On July 04 2013 12:08 Brett wrote: The fact that the trial is being broadcast, live no less, is a fucking disgrace to the criminal justice system in that jurisdiction. Ridiculous.
The media circus around it is another.
This trial is being broadcast because its part of the Summer Sweeps. This case was set to take place right after the Jodie Arias murder trial to fill the void in broadcast airtime. Trials like this generate ratings that create jobs which makes money. Everybody wins.
Perhaps I'm just naturally skeptical, but do you seriously think the judicial system schedules high profile trials based on scheduling convenience for news networks?
On July 04 2013 12:38 Tewks44 wrote: This media bias is really pissing me off. Here's the DNA evidence presented.
Zimmerman's DNA found on:
Zimmerman's gun Zimmerman's gun holster Stain on Trayvon Martin's Jacket (partial DNA) Stain on Trayvon Martin's Sweatshirt being worn under the jacket
To me it seems pretty reasonable to extrapolate from this that there was a fight where Trayvon was beating up Zimmerman and got enough blood on his jacket to seep through to what he was wearing underneath. Here is how the media sees it.
Headline
"Does DNA evidence contradict Zimmerman?"
"Gorgone testified that testing of Martin's hooded jacket that he was wearing as an outer layer the night of shooting did not yield much of Zimmerman's DNA. Only one stain on Martin's hooded jacket yielded a partial DNA profile that matched Zimmerman"
"This may challenge the claim Zimmerman and Martin were in fight for their lives, if only a minimal amount of Zimmerman's skin or blood transferred to Martin's outer clothing." (funny because there was also DNA on the sweatshirt Martin was wearing underneath his jacket)
This reporting is just continuing to disgust me
Beyond simple lies and misreporting, it'll end up causing riots. Blood'll be on the media's hands here.
On July 04 2013 12:08 Brett wrote: The fact that the trial is being broadcast, live no less, is a fucking disgrace to the criminal justice system in that jurisdiction. Ridiculous.
The media circus around it is another.
This trial is being broadcast because its part of the Summer Sweeps. This case was set to take place right after the Jodie Arias murder trial to fill the void in broadcast airtime. Trials like this generate ratings that create jobs which makes money. Everybody wins.
Florida has Sunlight laws or whatever they are the make everything available to the public, including trials such as this. I might be wrong on the name, but it's all open to the public.
On July 04 2013 12:38 Tewks44 wrote: This media bias is really pissing me off. Here's the DNA evidence presented.
Zimmerman's DNA found on:
Zimmerman's gun Zimmerman's gun holster Stain on Trayvon Martin's Jacket (partial DNA) Stain on Trayvon Martin's Sweatshirt being worn under the jacket
To me it seems pretty reasonable to extrapolate from this that there was a fight where Trayvon was beating up Zimmerman and got enough blood on his jacket to seep through to what he was wearing underneath. Here is how the media sees it.
Headline
"Does DNA evidence contradict Zimmerman?"
"Gorgone testified that testing of Martin's hooded jacket that he was wearing as an outer layer the night of shooting did not yield much of Zimmerman's DNA. Only one stain on Martin's hooded jacket yielded a partial DNA profile that matched Zimmerman"
"This may challenge the claim Zimmerman and Martin were in fight for their lives, if only a minimal amount of Zimmerman's skin or blood transferred to Martin's outer clothing." (funny because there was also DNA on the sweatshirt Martin was wearing underneath his jacket)
This reporting is just continuing to disgust me
Beyond simple lies and misreporting, it'll end up causing riots. Blood'll be on the media's hands here.
and then they will cover them and make more money because people will tune in to watch riots.
On July 04 2013 11:05 Yacobs wrote: What is disgusting about it
The idea of betting on the verdict of a man's freedom vs his incarceration is disgusting: A) because it puts a mathematical and seemingly arbitrary total to his chances at freedom which are supposed to be influenced by the human element of the Jury and not Game Theory; B) because it means that the chances of fixing the verdict exist for the profit of racketeers and gamblers by people in high places, which I find the possibility of disgusting; C) because the idea of putting a case that stands at the forefront of American society right now, as the poster-child for media created racial turmoil no less, as something to be made less serious by gambling.
they should probably stick to betting on which of two dudes is going to knock the other unconscious first. its more humane.
On July 04 2013 12:38 Tewks44 wrote: This media bias is really pissing me off. Here's the DNA evidence presented.
Zimmerman's DNA found on:
Zimmerman's gun Zimmerman's gun holster Stain on Trayvon Martin's Jacket (partial DNA) Stain on Trayvon Martin's Sweatshirt being worn under the jacket
To me it seems pretty reasonable to extrapolate from this that there was a fight where Trayvon was beating up Zimmerman and got enough blood on his jacket to seep through to what he was wearing underneath. Here is how the media sees it.
Headline
"Does DNA evidence contradict Zimmerman?"
"Gorgone testified that testing of Martin's hooded jacket that he was wearing as an outer layer the night of shooting did not yield much of Zimmerman's DNA. Only one stain on Martin's hooded jacket yielded a partial DNA profile that matched Zimmerman"
"This may challenge the claim Zimmerman and Martin were in fight for their lives, if only a minimal amount of Zimmerman's skin or blood transferred to Martin's outer clothing." (funny because there was also DNA on the sweatshirt Martin was wearing underneath his jacket)
This reporting is just continuing to disgust me
Beyond simple lies and misreporting, it'll end up causing riots. Blood'll be on the media's hands here.
and then they will cover them and make more money because people will tune in to watch riots.
Honestly, I really don't think their long-term content strategy includes starting riots.
They're just being dense. Really dense. It's hard to believe some of these media pundits have law backgrounds. I learn a lot more from this thread than on TV.
On July 04 2013 12:08 Brett wrote: The fact that the trial is being broadcast, live no less, is a fucking disgrace to the criminal justice system in that jurisdiction. Ridiculous.
The media circus around it is another.
Honestly thank god it is. I'll admit I wasn't super sympathetic until I read this thread and watched some of the testimony on Youtube.
On July 04 2013 12:38 Tewks44 wrote: This media bias is really pissing me off. Here's the DNA evidence presented.
Zimmerman's DNA found on:
Zimmerman's gun Zimmerman's gun holster Stain on Trayvon Martin's Jacket (partial DNA) Stain on Trayvon Martin's Sweatshirt being worn under the jacket
To me it seems pretty reasonable to extrapolate from this that there was a fight where Trayvon was beating up Zimmerman and got enough blood on his jacket to seep through to what he was wearing underneath. Here is how the media sees it.
Headline
"Does DNA evidence contradict Zimmerman?"
"Gorgone testified that testing of Martin's hooded jacket that he was wearing as an outer layer the night of shooting did not yield much of Zimmerman's DNA. Only one stain on Martin's hooded jacket yielded a partial DNA profile that matched Zimmerman"
"This may challenge the claim Zimmerman and Martin were in fight for their lives, if only a minimal amount of Zimmerman's skin or blood transferred to Martin's outer clothing." (funny because there was also DNA on the sweatshirt Martin was wearing underneath his jacket)
This reporting is just continuing to disgust me
Beyond simple lies and misreporting, it'll end up causing riots. Blood'll be on the media's hands here.
and then they will cover them and make more money because people will tune in to watch riots.
Honestly, I really don't think their long-term content strategy includes starting riots.
They're just being dense. Really dense. It's hard to believe some of these media pundits have law backgrounds. I learn a lot more from this thread than on TV.
No, they know what they're doing. If I remember correctly, there were 2 story lines with this incident, one was race, the other was gun rights/laws. Guess the public's tired of the gun debate so on to the race plot we go.
I saw the judge tell West, "if you had asked earlier, I would have made time" regarding Krump's deposition, and found that to be quite infuriating, followed by De Al Rionda being about as in-your-face sycophant immediately following that debate. It was cringe-worthy to observe. I assume that kind of crony behavior wasn't in front of the jury.
It really feels like a mix of damage control and anger for the state and the judge, who seems to be on the state's side. The state would rather not look too bad, so it doesn't mind their own witnesses helping the defense...it demonstrates they got a very poor hand dealt to them. The judge seems to more or less play the friend-of-the-jury card, which seems to me like it would be very commonplace, but in that sense her bias can affect the jury as well (including when the jury is in the courtroom). The anger is shown when De Al Rionda starts raising his voice at his own witnesses, or like the example above of the judge treating the defense childishly, seemingly devoid of a logical answer.
On July 04 2013 12:08 Brett wrote: The fact that the trial is being broadcast, live no less, is a fucking disgrace to the criminal justice system in that jurisdiction. Ridiculous.
The media circus around it is another.
This trial is being broadcast because its part of the Summer Sweeps. This case was set to take place right after the Jodie Arias murder trial to fill the void in broadcast airtime. Trials like this generate ratings that create jobs which makes money. Everybody wins.
Perhaps I'm just naturally skeptical, but do you seriously think the judicial system schedules high profile trials based on scheduling convenience for news networks?
In the case of a normal trial, ofcourse not, but considering this one is more about the media and public opinion then actual lawmaking, I would'nt be surprised. And it's an amusing thought anyway, sometimes this trial just feels like a sitcom or an Ace Attorney game, Skype trolls, old men trying to understand and explain technology, hilarious witnesses (<3 Jeantel) and the prosecutor looking like an evil dr. Phil, comedy gold.
Seriously though, is it actually common for courts to use Skype? Not like it would cost much to set up a basic VOIP server, get the man a proper telephone or anything else that isn't the buggy hell we call Skype (and I say this as a frequent user for years), the only reason people even use it is because it also doubles as a instant messaging service and is fairly retard proof.
On July 04 2013 12:38 Tewks44 wrote: This media bias is really pissing me off. Here's the DNA evidence presented.
Zimmerman's DNA found on:
Zimmerman's gun Zimmerman's gun holster Stain on Trayvon Martin's Jacket (partial DNA) Stain on Trayvon Martin's Sweatshirt being worn under the jacket
To me it seems pretty reasonable to extrapolate from this that there was a fight where Trayvon was beating up Zimmerman and got enough blood on his jacket to seep through to what he was wearing underneath. Here is how the media sees it.
Headline
"Does DNA evidence contradict Zimmerman?"
"Gorgone testified that testing of Martin's hooded jacket that he was wearing as an outer layer the night of shooting did not yield much of Zimmerman's DNA. Only one stain on Martin's hooded jacket yielded a partial DNA profile that matched Zimmerman"
"This may challenge the claim Zimmerman and Martin were in fight for their lives, if only a minimal amount of Zimmerman's skin or blood transferred to Martin's outer clothing." (funny because there was also DNA on the sweatshirt Martin was wearing underneath his jacket)
This reporting is just continuing to disgust me
Beyond simple lies and misreporting, it'll end up causing riots. Blood'll be on the media's hands here.
and then they will cover them and make more money because people will tune in to watch riots.
Honestly, I really don't think their long-term content strategy includes starting riots.
They're just being dense. Really dense. It's hard to believe some of these media pundits have law backgrounds. I learn a lot more from this thread than on TV.
No, they know what they're doing. If I remember correctly, there were 2 story lines with this incident, one was race, the other was gun rights/laws. Guess the public's tired of the gun debate so on to the race plot we go.
Ahhh, I'm sure they'll try to backpedal and flip the script once it becomes undeniably clear to everyone not on TV that they don't know what they're talking about.
"Shocking new development ... we've been talking out of our ass for at least a month. Zimmerman not guilty!"
On July 04 2013 12:38 Tewks44 wrote: This media bias is really pissing me off. Here's the DNA evidence presented.
Zimmerman's DNA found on:
Zimmerman's gun Zimmerman's gun holster Stain on Trayvon Martin's Jacket (partial DNA) Stain on Trayvon Martin's Sweatshirt being worn under the jacket
To me it seems pretty reasonable to extrapolate from this that there was a fight where Trayvon was beating up Zimmerman and got enough blood on his jacket to seep through to what he was wearing underneath. Here is how the media sees it.
Headline
"Does DNA evidence contradict Zimmerman?"
"Gorgone testified that testing of Martin's hooded jacket that he was wearing as an outer layer the night of shooting did not yield much of Zimmerman's DNA. Only one stain on Martin's hooded jacket yielded a partial DNA profile that matched Zimmerman"
"This may challenge the claim Zimmerman and Martin were in fight for their lives, if only a minimal amount of Zimmerman's skin or blood transferred to Martin's outer clothing." (funny because there was also DNA on the sweatshirt Martin was wearing underneath his jacket)
This reporting is just continuing to disgust me
Beyond simple lies and misreporting, it'll end up causing riots. Blood'll be on the media's hands here.
and then they will cover them and make more money because people will tune in to watch riots.
Honestly, I really don't think their long-term content strategy includes starting riots.
They're just being dense. Really dense. It's hard to believe some of these media pundits have law backgrounds. I learn a lot more from this thread than on TV.
No, they know what they're doing. If I remember correctly, there were 2 story lines with this incident, one was race, the other was gun rights/laws. Guess the public's tired of the gun debate so on to the race plot we go.
Ahhh, I'm sure they'll try to backpedal and flip the script once it becomes undeniably clear to everyone not on TV that they don't know what they're talking about.
"Shocking new development ... we've been talking out of our ass for at least a month. Zimmerman not guilty!"
Everyone not watching tv that cares enough to follow the case themselves. Not sure how many those are relatively speaking.
On July 04 2013 12:08 Brett wrote: The fact that the trial is being broadcast, live no less, is a fucking disgrace to the criminal justice system in that jurisdiction. Ridiculous.
The media circus around it is another.
I can sit in on criminal court in local counties all I want apart from closed trials due to juveniles(and a few other circumstances). It merely broadens the aspect of an open judicial system that everyone can see how the process works.
At the risk of being off-topic, I would totally agree that "nigger" is a more offensive word than "cracker", but that's just me. I wouldn't really be offended being called a "cracker", but most black people I know would be offended being called a "nigger".
On July 04 2013 20:57 sc2superfan101 wrote: At the risk of being off-topic, I would totally agree that "nigger" is a more offensive word than "cracker", but that's just me. I wouldn't really be offended being called a "cracker", but most black people I know would be offended being called a "nigger".
Do not bring this debate back up. Go back 30 pages where it went on for 2 days straight, sorry you missed your turn!
On July 04 2013 20:57 sc2superfan101 wrote: At the risk of being off-topic, I would totally agree that "nigger" is a more offensive word than "cracker", but that's just me. I wouldn't really be offended being called a "cracker", but most black people I know would be offended being called a "nigger".
Do not bring this debate back up. Go back 30 pages where it went on for 2 days straight, sorry you missed your turn!
But I wanna play.
Having never been the victim of any kind of racial profiling, discrimination or hate cracker would have no impact on me. If you called attention to my whiteness I'd not care because I'm a white guy in a country run by white guys for white guys so wtf do I care. Feels p good. Likewise if I was a black guy in a country run by black guys for black guys and you called me a nigger I imagine I'd feel the same way and think "oh no, you identified me by my skin colour which has never once been a problem to me or for anyone else". You need the three hundred years of racial oppression to establish that the skin colour is something negative for the word to have any context. A racial insult basically comes down to "you're X and that's bad!". In the case of nigger in America it has meaning because of the history, it means "you're black and that means you're a slave/savage/criminal/stupid/foreign/not quite human/violent/amoral and remember all the humiliations we poured upon you and your people". In the case of cracker it's "you're white and... I guess you don't run quite as much shit as you used to even though you're still basically in charge".
On July 04 2013 20:57 sc2superfan101 wrote: At the risk of being off-topic, I would totally agree that "nigger" is a more offensive word than "cracker", but that's just me. I wouldn't really be offended being called a "cracker", but most black people I know would be offended being called a "nigger".
Highly relevant.
Sorry in advance, just trying to lighten up the mood.
EPT
