Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Further Comments on the Zimmerman case


FURTHER OBSERVATIONS ON THE GEO. ZIMMERMAN CASE 

Most of the media (ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, Huffington Post, etc.) adopted a left-wing politically correct propaganda approach to the case. Ethics seemed to go out the window:

Wikipedia noted:

Deceptive audio editing by NBC


Between March 19 and 27, 2012, the NBC Nightly News, NBC's Today show, and NBC's network-owned Miami affiliate WTVJ NBC6[348] ran segments which misleadingly merged parts of Zimmerman's call. On one version of the recording played by NBC, Zimmerman was heard saying, "This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something... He's got his hand in his waistband, and he's a black male."[349] In another what was played was, "This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black." In the original 9-1-1 recording, Zimmerman said: "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." The 9-1-1 operator then asked: "OK, and this guy, is he black, white or Hispanic?", and Zimmerman answered, "He looks black."[282] The phrase, "He's got his hand in his waistband, and he's a black male" came several exchanges after that point in the conversation.[350][351]

Erik Wemple of the Washington Post wrote that NBC's alterations "would more readily paint Zimmerman as a racial profiler. In reality... Zimmerman simply answered a question... Nothing prejudicial at all in responding to such an inquiry... To portray that exchange in a way that wrongs Zimmerman is high editorial malpractice..."[282]

NBC issued an apology for "an error made in the production process that we deeply regret,"[352] but never apologized on the air.[353] The network said that the Today show and Miami edits took place in two separate incidents involving different people. A Miami-based NBC News producer lost her job, WTVJ reporter Jeff Burnside was fired,[354] and two other employees were disciplined.[355][356] Lilia Luciano, who was the reporter on broadcasts containing both edited versions of the audio,[349][357] was also fired, and her aired reports on the Trayvon Martin story, along with the misleading audio, were removed from the Today website.[358][359]

On December 6, 2012, Zimmerman filed a defamation lawsuit against NBC alleging that they intentionally edited the phone call so that Zimmerman would sound racist. The lawsuit said, "NBC saw the death of Trayvon Martin not as a tragedy but as an opportunity to increase ratings, and so set about to create the myth that George Zimmerman was a racist and predatory villain."[360][361] A NBC spokeswoman said the network strongly disagreed with the accusations that Zimmerman made in the complaint, stating; "There was no intent to portray Mr. Zimmerman unfairly and we intend to vigorously defend our position in court."[362]

In an interview after the trial verdict, Fox News legal analyst Lis Wiehl predicted NBC would lose millions settling a defamation lawsuit.[363]

Surveillance video mistake




Image enhancement of a single frame of the police surveillance video (left) by The Daily Caller (middle) and by Forensic Protection, Inc. working with ABC News (right) shows two welts or abrasions. ABC originally said the video showed no blood or bruises.[364]

ABC News obtained a surveillance video of Zimmerman walking unassisted into the Sanford police station after the shooting. An officer is seen pausing to look at the back of Zimmerman's head, but ABC originally said that no abrasions or blood can be seen in the video.[364] The Daily Caller disputed this claim, and posted a still from the ABC video which showed an injury on the back of Zimmerman's head.[365] ABC later reported that it had "re-digitized" the video, and said that this version showed "what appear to be a pair of gashes or welts on George Zimmerman's head," but the story's main focus was on a doctor who claimed it was unlikely that Zimmerman's nose had been broken.[366][367]

Misleading reporting after the verdict


In his July 26, 2013 column, Slate journalist William Saletan accused several major news organizations of editing interviews with "Juror B29" to make it appear that she maintained Zimmerman had gotten away with murder when she had not actually done so.[368\\”

(From Wikipedia artice linked below)
 

The President’s comments only added fuel to the fire.  I suspect he was still angry about new federal gun control going down the tubes and he wanted to keep the issue alive. This whole thing could have gotten very violent and ugly is a protest demonstration had gotten out of hand and a white cop killed a black demonstrator.  It could be Rodney King Riots II.  Hopefully, things have quieted down.  The angry pundits on the Right only made it worse.  Of course, we all know that this case was really about  race, gun control, self-defense and concealed carry.  If both Zimmerman and Martin had been of the same race, this case would have been ignored.  The problem of violence against blacks is primarily a black-on-black problem which is chronically ignored. 

Stand Your Ground

Further, the media and many politicians tried to use the case as an argument to repeal “stand our ground laws. This is pure hogwash.  As Wikipedia noted  The "stand your ground law" was not used by the Zimmerman defense team during the trial, although it was considered at an earlier time. Some sources have pointed out that “Stand Your Ground” was mentioned in the Jury Instructions preceding the trial,[301] however, this is part of the required Jury Instructions in all Florida murder trials in which the defendant claims “Justifiable Use of Deadly Force” as part of their defense”
 

Wintesses testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman before Zimmerman fired. Stand your ground is irrelevant in this circumstance.

 

More Objective Views

For a more objective look at the Zimmerman case, including prosecutorial misconduct google/search “Dershowitz Zimmerman.”  Alan Dershowitz is a liberal defense attorney, author and law professor.  For a more balanced look at the case, media treatment, etc. see the article in Wikipedia (quoted above, "Shooting of Trayvon Martin") 

It Ain’t Over till it’s Over!

 Of course, this show is not over.  The U.S. Department of Justice is reviewing the case to see if federal criminal charges should be filed against Zimmerman.  Given the President’s comments and the wail from the Left, there will be no objective, ethical decision-making in Holder’s DOJ.  Look for an indictment even though the facts do not seem to warrant it.  It will be interesting to see what statute DOJ uses.  Further, a civil suit against Zimmerman is anticipated.  The burden there against Zimmerman will only be “a preponderance of the evidence.”  The criminal case required a higher standard “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”  Jury selection will be crucial in both these cases.  RKR II could still happen.

Presumption of Guilt and Demonization.

Much of the discussion of the Zimmerman case is based on the assumption that he is guilty (e.g. “Justice for Trayvon Martin”).  I guess all these folks are in a better position to judge his guilt than the jury that found him not guilty.  Talk about demonization.  I think Geo. took over the #1 spot on the Left’s demon list, temporarily replacing the NRA.   

Conclusion:

This whole incident is a sad example of the American media at its left-wing politically correct worst.  In this kind of environment, a fair trial is difficult to get.  This is a sad example of American media and politicians at their worst. Civil liberties are in danger in this kind of hysteria. (I don’t follow Fox, but I suspect their coverage was biased in the other direction).   

Keep your fingers crossed that we don’t get mass violence before this is all over.

 

 

6 comments:

  1. I tried to not watch any of the proceeding on the Zimmerman trial. From what little I heard that I could not avoid, I assumed the jury would have found him not guilty as they did. Apparently they did so based upon the Florida "Stand Your Ground Statue." To that I have a comment. I have two lovely daughters and I live in an upscale condominium development. If my daughter was walking around the development (lets say she was wearing a "hoodie" as it is rainy and cool her in Seattle, and some guy followed her in his vehicle, and when she darted

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lee:
      Welcome and thanks for the comment. Actually, stand your ground was not factually relevant and not part of the case. Fla. law required an instruction on it, even if not applicable. Once Martin got on top of Zimmerman, stand your ground became irrelevant as Zimmerman could not retreat. Can't see the end of your post after the word "darted." Please complete it. Thanks!

      Delete
    2. According to Zimmerman, Martin was suspicious because he was hanging out between houses and looking in the windows in the rain. Martin was being profiled based on behaviour, not race or dress. Had you watched the trial, you would have learned that eye witnesses saw and forensics indicated that Martin was committing felony battery and maybe attempted murder when shot. But I'm guessing you got your information from CNN or MSNBC pundits. The important thing to remember about trial by media (although I will go as far as calling this an electronic lynching by the Martin family lawyer and the Orlando PR firm he hired to spread disinformation last year): the media is always wrong. Never fails. I knew a guy that was on the Chicago Seven jury, he noticed the same thing back then.

      Delete
  2. Welcome aboard! I'm happy to see your comment on the professor's blog. In reply to your concern about someone wearing a "hoodie" and darting off. Not to worry Sir. It's only when armed citizens are physically threatened and/or assaulted that use of deadly force is justified. To be clear, licensed concealed carry is only for defensive use and not police work. Observing suspicious persons or activities warrants a call to law enforcement. It's much like contacting EMS when administering life saving first-aid. From a pro concealed carry perspective, handguns and defibrillators are tools used to preserve life.

    John

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just to clarify my last statement. In a medical emergency, lay persons administering life saving first-aid are limited to chest compressions, mouth-to-mouth ventilations and application of Automated External Defibrillators. Good Samaritan laws will not protect lay rescuers from civil liability or criminal prosecution if their actions are " ...willfully or wantonly negligent." In other words, doing more than they were trained or qualified to do. Similar ground rules apply to licensed concealed carry. As in both cases, they're to do only what is necessary to preserve life while causing no further harm.

      Delete
  3. Thanks to all. For better or for worse, this fiasco is not over. The feds will probably get involved in spite of little or no legal or factual justification (what would you expect from the Obama Admin?) The civil suit is a near certainty. It provides an opportunity for Plaintiffs and their supporters to get on TV, earn extra money, pose as "victims," etc. The left-wing politically correct media will have another propaganda field day.

    ReplyDelete