First, nobody knew that at the time this became national news. Second, do you think any of the angry people care? This is a story because a guy shot a kid and got away with it after a cursory investigation, not because a guy shot a black kid.
The black kids who set fire to a white kid in Kansas are not national news because they haven’t been caught. If the police had asked them a couple of questions and written the whole thing off as justifiable use of force it would be an even bigger story than Trayvon’s.
I don’t know what that has to do with “the Great White Defendant”. Are only whites capable of anti-Islamic prejudice? :rolleyes:
Anyway, what on earth could the family possibly have to gain by making up a fictional anti-Islamic killer, other than reducing the odds that the police will find the actual killer? Unless you think someone in the family killed this woman, and it’s a smokescreen, it doesn’t make much sense to doubt them.
Xenophobia? Yes, there’s plenty of that out there.
Xenophobes breaking into random foreigners houses and bludgeoning them to death, simply because they are different (nothing was stolen from the house)? I’m going to go out on a limb and say that this is uncommon.
It’s a strange story and I don’t think you’re completely wrong to be skeptical, but the fact that nothing was stolen doesn’t cast doubt on the racist murderer theory. I also doubt the police bought the family’s story at face value. If they felt the woman was killed by someone in her family and the note was an attempt to cover the killer’s tracks, I would have expected a quick arrest- but maybe they’re building a case.
East County San Diego is either the first or second highest concentration of Iraqui Immigrants along with Detroit. This influx has created a bit of tension in the area, so the appearance of a racist targeting them is not something that I would dismiss out of hand.
So now we have NBC apologizing for editing the 911 call, ABC placing that floating chyron over Zimmerman’s head at the police station, and an “enhanced” version of the 911 call that suggests Zimmerman did not not use a racial slur.
Question: Does anyone really believe NBC “mistakenly” edited that 911 call? These things are not done by interns and put on the air without many eyes looking at it first.
I think it was a mistake in the general sense that confirmation bias tends to warp peoples’ thinking. Probably the relevant editors at NBC “knew” that in all probability Zimmerman was a racist who stalked and murdered Martin. So they naturally were not very skeptical of evidence which confirmed this view.
There is news today that the 17 year old daughter was caught having sex with a man in a car back in November (and it was not the male cousin she is betrothed to in a pending arranged marriage) and then later was fighting with her (now deceased) Mom while riding in a car and was so distraught she threw herself out of the moving car, breaking her arm.
It’s also reported that the murdered Mom had filed paperwork initiating a divorce from her husband.
Finally, the note the family turned over to the authorities (the note that told the family to go back to Iraq) was a photocopy, not the original copy, which the family now says was mistakenly thrown away.
If this continues, my head is going to explode from overexposure to accidental irony. Anyway, here is a story about what actually happened.yorick73 seems to be suggesting NBC claimed it was an accidental edit, which they did not, as that claim would be stupid. They are saying they should not have edited the call that way, and I agree. Their edit changed the context of Zimmerman’s reference to Martin’s race. Clearly it’s part of the insidious liberal conspiracy to do push whatever the agenda on this story is supposed to be this week.
You are correct. Mistaken was definitely the wrong word. Deliberately would have been much more accurate. You seem to be incapable of even imagining that the 911 call was “edited” in such a way to fit the narrative. I think Brazil84 is correct that NBC didn’t see this as a manipulation since we all “know” that Zimmerman acted out of racial animosity.
Well, ABC’s agenda was to present Zimmerman as racially motivated, and their dishonest edit of the 911 call clearly did push that agenda, so I guess you are correct that it’s pushing an agenda.
I would also assume that you are fine with the idea of the media always reporting the races of those accused of crimes, especially in cases where no arrest is made. That would be OK, because the media would just be “reporting facts”, right?
Oh, he’s already claimed that, since it is a fact, reporting the race of the victim and perp means nothing. Funny how many news stories deliberately omit race…even when the perp is still on the loose. I’ve seen stories that report on tatoos, hair style, etc. and leave out any mention of race.
Here we are again: anyone who disagrees with your biased view is always blind and clueless and incapable of understanding that you are completely correct in all particulars. NBC blew it here, and the press blew it when they misidentified Zimmerman as a white guy last month. I make no bones about that. I think people who say this is all about media bias should at least acknowledge they’re interpreting things.
I hate to be blind and clueless again, but that’s not what I said. You said the press should not have mentioned the races of Zimmerman or Martin until it was proved that the shooting was racially motivated and that any other course of action indicates bias, and I said your proposal was ridiculous because the Martin family was speaking to the press and the police ahd Zimmerman’s mug shot on file. It was both implausible and impossible to keep the race thing under wraps. It doesn’t speak to bias, and reporters don’t need to prove that a fact is relevant before reporting it. They’re not prosecutors.