FormCritic wrote:For the record, I not defending the shooter.  If you read back over my history on the Acaeum, you'll see that I am prone to assumptions of innocence until proof is presented.

I'm pointing out that trial by media or guilt by public outrage is not justice...and is very prone to miscarriage of justice.

In the cases I've pointed out, much of the information first reported proved faulty or outright false.  All of the cases sighted have some possible relevance to this case:

I agree, but in this case, Zimmerman has offered no defense (unlike, say, Richard Jewell or the Duke Lacrosse players, who vigorously denied their guilt, which I believe helped them immensely in the public eye).  It's been a month and very little evidence has come out except more and more that points to Zimmerman being an extremely odd man.

In the case of Sam Sheppard, he was charged with his wife's murder after there was a public outcry for his arrest, including a newspaper editorial titled, "Bring Him In!"  There was similar outrage against the local police for not holding him or charging him when he appeared so obviously guilty.  Information about the case was skewed to make him look guilty, both in the media and in court.  Even his defense attorney thought he was guilty.  At his second trial, it was demonstrated that a number of things said in his first trial were not true.  Sheppard's handyman was later convicted of a different murder and died in prison.  Sheppard lost his doctor career even after being acquitted.

Not to mention the jury wasn't sequestered.  I watched a documentary about this case and it was shocking to see the jurors leaving the courthouse at the end of the day (walking down a long staircase) and immediately being mobbed by camera crews and reporters. Nowadays, you can risk a mistrial if a juror even tweets about being on a jury.  

Richard Jewell was an obvious fool and Walter Mitty bumpkin...who also committed the crime of being fat...with the complicating factor that he was also a hero who was falsely accused.  Multiple media and other sources had to pay settlements to Jewell when it was realized that they had told a number of false or heavily biased stories to make him fit a guilty profile.

Although he is now dead, he had the last laugh, as most of the new outlets who defamed him settled with him for quite a bit of money and a mouthful of crow.  He even finally got a commendation (a year before his death).  Rarely do the good guys win one like he did....btw, the newspaper that started it all never settled with him (the Atlanta Journal Constitution) and I'll always consider that paper absolutely worthless as a new source (not withstanding that its from, well, Atlanta).  Anyone in journalism to this day should be embarrassed to work for that rag.

Initial testimony and media reports in the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case prompted public outrage over a priviledged upper class team obviously gone rogue.  The prosecuting attorney was motivated by the racist outrage of his constituents.  Then, over time, facts emerged.  Not only were the lacrosse players not guilty, almost nothing said about them had been true.  The coach was fired.  The program was cancelled, the players all lost their scholarships.  And it all never happened.  What was true was heavily spun...so heavily that the lawsuits continue to this day.  The initial information about the "victim" was that she was a Duke University student and single mother who was struggling to support her child while searching for the American Dream.  She did take a course or two.  Her child was taken away by child protective services.  She was subsequently charged with a number of serious crimes, including arson and assault.  She is currently on trial for the murder of her boyfriend.

Don't forget a far to the left faculty that immediately sided with the "victim" and began harrassing the students (kicking some lacrosse students out of their classes), a police department run by peabrains, an ambitious DA (Nifong) who lied and prosecuted even though he knew the kids were innnocent so he could win an election, and a university chancellor that had the personal ethics, morals and courage of a animal molestor. Again the good guys won (they sued the shit out of the police department, Nifong, Duke university, the city, etc and got their pound of flesh) but if the kids charged didn't have good lawyers, we may have never found out the truth.   Nifong was disbarred (still the only attorney in North Carolina history to have this happen) and if the fates are kind is now eating his meals out of dumpsters.

My point (and I do have one) is that first impressions are often wrong, and it is possible for damning evidence and lurid insinuations to prove not only wrong but completely wrong and evidence of malice.  It is my personal curse that I remember what people said last time...usually long after most people have forgotten the whole thing.

[/quote]

I see your point, but frankly Zimmerman and guys like him scare the shit out of me....men who are so sure they are doing the right thing they are blinded.  If he's made to go free, this will happen again, guaranteed.

Mike B.

mbassoc2003 wrote:Surely we should be striving for a status quo where all people are treated equal, with the same courtesy, considerations, and levels of service and handling, regardless of the colour of their skin, apparent wealth, sexual orientation or position in society. If the shooter were the dead man, and the kid were the shooter, you can't tell me that anywhere in America today, the kid would be anywhere other than jail. That is racist by any definition, therefore, whilst the crime may be argued as race motivated or not, the Police actions were racist right down the line. I suspect this form of racism is institutional in the US and comes with the badge.

Yeah I guess so, but you've overlooked privatization. With budget cuts, services provided by government are replaced by stuff like neighborhood watch programs. Anyone with an actual badge is the one being outsourced, & therefore unlikely to support it.

As a lifelong conservative I would be proud to die at the hands of a self-appointed vigilante, so long as it resulted in the rich being able to enjoy a little more of their wealth.

sauromatian wrote:

mbassoc2003 wrote:
As a lifelong conservative I would be proud to die at the hands of a self-appointed vigilante, so long as it resulted in the rich being able to enjoy a little more of their wealth.

What the he'll does at have to do with anything. Class warfare is a straw man argument. Budget problems in government have nothing to do with the rich. It has everything to do with the 45% of Americqns who pay virtually not taxes at all. Not because they are poor, but because the economy has been devestated by unemployment and underemployment as a direct result of a big government run self-serving politicians, on both sides. Add the fact that all governments, including local, overspend on bullshit, and you get budget cuts.

This whole Zimmerman shooting has nothing to do with any of that. The guy called 911 and they responded immediately and told him to back off. There was no police shortage or need for what you guys are calling vigilantism. this event is not a statement about living in America or how the vast majority of Americans act. It is about one guy. We don't even know for sure this is a racial thing. But you would never that by the reaction of the press who always assumes any crime against an African-American by anyone who is not an African-American is a racist act. Again, look at my first post on this subject. An out and out racist crime against a 13 year old boy by two African-Americans and we hear nothing...

bbarsh wrote:

sauromatian wrote:

What the he'll does at have to do with anything. Class warfare is a straw man argument. Budget problems in government have nothing to do with the rich. It has everything to do with the 45% of Americqns who pay virtually not taxes at all. Not because they are poor, but because the economy has been devestated by unemployment and underemployment as a direct result of a big government run self-serving politicians, on both sides. Add the fact that all governments, including local, overspend on bullshit, and you get budget cuts.

This whole Zimmerman shooting has nothing to do with any of that. The guy called 911 and they responded immediately and told him to back off. There was no police shortage or need for what you guys are calling vigilantism. this event is not a statement about living in America or how the vast majority of Americans act. It is about one guy. We don't even know for sure this is a racial thing. But you would never that by the reaction of the press who always assumes any crime against an African-American by anyone who is not an African-American is a racist act. Again, look at my first post on this subject. An out and out racist crime against a 13 year old boy by two African-Americans and we hear nothing...

I agree entirely. The press wants a story and by God they are going to get a story, their way.  Zimmerman is technically NOT white, he's hispanic.  So why aren't all the stories focusing on the cultural rift between hispanics and blacks that often leads to violence between them? (it's a huge issue here in Texas where both mexicans and african americans live together). Instead it's this totally made up "white vs black" bullshit that is a guaranteed crowd pleaser.  

Mike B.

I wonder if the Stand Your Ground laws have ever been applied in a situation where a black man has shot an innocent white kid, and the police have let the black guy go after questioning him at his property. Regardless of what the media may be saying in the US (most of which just stays in the US), it does seem glaringly obvious to those of us living outside of the US that the law is applied differently to citizens depending upon the colour of their skin. Sometimes, it almost seems as if there is a level of tolerance that society accepts towards racism, and that situations and behaviour is only considered 'racist' after it passes a certain threshold. If a policing system is set up on the presumption of racial profiling, and officers are taught to react to situations based upon a set of given racial stereotypes, regardless of how accurate or how often those stereotypes prove to be true, the Police are institutionally racist. Now, that may be perfectly acceptable in a society where the tolerance is set quite high for what its citizens considers to be 'unacceptably racist' vs 'everyday background racism' kind of like to 'general everyday corruption' vs 'unacceptable corruption' we see in other countries), but from a outsiders' viewpoint it is quite shocking that these things are seen as acceptable and even normal in the USA..

mbassoc2003 wrote:That'd be a great state of affairs. I go to Florida on holiday. I know people in the US carry guns and knives. The Police are implying that if I feel threatened by the presence of other US citizens, I can shoot them and am immune from prosecution? Does the law apply to tourists too, or just to US citizens?

Well, if you're carrying concealed, you'd need to have your Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) permit - for which you've undergone fingerprinting, a background check, and have never been convicted of any felony or drug related crime - not to mention taking the required training.  Not being a citizen, you're not going to be issued one.  Which leaves you with open carry - which is legal in most of the US.  So, if you're openly carrying a firearm, someone would have to be a fool to threaten you.  Likewise, if you are here in the United States and anyone may or may not be carrying a concealed firearm - are you going to take the risk and act in a threatening manner toward another individual?  

An armed society is a respectful society.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lShFbQHg ... ture=share

Here's a link relating to how things have gone in Britain.

Re-runs of TV cop dramas are generally not a good way to learn about America.

It's amazing where people seem to get their information about life in general.

I think having a press that will brand a hespanic kid as being 'white' for the purposes of their own agenda or propoganda is pretty poor.
We've had a lot of bad press over here about the corruption and illegal activities of Murdock and his press empire, but we don't have the same freedom of the press that you have in the US. Or maybe the presence of the likes of the BBC tempers down the extravegances of the competing agencies. I'm not saying we don't have bias in the way 'news' is presented to us here, every agent has his agenda, but the liberties you see presented as 'news' in the US under the guise of freedom of speach tend not to be taken in the UK.

I recall whilst on holiday many years back, watching the unfolding story of a case of four or five 'white' hunters who had a gun fight with an oriental man in the backwoods somewhere. As I recall, the oriental fellow had killed one of the other group during a gunfight that had been initiated following alleged racial slurs, alcohol, and the belief by the oriental guy that they intended to hunt him down and kill him. The point is, over the three weeks I followed the story, the press were heavily biased solely towards one side of the story or the other, depending on which station you were watching, and presumably tailored towards the bent and racial bigotry of that station's audience. Each station's presentation of information deliberately ignored evidential fact that contradicted their racist view of the case, and exagerated the import of presented facts, and even presented as fact, supposition, that reinforced their intended propoganda.
It did not seem possible to get an honest and/or factual presentation of information on any channel, because freedom of speech has produced a press where every agency has a political agenda and a racial position to defend and fight for with it's revenue stream. Advertising money is funding the racism in the media in the US, although I doubt advertisers place their billions of dollars based on such things, money is placed based on viewing figures, and viewing figures increase or decrease based on which channels output most closely aligns with popular opinion in a particular state or region, advertisers revenue reinforces and helps grow the racism and politial agendas in regions and the resulting effect must be to polarise communities and keep the vast majority of the uninterested or uneducated in ignorance.

We have a similar thing playing out this week in Scotland, and the press have been very reluctant to mention the race of any of the principles. In the UK for many years, the media have tried to fight the decline in the press to the US propoganda model, by refusing in a lot of cases to mention the race of anyone at all. The head in the sand or the need to know approach. In this case, twenty years ago, a couple of gentleman (a father and son team) were believed to have killed an waiter from a local indian restaurant. The Police screwed up the collection of evidence badly, there were allogations of institutional racism (which given the state of Scottish Policing at the time may well have been a factor) and dispite all the evidence and the 'common belif in the town' that the perps were guilty, they both walked free. Last week a group of men of undisclosed race spent four hours torturing the mother of the cleared perps in her home, and left. The press will not speculate as to the intent of those individuals, and will not make the link between old witnessing and alibi, the feed relatives, the murder of the waiter, or any links between the past and the present. Indeed, the news reporting goes on air with no film or photos of any of the principle agents, or the locations past or present, and is only being presented factually face to camera by the news readers on all channels. In the UK, the media tries very hard to avoid presenting or discussing race with the intent of avoiding the race angle completely. That is probably just as naive and devicive.