The George Zimmerman media Ideological/ethical train wreck rolls on.

This article tells it like it is.  The Left will continue to use the Zimmerman case to stoke the fires of racial animosity. Self-defense and the Second Amendment individual right  have long been anathema to the Left.  Questionable and unlawful "self-defense" cases will get great amounts of publicity as the smear campaign against the natural law right of self-defense rolls on.   Lawful uses of deadly force, which greatly outnumber the faulty self-defense cases, will be ignored as they do not fit in with the Left's ideology.   This is a great website. 

Fla. refuses to repeal 'stand your ground."

The Fla. legislature has refused to repeal its stand your ground self-defense law.  Although it played no part in the George Zimmerman case, the left went apoplectic against this law.  The right to use lawful arms for lawful self-defense is the essence of the Second Amendment and a natural law right.

Zimmerman's wife not sure if it was self-defense; milking the talk shows

The George Zimmerman case is one that the Left just keeps milking.  As I told some friends a few w weeks ago after the divorce announcement and confrontation news, that it was only a matter of time till she gets on some talk show and drops hints that it may not have been self-defense. This has now happened.   What you have to realize here is that many people have figured out that the way to make $ on talk shows and interviews is to say what the interviewer/network want to say.  And, it always feeds weak egos to get on TV and be treated like a celebrity.  Trayvon Martin's family and friends milked  the opportunity and Mrs. Zimmerman perhaps decided that it was here turn for the limelight and perhaps revenge.   Fox wants to interview people who say what the conservative viewers want to hear. ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC want to interview people who say what their conservative viewers want to hear. The interviewees are smart enough to figure out what they need to say/hint/imply. It 's good for the interviewees, but bad for balance coverage and often bad for the truth. Also bad because non-newsworthy items drown out the truly newsworthy.  When are the American people going to realize that the media are trying to manipulate them?

George Zimmerman demonization continues, Reality Show needed?

As suggested in a prior posts, most of the recent news about George Zimmerman is not really newsworthy and represents the Left's demonization of him.  I suspect that soon some network will come up with a George Zimmerman reality show.  Who knows, perhaps he will become the dumbed-down media's next phenom. 

Media Absurdity Continues: Reported that Zimmerman Gets Speeding Ticket!

The media inability to discern what is truly newsworthy  is even worse than I previously suggested on this blog.  George Zimmerman gets a speeding ticket.  OMG! (Will we start getting updates on his "bad hair" days?) This is nationally newsworthy?  This is totally absurd!  Don't the national media have anything better to report on?  The left-leaning, inane fight against the demons goes on.  This is even less newsworthy than his wife's seeking a divorce.  Where do the media find these people making such incredibly incompetent and ideologically-driven decisions?  When is the public going to stand up and demand real news and balanced coverage from both the left- and right-leaning media?

Media lack committment to newsworthiness

One thing that continually amazes me about the national media (from whom we have some right to expect ethical and professional behavior) is how we are bombarded, on the national level, with items that are not newsworthy.  Both the left- (ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, HLN) and right-leaning  (FOX) are guilty.  As many have noted, entertainment and news have become dangerously intertwined.  That's one of the reasons why we have so much soap opera crap passing for news.  Another reason is ideological bias.  Anything that is consistent with that ideology and makes the opposition and those who have been demonized (e.g. George Zimmerman, NRA) look bad, will be published/broadcast no matter how much it lacks in newsworthiness.  Further, the media and much of the public seem to be obsessed with celebrities.  Is it really newsworthy what Barbara Streisand, Oprah Winfrey or Ted Nugent thinks about some issue? (See "newsworthiness,"  "News propaganda" and "News values" on Wikipedia)  A recent example brings this home.  Is it nationally newsworthy that George Zimmerman may be having marital problems? Given how the left has demonized Zimmerman, we are probably in for a lot more of this crap about Zimmerman. When are the American people going to realize that the media is dumbing them down and manipulating them through propaganda.  When are the American people going to demand real news presented in a balanced fashion?   When are people going to start thinking for themselves rather than just parroting their favorite ideologically corrupted news source?

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.

 

 

Geo. Zimmerman Trial Set: Media Circus Likely

The new trial judge in the Geo. Zimmerman case has set a tentative trial date of June 10. As the linked article states: "A judge Wednesday set June 10 as the date for the biggest murder trial in Seminole County history – Florida v. George Zimmerman. The case, which became a cause célèbre and launched civil rights rallies across the nation, promises to be a major media event." Will it turn out to be a Casey Anthony-type debacle? Will it turn out to be another Rodney King-type situation?  Going back even further,  will it be another Sacco and Vanzetti? I personally don't care whether he is found innocent or guilty, but he is entitled to his rights.  At this point, given the media bias against the defendant, prosecutorial misconduct, and the pressure of potential riots, I really doubt it.

Are voice-stress tests admissible at trial?

Many police agencies are now using voice stress tests. It has been reported that it was used on George Zimmerman. Are these tests admissible at trial? The answer is, probably not.

Zimmerman-Martin Coverage a Disgrace.

I've stayed away from the Zimmerman-Martin issue as I'm sure most people have had their fill. However, the coverage of this issue has been so biased that someone has to speak out. It's so sad that journalistic ethics has become an oxymoron for many in the business. Too many journalists, on both the Left and Right have become cultural warriors. NBC fired a producer for editing Geo. Zimmerman's 911 call, apparently to make it look more like a racially motivated incident. If you have been following the coverage it is also disturbing to see so many TV and other journalists acting more like prosecutor's in this case than reporters. One segment I saw on a national network involved a newsman cross-examining Zimmerman's attorney just like a prosecutor. With the Pres. having added his two cents, Zimmerman's right to fair trial may be in jeopardy. It's time for the media to back off some, take a course in ethics and journalism, and let the system do it's work.

Florida statutes on use of force by civillians (Zimmerman-Martin case)

At the link are the primary statutes that may be involved in the Geo. Zimmerman shooting of Trayvon Martin.

The Geo. Zimmerman shooting of Trayvon Martin: PART II

The George Zimmerman killing of Trayvon Martin has become a national controversy. (See the link for more info and updates) There are so many allegations, interpretations and spins that it is hard to figure out what exactly happened, what were the intentions of the persons involved, and what part of Florida law applies? I discussed Zimmerman’s personal self-defense by deadly force issue in a prior post.
However, UCLA law Prof. Adam Winkler and others see this as a case of deadly force to prevent a burglary. This may be what happened, although Zimmerman seems to be claiming personal self-defense. If Zimmerman was trying to prevent a burglary, it is a different issue and the rules are markedly different that the personal self-defense case discussed previously. As pointed out by Prof. Winkler and others, Florida law authorizes the use of deadly force when a person reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. (Note that “reasonable” modifies all of the requirements of the statute, necessity of deadly force for prevention and belief that a burglary was in progress, etc.) Burglary of a home is deemed a forcible felony for purposes of this law. Some of the facts suggest that Zimmerman was on the watch for burglars after a slew of burglaries in his neighborhood. If Zimmerman reasonably believed that Martin was about to commit a burglary (even of another person’s home) he would be justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believed the deadly force was necessary to prevent commission of the burglary. (Note that the situation might be different if Zimmerman was inside the home, but that clearly was not the case.) Again, Zimmerman would not have the defense if his belief was not “reasonable” or if the shooting was not reasonably necessary” to prevent the burglary. IF Martin was fleeing from Zimmerman, as appears to be the case from the 911 recording, the killing was not necessary to prevent the burglary. Even assuming Zimmerman’s belief that Martin was in the process of committing a burglary was reasonable, once Martin fled, the burglary had been prevented. In a pure burglary-prevention situation, Zimmerman had no right to pursue and use deadly force during the pursuit because the flight prevented the burglary. The shooting was not necessary to prevent the burglary. Zimmerman has no defense to the killing. Zimmerman doesn’t lose the defense because the police dispatcher told him not to pursue, he loses it because the burglary had already been prevented and the force was not necessary to prevent it. It seems likely, at this point, that Zimmerman has no valid prevention-of burglary defense to the killing. IF Zimmerman was pursuing when he shot Martin, the stand your ground law is inapplicable and totally irrelevant. This is also the position of the legislator who authored the law.
As stated in the prior post, if Zimmerman argues personal self-defense, the matters discussed in the prior post will apply. Zimmerman will not get personal self-defense IF he was the aggressor. Although Zimmerman is entitled to a presumption of innocence, the material released so far is very incriminating. Most expect that Zimmerman will be indicted shortly. Stay tuned.
One final note, as I see it, the main problem with the Florida law is NOT the stand your ground provision (which is irrelevant to this case), the main problem is allowing deadly force for preventing a burglary when the force is not being used by an occupant of the home or there is no reasonable belief that the burglar will use deadly force inside the home. I have no problem with using deadly force, if necessary in these two circumstances.

Example of propaganda

I often complain about the use of propaganda in the debate over policy and constitutional issues. Both the political Left and Right are guilty. This is a clear example.
If you are interested in following up on the issue of propaganda see this article in Wikipedia.

The Geo. Zimmerman Shooting--media miss the point!

The recent controversial killing in Florida by George Zimmerman has brought out lots of sloppy thinking and propagandizing. The media and propagandists will exploit the public's lack of understanding of the law of self-defense. As I understand the facts, the stand your ground law is irrelevant to the killing. The law changed only one part of Florida's self-defense law. It no longer required that threatened persons (not in their own home) retreat before using deadly defensive force to meet offensive deadly force. The new law does not require the threatened person to respond to deadly force with deadly force. They still have the option to retreat if they so desire, use non-deadly force or other tactics if they so desire. Reports suggest Zimmerman, armed with a handgun, chased the victim. He then became the aggressor and is not protected by the stand your ground law or the usual rules for self-defense. Apparently the police did not arrest him because it was not until later, when they examined the 911 tape, that it appeared he had chased the young man. The case will be submitted to a grand jury. The Brady Center and other gun control and anti-self-defense forces will claim that the stand your ground law encouraged Zimmerman. It didn't! It is not a shoot first-ask questions later law. It does not change the usual rules that forbid using deadly force against those who are not threatening the defender with deadly force. It does not allow an aggressor to use the defense. Further, most citizens, and most criminals, don't know much, if anything about the law of self-defense.