The influence of MSM coverage regarding the Trayvon Martin case

[HMSHood]

Is this a new precedence in a new media stategy. Having the grieving parents go on the road WITH THE LAWYER ...pre-trial? And then friendly media write emotional fury-inducing articles?

Maybe the parents of Eve Carson who truly WAS shot in the street like a dog should have made the national rounds pre-trial of her killers? And the Channon/Newsome families? This is justice now in America?

Should we make this a new media PRE TRial norm.

You can delete this but it is SHAMEFUL. Raise money AFTER trial and report about it then.

You're right. Some people choose to go on road with lawyers and some don't. That can be said about father and relatives of Shaniya Davis. She was sold to sex slavery by her own mother, Antoinette Davis, and raped and murdered by Mario McNeil. That case is truly sickening and I don't hear much of it. Frankly, I think it deserved much attention as Casey Anthony because it so atrocious.

 

[rossva]

BBM Let's take your theroy one step further. If you can afford to live in a gate community (even temporarily) you can afford extra security. Perhaps young Martin should have paid to have an armed security escort with him everywhere he went. It is just as unreasonable to say that as it is to suggest if the residents had alarm systems they wouldn't need a Citizens Watch. and therefore, no George Zimmerman as watch capitan.

It's about $25 a month. If you can manage cable in your budget you can certainly manage a security system. That would have kept GZ plenty busy. And with that many condos I bet the HOA could have worked a deal with a local security company. It's not that expensive if you fear breakins. How much is your life worth??? If you can afford to live in a gated community, you can afford the extra security. Also your local police department can also tell you how to keep your home safe and it's not expensive. Charlie bars, locks on downstairs windows, etc. all of which are relatively inexpensive. jmo

 

[Dr.Fessel]

You can't trust the media. I remember the Duke Lacrosse case and that fell apart fast.

I never followed that just remember dancers and players and the media took a beating on it.

 

[LambChop]

BBM Let's take your theroy one step further. If you can afford to live in a gate community (even temporarily) you can afford extra security. Perhaps young Martin should have paid to have an armed security escort with him everywhere he went. It is just as unreasonable to say that as it is to suggest if the residents had alarm systems they wouldn't need a Citizens Watch. and therefore, no George Zimmerman as watch capitan.

Right. That is why all police department's have and have had for many, many, many years a crime prevention unit that tells you to do this same exact thing. Officer McDuff.....take a bite out of crime. LE will tell you exactly how to protect yourself WITHOUT a gun. All you have to do is ask. Their suggestions are not expensive and most households could afford to take these extra precautions. It's not a theory it's a fact. You just have to be responsible enough to find out how to protect yourself. And I know LE is more than willing to help. My husband was also a crime prevention officer for a couple of years and lectured home owners on what to do to keep their homes safe from breakins in a city that had a high crime rate. And young Martin needing an arm escort to walk him home would put us back about 200 years, wouldn't it now? They never needed GZ, ever, and IMO it is unreasonable to think so. jmo

 

[stmarysmead]

I never followed that just remember dancers and players and the media took a beating on it.

As the media Should have. For months they and DA Nifong insisted there was a strong case against the players. It became a case about race as much as rape. Because of the terribly inciteful reporting, the Naacp, Jesse Jackson, The Black Panthers, all became involved. The police chief tok a leave of absence. Witness statements began to change to favor prosecution. When a Black cab driver refused to lie after giving one of the accused an alibi, Nifong put him on trial for shoplifting. Thank God he was acquitted. He received a Hero of the Year award from Readers Digest.

Many see similarities to things in this case... "the DA must have SOMETHING," when the cae looked weak...the Racial sensitivites, the Media hysteria, and many of the same figures including the Black Panthers involving themselves.

in the end,it was shown that Nifong withheld exculpatory DNA evidence. Crystal Mangum had DNA in every orifice and on her underwear from numerous other men but nothing from any LAX player. Nifong was disbarred.

Mangum now sits in jail on charge of murder. A Black man who took her in after her trial for setting an arson fire in another man's home...is dead.

Many people knew of her previous mental and substance abuse problems, but she was portrayed as perfect for a long while..." Sister Survivor. " She had to be peect and the LAX players EVIL. No middle ground.
Yes, it's a different case. But there are strong similarities in the way the media emphasized the racial aspect of the case to incite hatred before the facts/evidence were known. There is a lesson of caution to be learned from that. ALso lessons about the pressure Media can bring on a DA to go forward with a weak or non existant case.

 

[2goldfish]

Until they grab her, they have done nothing illegal - and I assure you, anyone who grabs a daughter of mine will wish they hadn't. As I can see from your example, you couldn't come up with a scenario that -only- involves following so I'm going to assume you're indirectly agreeing that following is not a crime.

dont assume that, my friend, while I understand that legally it is not a crime, I absolutely believe it is the wrong thing to do on pretty much all occasions. I am uncertain if you answered my question but I agree of course on your reaction to your daughter being grabbed - I hope you feel the same for a son if you have one/some

what you might have inferred is that it is my belief that GZ grabbed trayvon to detain him - which is not legal AFAIK. he did not see him committing a crime where I think that detaining someone in that case is generally accepted?

I just think if trayvon was female we would not be seeing such disagreements in here - I think most people would assume a female cant possibly be an agressor, whereas a black male almost certainly is. I am not saying YOU think that, I am saying that as I read things across the web, I strongly think that people have their idea of "female being followed (etc)" and "black male being followed (etc)", it creates different storylines in people's heads. come on, look at all the fights in these threads about whether or not GZ was racially profiling (I personally see no evidence that he was) would you be hearing any such thing if it was a woman or girl, even regardless of race? my guess is probably not - although if the theoretical girl/woman in question was overweight, obviously mentally ill, obviously drunk etc, we'd see similar victim blaming. it's all over WS in many, many cases...people have their prejudices whether they know it or not.


forgive typos, insomnia week.

 

[K_Z]

It is easier to just repeat the same "charge" of profiling than give an intellectual rational reply as to why we should assume RACE, not CRIME caused GZ to be watched.

This is why I believe that GZ cannot get a fair trial.

Intellectual curiosity and rational thinking are rarely sought after qualities in potential jurors for high profile cases. By either prosecutors or defense attorneys. IMO.

The influence of MSM coverage cannot be underestimated on the pool of potential jurors.

I think the trial can be fair, but the juries are never a true representative slice of society in high profile cases that the trial will go on for weeks (or months). The higher the profile of the case, the more that publicity skews who is available and willing to serve on the jury. And clearly, some of those people have agendas that have been heavily influened by the MSM coverage of the case. (The simple fact of being employed often produces dismissal, as jurors are not required to endure financial hardship for service.)

And then there are considerations such as "racial balance" of the jury-- also heavily commented on by the MSM. In the Casey Anthony case we saw the defense play the "racial balance" card when the prosecution dismissed a woman juror candidate who clearly and repeatedly said she could not "judge" another person. The woman is black, and the defense protested that he believed that the reason the juror was dismissed was due to race, and at that point there were not AA's on the jury. The judge agreed, and the woman was seated.

 

[zenreaper]

dont assume that, my friend, while I understand that legally it is not a crime, I absolutely believe it is the wrong thing to do on pretty much all occasions. I am uncertain if you answered my question but I agree of course on your reaction to your daughter being grabbed - I hope you feel the same for a son if you have one/some

what you might have inferred is that it is my belief that GZ grabbed trayvon to detain him - which is not legal AFAIK. he did not see him committing a crime where I think that detaining someone in that case is generally accepted?

I just think if trayvon was female we would not be seeing such disagreements in here - I think most people would assume a female cant possibly be an agressor, whereas a black male almost certainly is. I am not saying YOU think that, I am saying that as I read things across the web, I strongly think that people have their idea of "female being followed (etc)" and "black male being followed (etc)", it creates different storylines in people's heads. come on, look at all the fights in these threads about whether or not GZ was racially profiling (I personally see no evidence that he was) would you be hearing any such thing if it was a woman or girl, even regardless of race? my guess is probably not - although if the theoretical girl/woman in question was overweight, obviously mentally ill, obviously drunk etc, we'd see similar victim blaming. it's all over WS in many, many cases...people have their prejudices whether they know it or not.


forgive typos, insomnia week.

If you believe GZ attempted to "detain" TM, how do you think that occured and what evidence are you using to justify it? I am serious, did he grab his clothing, because that would have, problany, left abrasions on where the clothing tightened, and there were none. It would have caused stretching of the material, of which there were none reported. If GZ grabbed TM by, say, an ARM, there would have been finger marks, etc.

I have seen a few people theorize that GZ grabbed TM, and TM defended himself. I really am curious as to what evidence leads you and they to that theory.

 

[gxm]

dont assume that, my friend, while I understand that legally it is not a crime, I absolutely believe it is the wrong thing to do on pretty much all occasions. I am uncertain if you answered my question but I agree of course on your reaction to your daughter being grabbed - I hope you feel the same for a son if you have one/some

what you might have inferred is that it is my belief that GZ grabbed trayvon to detain him - which is not legal AFAIK. he did not see him committing a crime where I think that detaining someone in that case is generally accepted?

I just think if trayvon was female we would not be seeing such disagreements in here - I think most people would assume a female cant possibly be an agressor, whereas a black male almost certainly is. I am not saying YOU think that, I am saying that as I read things across the web, I strongly think that people have their idea of "female being followed (etc)" and "black male being followed (etc)", it creates different storylines in people's heads. come on, look at all the fights in these threads about whether or not GZ was racially profiling (I personally see no evidence that he was) would you be hearing any such thing if it was a woman or girl, even regardless of race? my guess is probably not - although if the theoretical girl/woman in question was overweight, obviously mentally ill, obviously drunk etc, we'd see similar victim blaming. it's all over WS in many, many cases...people have their prejudices whether they know it or not.


forgive typos, insomnia week.

BBM. I disagree. If there were witnesses to a young woman on top of GZ beating him, then I think most people would agree that she was the aggressor. IMO, this has nothing to do with TM's race (or gender). It has to do with witnesses who saw him beating GZ while GZ was on the ground screaming for help.

Hope this isn't OT but there was a case a while back where two women confronted a fast food clerk (one slapped him, the other did not). The clerk beat them both with a metal rod even after they were clearly on the ground and screaming (heard in the videotape) for help. One of the young women has possible brain damage because of the beating. IIRC, I was the only commenter who felt the clerk was in the wrong. The vast majority of commenters felt the two young woman got what they deserved.

JMO, OMO, and MOO

 

[Florida Native]

It's all they have, really. The crime is not heinous enough without racial profiling.

Unfortunately the media never put any emphasis on the fact that the dispatcher was sending a mixed message, at least GZ may have felt that way.

"which way is he running?" GZ has to think for a second, "toward the back entrance".

"Let me know if he does anything else." This may have given GZ the impression the dispatcher wanted GZ to keep an eye on him. The NW says one thing, but the police trump the neighborhood watch.

When the dispatcher realized GZ was following, he told him he didn't need to do that. GZ said Ok.

The media has never talked about the timeline, ever. Why not? Because anyone with common sense and remedial math skills would know that it does not take seven minutes to walk 100 yards.

Calling anyone who believes in due process, rather than emotional chaos, a racist, cheapens the term and cheapens their argument. JMO

I agree with your entire post but especially the part I bolded.

 

[2goldfish]

If you believe GZ attempted to "detain" TM, how do you think that occured and what evidence are you using to justify it? I am serious, did he grab his clothing, because that would have, problany, left abrasions on where the clothing tightened, and there were none. It would have caused stretching of the material, of which there were none reported. If GZ grabbed TM by, say, an ARM, there would have been finger marks, etc.

I have seen a few people theorize that GZ grabbed TM, and TM defended himself. I really am curious as to what evidence leads you and they to that theory.

I am basing it on my life experience, partly, which obviously accounts for nothing but my opinion, and basing it on the gf's statement that the last thing she heard was "get off, get off". if trayvon then struck out I frankly cannot see how anyone could blame him.

stretching when pulled? heaven help me, I have a 5 year old that hangs off me all day long...I *tell* him to stop or it will pull my clothes out of shape, but so far, not a once, regardless of fabric....yet I continue to tell him this, perhaps I shall direct him to your post (kids never listen to their mothers!!)

 

[2goldfish]

BBM. I disagree. If there were witnesses to a young woman on top of GZ beating him, then I think most people would agree that she was the aggressor. IMO, this has nothing to do with TM's race (or gender). It has to do with witnesses who saw him beating GZ while GZ was on the ground screaming for help.

Hope this isn't OT but there was a case a while back where two women confronted a fast food clerk (one slapped him, the other did not). The clerk beat them both with a metal rod even after they were clearly on the ground and screaming (heard in the videotape) for help. One of the young women has possible brain damage because of the beating. IIRC, I was the only commenter who felt the clerk was in the wrong. The vast majority of commenters felt the two young woman got what they deserved.

JMO, OMO, and MOO

first bbm: I disagree, I think with ALL THINGS BEING IDENTICAL if GZ had followed a female instead of a male, after GZ followed the theoretical female who then ended up winning, she's be championed if not shot and martyred if shot. there's be none of this "it's not a crime to follow someone!! obviously GZ feared for his life!" etc JMO IMO MOO etc ..that's what I am saying, no one at all is claming that I know of that GZ was happily in his vehicle and trayvon busted a window to get at his innocent <modsnip>. I think we pretty much all agree that if GZ stayed in the vehicle none of this would have happened - it's what happened once the confrontation began that we cant all agree on - I get that we all disagree whether he should have obeyed the dispather and what not.

second bbm: I remember that case, I read it in dailymail not on here I think; I agree with you, the clerk was in the wrong.

 

[AJ Noiter]

dont assume that, my friend, while I understand that legally it is not a crime, I absolutely believe it is the wrong thing to do on pretty much all occasions. I am uncertain if you answered my question but I agree of course on your reaction to your daughter being grabbed - I hope you feel the same for a son if you have one/some

what you might have inferred is that it is my belief that GZ grabbed trayvon to detain him - which is not legal AFAIK. he did not see him committing a crime where I think that detaining someone in that case is generally accepted?

I just think if trayvon was female we would not be seeing such disagreements in here - I think most people would assume a female cant possibly be an agressor, whereas a black male almost certainly is. I am not saying YOU think that, I am saying that as I read things across the web, I strongly think that people have their idea of "female being followed (etc)" and "black male being followed (etc)", it creates different storylines in people's heads. come on, look at all the fights in these threads about whether or not GZ was racially profiling (I personally see no evidence that he was) would you be hearing any such thing if it was a woman or girl, even regardless of race? my guess is probably not - although if the theoretical girl/woman in question was overweight, obviously mentally ill, obviously drunk etc, we'd see similar victim blaming. it's all over WS in many, many cases...people have their prejudices whether they know it or not.


forgive typos, insomnia week.

And then there are times where following is absolutely necessary. For example, one night the closest store to my house was closed. It was a nice night so I decided to walk a mile to the next closest store. On my way back a young lady was getting off work at Kentucky Fried Chicken and I "followed" her for about 5 blocks before she had to stop at a busy intersection. When I caught up I informed her that I didn't mean to scare her and we continued our walk while talking back and forth. In this scenario I was already walking the direction I was - was I to change my path simply because someone started walking 20ft in front of me? Should I be tossed in jail because I followed someone?

I haven't seen any proof that Mr. Zimmerman grabbed Mr. Martin. Not even the "girlfriend's" story says that he did, and that would be the closest I've seen.

You can give me any scenario you like, white male following hispanic female, hispanic female following black male, etc. The race and sex do not matter. Following is not a crime.

 

[LambChop]

And then there are times where following is absolutely necessary. For example, one night the closest store to my house was closed. It was a nice night so I decided to walk a mile to the next closest store. On my way back a young lady was getting off work at Kentucky Fried Chicken and I "followed" her for about 5 blocks before she had to stop at a busy intersection. When I caught up I informed her that I didn't mean to scare her and we continued our walk while talking back and forth. In this scenario I was already walking the direction I was - was I to change my path simply because someone started walking 20ft in front of me? Should I be tossed in jail because I followed someone?

I haven't seen any proof that Mr. Zimmerman grabbed Mr. Martin. Not even the "girlfriend's" story says that he did, and that would be the closest I've seen.

You can give me any scenario you like, white male following hispanic female, hispanic female following black male, etc. The race and sex do not matter. Following is not a crime.

But the difference is you were not looking at her as if she were a criminal, which GZ clearly was. Staring at TM as he passed his vehicle and complaining the TM was doing the same. TM had already made visual contact GZ and we know that did not go well by GZ's description to LE. GZ had already made the decision that TM was a criminal.

We are off topic but let me say one thing GZ did not want TM to get away and that is why he went after him. The motivation was to keep TM from getting away, to stop TM. Why would TM care about GZ? He was just some crazy white man.

While you may think you did not scare this woman who is to say she did not have a small gun in her pocket and that is why she was not afraid of you. It's a natural instinct to be afraid of people who do not smile at you and give you dirty looks and the follow you for god knows what reason.

It also was how Mr. Bundy got a lot of his victims. Being Mr. Nice Guy. "Stranger danger" they teach it to the kids in school. Bet TM took one of those classes. jmo