an important piece of evidence]Initially, I paid little attention to it. [BS, I don't believe that for one minute. Not you, Dave. You have an eagle eye and an astute ear. ] Whether Trayvon attacked him first or not was not that important to me because, as far as I was concerned, Zimmerman knew exactly what he was capable of doing with that gun when he steadied himself and sidled into the unknown. [ I am getting goosebumps] No one walks with a gun without understanding the possible consequences, and that Kel-Tec PF9 pistol empowered him. It enabled him to play police officer, judge, jury and executioner with all of the bravado of Paul Kersey, and that’s precisely what he did. Paul Kersey was the character played by Charles Bronson in the Death Wish movie franchise. Take away the weapon and George Zimmerman would never have moved stealthily into the darkness, confronting a fictional fear that was as frightful as the shadow he cast on that dreary Sunday night. There was no real danger lurking about; it was created by his need and strong passion to become some kind of legendary figure that haunted his soul for years. He had to prove to himself and others just who he was. To that end, he succeeded, but at a huge loss.
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEKKKKKKKKKK
[Actually, Snoopy, before I heard the audio, I learned that the guy was a NW "captain" who carried a gun. That set off bells and whistles right away, so, at the time, the first impression was a dude who was a cop wannabe. After I heard the audio of the NEN call, yes, it bacame very important to me, but it had nothing to do with my first impression. Take a business card, for instance. Before you look at it, you touch it. Touching it is your first impression. Therefore, it's important to print it on a good quality stock.
I'm glad you enjoyed my writing style. I guess I'm, what you might say, practicing for a murder mystery story. Or something like that. In a cemetery. In the dark. With evil lurking about. Slowly, he ran his hand up and down the soft, smooth skin of her back...
OOPS! Never mind.]
Dave~~do you think Morgan @Morgan may take on a defamation case for Zimmerman? John likes to be in the limelight for the free advertising. He is not hurting for money and may even do it pro bono .
[That's an excellent idea! I'm surprised he hasn't announced it yet. Well... on second thought... except for one thing. He mostly goes after insurance companies. If he goes after NBC, he'd lose a mouthpiece for his own promotion.]
Interestng post Mr. Knechel. Caracter assination recalls for " defamation of character" havin been prelevent on a blog even very short time ago. It was showed to be asseptable for some to impos ther opinion on one to portrey false personal information to harass an bring harm by ever day rah rah bully tatics yet not for others. People jus have to take it while the ofenders never look back to offer any support by amends for healing. Like so, does GZ and MOM no how to work the "benefits" to ther avantage to keep it all favorabl to them. When a jury comes in with verdic, why would the media desisions hav any thing to do to with the fact of the act of a crim as in the manner he went to kill Trayvon Martin?
It is noticed that thos socialy prefered are alowed to get away with gaul without public repermanded while the less aceptable are brouht to public atention by way of being embarased and ousted as havin no contributing worth. So it is in large comunities of society as Media plas its part to spread unreliable informasion
[I think that the media should report the news. Of course, I expect there to be a slant somehow; someway. The problem is when they distort it enough that it changes the entire story. It becomes mutated.
In essence, it would be a bad thing. A good way to show it is like this:
"George Zimmerman admitted he shot the 17-year-old boy to death. He said he did it in self-defense. His cousin said he molested her from the time she was a child until she was 16, but it will be her word against his. The two incidents are not related."
The above info, in so many words, is the news that was reported. Now, let's morph it into something totally false...
"George Zimmerman has been accused of sexually molesting a minor. His victim in the shooting case was a minor. The fact is, the 17-year-old boy died before he could say a word. In court, it will be very hard to prove he molested anyone."
You see my point? There is nothing in the made up story that is actually related to the real incident, and to implicate him of something altogether different in a news report is just plain sick, but you see how easily it could be done? Did you notice that the made up story didn't SAY he did anything sexual to his victim? Even implications can be extremely damaging and it's bullying. It is just plain wrong.]
Read this last night thanks Dave..Of the many many phone calls made by gz to police to report suss characters in the neighbourhood..How many were Black as opposed to other races...?
[Thank you, ecossie. I don't know percentages, but if lived in an ethnically diverse neighborhood, odds are good that the crimes committed in that area would be committed by an ethnically diverse crowd. Did Zimmerman single out blacks? I don't know, and it will be tough to prove that he did. I think, in my next post, I'm going to take this up a notch and comment on O'Mara's new move. I think he's trying to say the charge against his client was strictly motivated by race. In other words, had the victim been white, he wouldn't have been charged. It's an interesting argument, and I think it's worth exploring.]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge7i60GuNRg&feature=player_embedded All the phone calls Ive heard concerning gz phoneing about suss people have been on Black males ,,,An according to his freind Frank Taafe young Black males are exclusively to blame for any an all crime in the neighbour hood..This vt shows how people react to a young white guy attempting to saw through a bikes padlock chain..A young blacke guy doing the same,An lastly a pretty young blond girl doing the same,,,,The results are predictable an a sad inditment of raceial sterotypes inbedded in even reasonable peoples minds.
Thanks Dave for your response. Also Nan and Porky!
I do see things a bit different. Most people look at the issue, Mr Zimmerman vs NBC. But imo to have a real case against them -your reputation should be spotless. Mr Zimmerman's reputation is black and blue from his own doing. NBC did not really hurt him, in the beginning it appeared to many that Sanford Police Department were the racist, not Mr Zimmerman. It seems to me that this is a way to get more sympathy which adds up to more donations and if he is lucky a settlement from the big pockets of NBC. So the only thing left for me to ask and I am betting you do not have the answer is: When does this 29 year old man grow up and get a job and support himself? Looks like he wants a free ride. With that said I do not understand what a Mentoring Program saw in him, his character traits do not make a good role model for kids (trust me I know a thing or two about what would make a good role model for kids), imo. I hope to email that Synthesis to you by Tuesday. I am being a slacker this weekend. :)
YouTube VIDEO - (Ecossie's link) | What Would You Do? Bike Theft (White Guy, Black Guy, Pretty Girl)
Ecossie Possie: Thanks for the link. Sadly, all too true.
I remember that Georgie once reported some little ones were playing in the street. Another time he reported Taaffe's 'crib' as having the windows opened--no 'suspect' was present, though.
Basically, and without much fail, the majority of his calls were all to report 'black' suspects. imo
Dave~~with what you were put through during the Anthony case it seemed apparent it was a blog war. At that time you had a very successful blog and was one of the most popular ones in the blogosphere. I don't believe anyone wanted to cause you any physical harm but rather they wanted to make your life so miserable that you would close down your blog. They terrorized you and when that didn't seem to work, they went after those who contributed to your blog. When you throw a psycho stalker into the mix, a female who begged you not to waste your time writing about the Anthony case, you have a nasty situation.
When people use screen names and send threatening e-mails using an anonymous proxy, it is not easy to track these people down. To hire a lawyer and try to get info from Wordpress, Twitter, Facebook and the like is like finding hen's teeth. Even if you have one's IP number, it just indicates the location of their internet service provider. The FBI handle so many serious cases, they seldom get involved with blog wars.
Thank goodness, Dave, the terrorists did not succeed. I cannot prove it but have always felt that one person was the mastermind behind what you went through. That person's blog is no longer in existence. Once the Anthony case was over the terrorist left standing slithered off into oblivian.
As to Zimmerman and NBC, I think winning a defamation suit will not be an easy task. I did notice that NBC apologized to the viewers and not to Z directly. That does change things and especially where they made a retraction of sorts.
I am not sure that Z will go ahead with the suit as lots of idle threats are thrown out there for unbeknown reasons. Maybe it was a warning to other news outlets to be careful on how they edit.
Btw, will we be reading a thrilling Halloween horror story this year? I hope you will resurrect someone in a graveyard instead of resurrecting that same Halloween story again. *hint *wink *smile and *shudder...
Dave said: In other words, had the victim been white, he wouldn't have been charged.
Me: That statement brought to my mind an old interview that Don Lemon of CNN did with Michael Skolnik, Editor-in Chief of Global Grind.
It is not the same issue as you are refering to above. Instead, Don Lemon asked Mr. Skolnik if Trayvon were white and Zimmerman were black, would there have been an arrest sooner.
Mr. Skolnik gives an interesting reply. I have bolded a part that I find particularly relevant.
********************
At about 3:31 minutes:
Don Lemon: ...But, here is what I would like to know. I heard a Republican commentator on another channel. I will just be honest—it was Joe Scarvell, this morning, on MSNBC saying: And for the first time it really clicked with me—if you took the pictures of Trayvon Martin and you transposed them into a seventeen year old white kid; and then you transposed George Zimmerman into a twenty-eight year old black man that is twice his size—how would you feel about this particular story, and how would it be portrayed. And how would you look for guilt or innocence on the part of each side?
Michael Skolnik: {sigh} I hear this conversation a lot. Let us be honest, we are not going to be back here in three weeks talking about white kids being killed at record numbers. We are not going to be talking about white kids being stopped and frisked in NYC at record numbers. We are not going to come back to CNN to talk about white people being put in prison at record numbers. We know, if we are going to be honest with each other—if we are going to be honest about this country. If you want to walk that elephant out of the room, which is race in this country; let us be honest. And let us at least agree that young black men, young brown men, young Latino men—are being targeted in every neighborhood in this country, and in every community in this country. I am not going to walk through my neighborhood in Brooklyn tonight and have to worry about the police following me because I look suspicious. It is just not going to happen. So, yes, if a black man killed a white kid—is it just as wrong? Of course it is. If he racially profiled that white kid—of course, it is. But that is not going to happen at the numbers that it is happening with young black men.
Don Lemon: And Michael, I have to go—but just from this conversation. People should not draw the conclusion that we are speaking of the guilt or innocence of George Zimmerman. That is a different conversation when we are weighing evidence, right?
Michael Skolnik: Absolutely a different conversation. He is innocent until proven guilty in my book and we should have due process and he should be arrested, and we should let it go before his peers.
Don Lemon: And there are many white people who think the same way that you do. And I have heard from them a lot. Thank you, Michael Skolnik, Editor-in Chief of Global Grind.
********************
It is a very intersting thought, where you think O'Mara's is going with this. I suppose if he portrays Trayvon as 'white', then he can have a 'brown' Georgie, as a minority?
The simple fact is that Tryavon Martin was an African American child, and George Michael Zimmerman violated the civil rights of Trayvon Martin that night by taking away his right to walk home alone, unharmed and without being accosted.
The 'approach' might get the defense a lot of press, though. I'm sure the Sentinel would love to spin it. imo
Anyway, I'll try to get back on topic. Your new post has much left to discuss.
Tying the sex molesting into the admitted murdeing of Trayvon is the part that is worng and is the part of the caracter assinacion??? This is why GZ is given a caus to sue the Media becaus his past has nothing to do with killing anyone, but Trayvon past would be used to establish he was worth bein killed by GZ? In the daly use of caracter assinacion one agains a nother could bring caus to murder. Bullyin mor often results in suicid by the bullied than in the bullied killin the bulliers. As we tred on ways to survive thes things no one knows or care how clolse to the edge one may be pushed to ther tragic end. I'm trying to sa the daly acts of assinacion grow to becom a crime or self distruscion is as important as media interested ones. The daly acts are harmless? Thats just the wa they are, ad the genearted thout is to "get over it"! Trayvon Martin is over it I gues, he can not respond. How so thos who still live with it as his folks. Peopl so ofen value a bonding to stick together so high no matter who is harmd so truth falls thru cracs when challengd to be completly, truthful, called self survivel. Media has means to surviv so just like with everday bullllin, a decicion is made to sta on top whatever the cost widespred. Like GZ, emotion lost.
Michelle said: Mr Zimmerman's reputation is black and blue from his own doing.
Me: LOL!! Oh, I love it. How true!
Of course, I don't have an answer to your question--his parents were still paying his rent. I don't think he can quite grasp what growing up means.
This case really caught my attention when I heard the recording of the witness 911 call where the 'screams' are heard in the background.
Until then, I believe I had heard about it; but, iirc, it was concerning the discussion of whether the word '*oons'; or 'goons'; or 'cold'; or 'punks' had been used in the non-emergency call. It was clearly not 'punks' or 'cold' to my old ears; but, between the other two--I could never be sure. (I have to admit, I did favor one particular word.)
Once I heard Trayvon's screams, though; I could never get the case out of mind.
I do not believe I ever heard the edited version of the non-emergency tape--until I went looking for it. It most certainly had no part of me forming any opinions one way or the other.
Of course, not that I don't have opinions. : ^ )
It is just that NBC is not responsible for them, in any way, shape, or form.
Mr. Knechel, what is conciderd a stalker? If to peopl are doin the same thing to somevody is the different because you want one to do it becaus yu like them so much and the other one that you do not like is publily labled a stalker? As you speak of misteries, maybe a real stalker is not who we may think it is, posibly one who directs us to the other person is more a reel stalker. Trayvon only knew
for sur that GZ to be his stalker the las few minutes before he was penetrated by a cold hard bulet to the heart. Are we a stalker becaus we come to your blog? I think so that one as not invited can feel they goin to be concidered your stalker by the informacion now given but no name.
Eyeball~~hope this is of some help.
This is the best way to explain what a stalker is. By coming to this blog using a 'screen name' you are not a stalker.
Definitions of a Stalker
P.S. Dave, I hope you do not mind me responding to this. I figured you are having some well deserved R&R.
Oh my, ther is a lot to thank you so much for. Now I think any peopl can be labled a stalker of one kind or another. May be easear to know who is NOT a stalker. so any body who goes beyon a blog to contac for exampel Mr. Knechel could be a called stalker if some body wants to call them one becaus your help line does not leeve any way out, to be called normul. So It woud be up to a indivedul to tell that there bein stalked for real. What about, when some body is cut out of a blog, if they come bac they take a chanc of bein labled stalker at the will of a blog owner. It is a lot to think about befor finding ourselvs in such a embaraseing poisition too late. Thank you Snoopysleuth for leting me know he is not able to respon, I got a good pictur of stalkers for sure from your hellp. I am goin to look for what
might aply to GZ after Trayvon.
Snoopysleuth~~I think someone is funnin ya.
Daisy, are your really snoopy?
Daisy and Petunia, you did not have my permission to use the internet tonight. Back to bed my flower children or you will both be grounded.
It must of taken a lot of work for a post like this one so if I got of trac, I am in apology to Mr. Knechel an to Snoopysleuth of cours. Until I can better convey about what is writen, best to not try to mingle where intellegent minds are in tunes with each othr and it all so no room for emptie head inquirin one who believes what was said to them an find my wantin to trust is a big errow. Hav fun.
Eyeball~~there is no need to apologize for anything. You did just fine. Carry on and enjoy Dave's blog. I know he will agree with me when he comes in tomorrow to respond to some comments.
Oh well Snoopysleuth, I believ in apologys. It is when ther are none ever made espcially when du, that it leave a hole lot of hurt and just as much, is if apoloygs that made are never acepted, it can be the end of many things that wer thaught to be nice. We can also think about "insenser" apoloyg like GZ is sad to have made how it effected even the public opinion. Peopl who do not want to mend and go on in any way with other peopl usally do not acept apoloygs. It is a used way to seperate yurself from someone don't like anyway. You tell Dave to not care about any respons here to mine. I know all along that I can not match up to keep makin coments here but I thank you for yure encouregemant. It was jus a slo and very cold weakend or I would not hav been here to be sush a anoyence. I admir yur way yu can write so good and hav so much knowlege. My bran is so slo to conec to my fingers on the keys most if I am tiard, so pleas escuse all my maney mistaks in here addin coments. I got to go to bed to go pra tomorow for some body.
ecossie possie, I just want to say I was rather excited to see you refer to the What would you do video. I looked for it earlier today and found it on abc site"What would you do" and later went back and couldn't find it. Never thought of checking you tube. I have a feeling this is going to come up at a later time.
Eyeball~ ~first off your comments and what you wish to convey to the reader come through loud and clear. I am unsure why you keep putting yourself down.
In the case of George Zimmerman, before he made an apology to Trayvon's parents, they said that he never even apologized for shooting their son. Well he did make an apology, under oath in a court of law. Most of us watched as he took the stand. It so happened that it ended up being a mistake for Zimmerman to ever attempt to apologize to the parents. It was a damned if you do or damned if you don't. The parents did not accept it. The words in Z's apology were picked apart and scrutinized in the media, on blogs and by Trayvon's parents as well as their attorneys. Zimmerman looked very nervous on the stand and rightly so since he was charged with second-degree murder in a shooting death that he felt and still feels was in self-defense. Zimmerman said he thought that Trayvon was older but in his 911 call to the dispatcher, he said that he looked like a teenager. This was fodder for those who wanted to find fault with Zimmerman. Did Trayvon look like a teenager when Zimmerman first spotted him on that nite and later, if Trayvon attacked him with a few solid punches Z felt he was older? We just don't know. Zimmerman is the only one who knows if his apology was sincere, for the rest of us it is pure speculation as to that fact.
What I have come to assume and no doubt Z and O'Mara have come to realize is that George's apology was a mistake and a waste of time. Trayvon's parents did not accept it as they were not ready to forgive Zimmerman for his actions. Healing never takes place until one can forgive the actions of another and an apology that is extended will remain in limbo as idle words.
One thing I would like to get straight, in your response to me, you said, "You tell Dave to not care about any response here to mine." This is absolutely untrue! Please go back and read my comments. I was trying to be helpful by putting in the link for the definitions to stalkers. I knew Dave was trying to get a bit of rest. Yes, I connect with Dave, behind the scenes as he is a good friend. You could say that I check on him to see how he is doing health wise etc. It is just an old habit since we have been blogging together for going on 4 years. He keeps tabs on me too. I don't think that I can be classed as his stalker for really caring for him as a friend. Stalkers are those who want to possess a person and keep track of their every movement.
On the first apology:
The New Yorker | By Amy Davidson | Sorry For George Zimmerman’s “Sorry”?
Quote:
What is the right time and place to apologize for shooting a seventeen-year-old? On Monday, a few hours after George Zimmerman walked out of jail carrying a brown-paper bag of his belongings, his lawyer, Mark O’Mara, told CBS News that he was sorry he’d had his client address Trayvon martin’s parents from the stand at a bond hearing and {snipped}. O’Mara said that he’d “reached out” to Martin’s family about saying something privately, but missed the press conference in which they replied that the hearing wasn’t the moment.
On the second apology:
Politicus USA | By Jason Easley | George Zimmerman Wants African-Americans to Apologize to Him
Quote:
With his attorney by his side, here is what George Zimmerman offered as an apology to Trayvon Martin’s parents,
{SNIPPED} {SNIPPED} {SNIPPED}
Zimmerman took zero responsibility for being the reason why those parents had to bury their child.
The real kicker came when Zimmerman accused African-Americans of rushing to judgement and asked everyone who he claims rushed to judgement to apologize to him. Zimmerman said, “I can’t guess to what their motives are. I would just ask for an apology. I mean if I did something that was wrong, I would apologize.”
His statement was very telling in that since Zimmerman himself never apologized specifically for shooting Trayvon Martin, he must not think that shooting him was wrong.
Snoopysleuth, I don not undrstand why it is wrong to say "you tell Dave (Mr. Knechel) to not care about any response her to mine" What is juntrue ? I just don think my being here wold be worth it for him to tak time an if he is sick even mor so. I trid to thank yo;u! for the Stalkers listin. I think yuo must misunderstan becaus I dont kno anythin g about yur friendship an how much uyuo care for eash other. I trid to tell you i gave you respec and I do not know why yuo sound mad. Mayb I put mysef down becaus I make mistaks like this. for you to think any body thinks yuo are a stalker then if I com here I anymor I am a stalketr to. The list yuo gave dos not leav room for mush else for me to think. You cary on an tak care of eash other that is a beutiful thing to hav a frendship like it for so long. God Bless you both an don wory this is not my place to be hear and it is caus any problem for eithr of yuo. Mr Knechel I am sorry if yuo are sick, very sorry for bein here and upset anyone espcially Snoopysleuth an yuo. I has no way of knoing how close yuo are to each other an for respet of it I will not bothr you all again.
Eyeball~~I am definitely not mad at you. Please don't think that at all. I have made many friends in cyberspace since coming here and managing my own blog. I converse with many behind the scenes. Those friends are just as important to me as Dave. My relationship with these people do not extend beyond anything but a cyber friendship. Your comments did not offend me in any way. I am not sure that I can explain this in any other manner to put your mind at ease. For that, I extend to you, an apology.
I don't think Dave is sick all the time. Like the rest of us who are getting older, we have our good and not so good days. I am hoping Dave will come in later. Like many men, there may be a good football game on today or Nascar or whatever they watch. Maybe he likes to keep the Sabbath Holy....like I should be doing.
Zimmerman did not apologize for shooting Trayvon because he felt that by shooting him it was the only recourse he could take to save his own life. This is why he is claiming the shooting was in self-defense. I am sure he feels sorry that the incident progressed to a point that a quick decision was called for and as a result, a life was taken. JMO
On the life that was lost because of a man with a depraved mind and a gun tucked in his waistband:
The Miami Herald | Trayvon Martin: a typical teen who loved video games, looked forward to prom
Quote:
He would be 17 for 21 days. He died Feb. 26, a bullet in his chest, shot by a neighborhood crime watch captain {snipped}.
“He had been so looking forward to going to his junior prom, and he had already started talking about all the senior activities in high school,” his mother, Sybrina Fulton, said in a voice hollowed and somber. “He will never do any of those things.”
He had a girlfriend and spent endless hours talking or texting on his cell phone. Other times he was quiet, listening to the soundtrack of R&B, reggae, rap and gospel music flowing through his ear buds or watching half-hour re-runs of Martin, his favorite show.
“Tray was a beautiful child. He was raised to have manners and be respectful. He was a teenager who still had a lot of kid in him,” his father, Tracy Martin, said. “He still loved to go to Chuck E. Cheese with his cousins and would bake them chocolate chip cookies when he was babysitting them.”
“That was my main man. That was my hero. He saved my life, actually pulled me out of a house fire. He was 9 years old at the time. A 9-year-old kid saved his dad’s life. And I wasn’t there to save his life,” Martin said.
“He loved flying and working with his hands. Barrington Irving took him on his plane at the Opa-locka Airport. He got a chance to sit in the cockpit and that did it for him,” said Fulton, referring to the youngest person and first black person to pilot a plane around the world solo in 2007. “He wanted to be a pilot or work as a mechanic in aviation. He was mechanically inclined and could fix just about anything.”
Math was his favorite subject.
====================
Reuters | By Daniel Trotta | Trayvon Martin: Before the world heard the cries
Quote and Snipped:
When Tracy martin greeted the police that morning, a plainclothes detective asked him to describe his son. “He asked me what he last had on. He asked me if I had any recent pictures,” Martin said.
“I showed him a recent picture in the camera and he shook his head and said, ‘OK, let me go to my car and get something.’” The detective returned with a folder.
It was drizzling, and he asked Martin if they could go inside. When they were seated he pulled out a photo. It was Trayvon, dead at the scene – his eyes rolled back, a tear on his cheek, saliva coming from his mouth.
====================
VIDEO: Trayvon Martin's parents talk with The Post (8:14)
Interviewer: Mr. Martin, can you just tell us a little bit about what the police told you, initially, when they came to see you and showed you a picture of the person who ended up being Trayvon. What did they say to you happened?
Tracy Martin: Initially they just told me that it was an altercation—that it had been an altercation—that Trayvon had been shot once in the chest. And he was dead. He was pronounced dead at the scene.
Interviewer: And what did they say was the assailant’s account of what happened. Could you just explain to us, sort of, exactly what they told you that Mr. Zimmerman said happened.
Tracy Martin: According to the detective, Trayvon initially walked up to Zimmerman’s vehicle. Trayvon then asked Zimmerman why was he following him. Zimmerman told him that he was not following him. Zimmerman rolled his car windows up. Trayvon walked off. Zimmerman ended up getting out of his vehicle. Trayvon was walking around on one side of the complex. Zimmerman says Trayvon waited for him to get out of his vehicle, and he came from behind the building. Zimmerman says that Trayvon asked him: “What’s your problem, homie?” And Zimmerman told him he didn’t have a problem. Zimmerman proceeds to reach in his pocket to get his cell phone, and that is when Trayvon attacked him. He said that Trayvon hit him; knocked him to the ground; got on top of him; put his knees on his— almost patting him down; put his left hand over his mouth; told him shut the ‘f’ up; and proceeded to beating—beating him with the other hand. Zimmerman than says—I mean Zimmerman was able to unholster his weapon and fire one shot, and Trayvon fell back and said: You got me. That is what the police initially told me.
Interviewer: And what was your reaction to that account?
Tracy Martin: It was bull. Saying to myself—no way. At that point I knew there was something terribly wrong.
Zimmerman did not apologize for shooting Trayvon because he felt that by shooting him it was the only recourse he could take to save his own life. This is why he is claiming the shooting was in self-defense. I am sure he feels sorry that the incident progressed to a point that a quick decision was called for and as a result, a life was taken. JMO"
How could you possibly know this?
Porky3100~~please note that I stated that as an opinion and not a fact. That is why I added the JMO.
From non-emergency call made by Zimmerman on February 26, 2012::
Dispatcher: Okay. How old would you say he looks?
Zimmerman: He’s got a button on his shirt. Late teens.
Dispatcher: Late teens? Okay.
From Part 1 of Zimmerman’s interview with Det. Singleton on February 26, 2012:
Singleton: What did he look like?
Zimmerman: African-American, early 20’s to late teens.
At about 17:11 minutes in:
Det. Serino: And dispatch says to stay in the car; but yet, you decide to go ahead just to orientate yourself—but, once again, which lands the question on: once—in fear for not lowering your window ‘cause he is right in front of you: to—outside exposing yourself to the possibility of getting attacked by the person. That coupled with, like I said, the apparent background disposition of the child—I don’t know whether he is a child, at this point he is a juvenile—what set him of? And there will be a question forever, in everybody’s mind. The only person who can talk is you. {Snipped.}
At about 18:13 minutes in of above link:
Zimmerman: {snipped} ...he was just trying to looked tough or... [Unintelligible.]
Singleton: So, you didn’t think he had a weapon?
Zimmerman: No. No.
Mark O’Mara at the Gun Rights Convention
I don’t think you get protection—I really don’t know the statute is going to give you protection if you walk in front of the judge and say I shot him, but I had no fear of great bodily injury. I was just figuring he was shooting at me, I was going to see if I was a better shot. I’m not sure you are going to get protection of the statute, because the statute {laughter} does say that in order to get protection of the statute—to be immune—then you have to be reasonably in fear of great bodily injury.
On God’s plan:
Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not kill.
Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith. 23 Meekness, temperance; against such there is no law.
Potential jurors who are bloggers or participate on blogs re this case are generally disqualified. What matters is the evidence that will be presented to them, if and when this goes to trial. It is good to take the time and view this case through the eyes of a juror who will only hear and see a fraction of the evidence we have been privy too. We have no idea what Judge Nelson will allow as admissible evidence. Most of the media hype and videos people spend hours putting together for public viewing will be moot when it comes to the actual trial.
Here is an example- Zimmerman told three different accounts of what took place on the night of Feb 26th. His stories varied slightly but to some varied substantially. Had his accounts of the happenings been exactly the same each time he related them, we could conclude he had them well rehearsed. Since his stories varied, can it be expected for someone under duress to state the exact chain of events that led up to a shooting and what transpired thereafter? JMO
Duress??? Where would there be 'evidence' of that? Remember they don't all get away!
Marinade Dave . com | The Misconception Of A Stand Your Ground Hearing
Quote:
Nothing in that document paints a portrait of a person remotely close to death the day before. Even the Sanford Fire Department EMT report from the night of the incident showed nothing life threatening. Patient Conscious. Breathing normal. No external hemorrhaging. Mucous membrane normal. Extremities normal. Abrasions to his forehead and bleeding/tenderness to his nose. Small laceration to the back of his head. All injuries have minor bleeding. If you combine both reports, it doesn’t help the defense because Zimmerman cannot, in any way, shape or form, establish that he was remotely close to death, and if he tries, he opens a can of worms the State is going to take full advantage of.
Glasgow Coma Scale"
Quote:
The sum of the numeric values for each parameter can also be used as an overall objective measurement, with 15 indicative of no impairment, 3 compatible with brain death, and 7 usually accepted as a state of coma.
Page 3 of Zimmerman’s very skimpy (so far) medical report:
☛ Active Medications:
02/27/2012 Codine 400 mg tablet
02/13/2012 Adderall 20 mg - (Brand name drug for ADHD treatment)
01/23/2012 Temazepam 30 mg - (Brand for Restoril)
01/23/2012 Omeprazole 40 mg - (Used for tummy and gas reflux.)
12/29/2011 Librax - (For stomach spasms, abdominal cramps, and anxiety related to gastric disorders.)
☛ Active Medications – Pre-Existing:
CVS Glucosamine Chondroitin (tb) – (For heathy cartilage & joint support.)
Multiple Vitamin Tablet
Omeprazole 40 mg - (Another one for tummy and gas reflux.)
Temazepam 30 mg - (See above—{Restoril}, probably refilled on 01/23/2012.)
☛ Drug Family Allergy:
Penicillins - Hives
☛ Specific Drug Allergy:
Lisdexametamine Dimesylate – Reaction: Mood Swings - (Now, this one is also used to treat ADHD disorder, but we have no records to indicate when he was put on it/taken off it.)
This list comes from Georgie via a phone call with Shellie:
☛ As per George himself while jailed before 1st Bond hearing:
Zithromax 250 mg (am) (Azithromycin—an antibiotic.)
Tylenol 1000 mg (twice a day)
Celexa 20 mg (am) (To treat major depression.)
Bentyl 10 mg (once a day) (For Irritable Bowel Syndrome.)
Remeron 30 mg (pm) (Mirtazapine—for treatment of depression.)
Adderall 20 mg (8 am, 2 pm) for treatment of ADHD
Duress-Unlawful pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act that he or she ordinarily would not perform.
George Zimmerman was under a great deal of duress when he was forced to fire a gun to protect his own life. Killing someone was not an act that Zimmerman would normally do.
OK this if OT but we need to laugh now.
A single guy decided life would be more fun if he had a pet. So he went to the pet store and told the owner that he wanted to buy an unusual pet. After some discussion, he finally bought a talking centipede, (100-legged bug), which came in a little white box to use for his house.
He took the box back home, found a good spot for the box, and decided he would start off by taking his new pet to church with him... So he asked the centipede in the box, "Would you like to go to church with me today? We will have a good time." But there was no answer from his new pet.
This bothered him a bit, but he waited a few minutes and then asked again, "How about going to church with me?" But again, there was no answer from his new friend and pet.
So he waited a few minutes more, thinking about the situation. The guy decided to invite the centipede one last time. This time he put his face up against the centipede's house and shouted, "Hey, in there! Would you like to go to church with me and learn about God?"
YOU ARE GOING TO LOVE THIS ...
This time, a little voice came out of the box:
"I heard you the first time! I'm putting on my shoes!"
Tommy's Mom ~~I love it......lolol Thank you so much! Your timing was perfect too.
Porky3100~~please note that I stated that as an opinion and not a fact. That is why I added the JMO.
Snoopy. I get that. I am just perplexed how one could even form such an opinion without knowing the person personally. I would be most interested in the basis of your opinion.
Porky3100~~do you honestly want to know how Snoopy's mind works? I cannot give away any of my trade secrets without putting a big price tag on them. Let me know if you are still interested.
BTW, nah, I do not know Zimmerman personally nor am I interested in getting acquainted but now if it was O'Mara, I may be chomping at the bit. lol