"stand your ground" doesn't work

[RACER X]

Coleman points to a recent study by Texas A&M University which concludes that in the 24 states with self-protection laws, including Texas, homicide rates have increased 8 percent on average.

That research by the University's Department of Economic is also concluded "stand your ground" type laws have had no deterrent effect on burglary, robbery and aggravated assault.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/Lawmaker-wants-to-change-Castle-Doctrine/-/1735978/15483846/-/143hmjp/-/index.html


actual research paper:

http://www.click2houston.com/blob/view/-/15483874/data/2/-/qbu6x4z/-/castle-doctrine-pdf.pdf

[jtemple]

Shooting someone in self defense is still labeled "homicide".

I bet if you remove those cases from the results, the numbers go down.

Just about any statistical analysis I have read about is full of smoke & mirrors in an effort to push the writers' agenda. Very rarely do I see something that is truly objective and thorough.

[CasterTroy]

Very rarely do I see something that is truly objective and thorough.

WERD!!!

However I did get a good dose of non-bias media when it came to US news and happenings from the BBC when I was over in the UK.

That was refreshing.

No Spins, no dick sucking a party or political figure, just straight poop.

[nhgunnut]

Honestly Whether it is a Deterrent is irrelevant, "Stand Your Ground" is About Defense not Deterrent. If you use deadly force to defend yourself your family or anyone else you don't need the weight of the criminal legal system falling on me. It is bad enough that lives will be changed for ever, that regardless of the legitimacy of the action, civil actions and media lynch mob are likely to persecute you and your family.

[Captain Morgan]

I did a research paper in college about the death penalty that basically found the same thing. Pickpockets would be sentenced to death by hanging. However, at the hanging of said pickpocket, all of his buddies would be in the crowd picking pockets.

[Adeptus_Minor]

Well, maybe it doesn't stop others, but it stops the one in question :wink:

"Death Therapy, Bob. It's a guaranteed cure. "

[fatbuckRTO]

Well, maybe it doesn't stop others, but it stops the one in question :wink:
Exactly. Same argument as the death penalty, for me. I don't give one solid crap about mass deterrence. I want the individual committing the crime, or who has committed the crime, to be stopped.

And I don't want to face a jury's decision for defending my family. Juries are stupid. They are my peers, after all...



ETA: I mean, well, pretty much what nhgunnut said...

[Gas Man]

Shooting someone in self defense is still labeled "homicide".

I bet if you remove those cases from the results, the numbers go down.

Just about any statistical analysis I have read about is full of smoke & mirrors in an effort to push the writers' agenda. Very rarely do I see something that is truly objective and thorough.

Exactly. The study is scewed to support the author's premise.

Honestly Whether it is a Deterrent is irrelevant, "Stand Your Ground" is About Defense not Deterrent. If you use deadly force to defend yourself your family or anyone else you don't need the weight of the criminal legal system falling on me. It is bad enough that lives will be changed for ever, that regardless of the legitimacy of the action, civil actions and media lynch mob are likely to persecute you and your family.

Great Post!! AMEN!! Law on my side or not, I will stand my ground. It's that simple. This land was built on such prinicpals.

[jtemple]

Grseat Post!! AMEN!! Law on my side or not, I will stand my ground. It's that simple. This land was built on such prinicpals.I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

[Captain Morgan]

Did you know there is a correlation between ice cream sales and drownings? As ice cream sales have increased, so have drownings. Therefore, we must ban ice cream.

[fatbuckRTO]

Did you know there is a correlation between ice cream sales and drownings? As ice cream sales have increased, so have drownings. Therefore, we must ban ice cream.

I thought it was, "As ice cream sales have increased, so have drownings. Therefore, we must ban guns."

[Cutty72]

I thought it was, "As ice cream sales have increased, so have drownings. Therefore, we must ban guns."

No, we must ban bodies of water deeper than 2 inches.

[Papa_Complex]

No, we must ban bodies of water deeper than 2 inches.

And canoes. And bathrooms. Those damned things are death traps.

[askmrjesus]

And canoes. And bathrooms. Those damned things are death traps.

Remember, if you ban canoes, only outlaws will have canoes.

JC

[Papa_Complex]

Remember, if you ban canoes, only outlaws will have canoes.

JC

I don't want to think what a black market bathroom would look like.

[tommymac]

I thought it was, "As ice cream sales have increased, so have drownings. Therefore, we must ban guns."

I think we should ban fat people, they eat a lot of ice cream and most cant swim, so ban them and it will stop the drownings.

[fasternyou929]

I think we should ban fat people, they eat a lot of ice cream and most cant swim, so ban them and it will stop the drownings.

I disagree. We need to enforce a law that everyone eat 3 scoops of ice cream a day. If you cannot afford ice cream, the government will provide it for you. That way we can all be fat, dumb, and happy... and fat people never drown.

Not sure if it's buoyancy or fear of physical activity in the water, but it's 100% effective.

[Papa_Complex]

I disagree. We need to enforce a law that everyone eat 3 scoops of ice cream a day. If you cannot afford ice cream, the government will provide it for you. That way we can all be fat, dumb, and happy... and fat people never drown.

Not sure if it's buoyancy or fear of physical activity in the water, but it's 100% effective.

Ice Cream and Survivor; the Bread and Circuses of the second millennium.

[Homeslice]

I disagree. We need to enforce a law that everyone eat 3 scoops of ice cream a day. If you cannot afford ice cream, the government will provide it for you. .

Meanwhile, the quality of said ice cream goes down

[shmike]

Meanwhile, the quality of said ice cream goes down

Never.

Single payer ice cream systems make everything better.

The plan for now is to fine anyone that does not consume ice cream.

[tommymac]

I disagree. We need to enforce a law that everyone eat 3 scoops of ice cream a day. If you cannot afford ice cream, the government will provide it for you. That way we can all be fat, dumb, and happy... and fat people never drown.

Not sure if it's buoyancy or fear of physical activity in the water, but it's 100% effective.

Good points all around, I stand corrected, is it ok to still hate on fatties though?

[KSGregman]

Good points all around, I stand corrected, is it ok to still hate on fatties though?

Yes.

[Trip]

Aren't we all going to turn into fatties with the ice cream a day diet though?

[Papa_Complex]

Aren't we all going to turn into fatties with the ice cream a day diet though?

I thought that you already hated everyone. No change then, huh?

[askmrjesus]

Aren't we all going to turn into fatties with the ice cream a day diet though?

Not me.

I'm dead, and smoke cigarettes.

JC

[EpyonXero]

Stand Your Ground works pretty well for some people.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/many-killers-who-go-free-with-florida-stand-your-ground-law-have-history/1241378
http://www.tampabay.com/multimedia/archive/00231/NA_357210_came_SYGa_231640d.jpg


Many killers who go free with Florida 'stand your ground' law have history of violenceBy Kameel Stanley and Connie Humburg, Times Staff Writers

Published Friday, July 20, 2012


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maurice Moorer is not the kind of person lawmakers had in mind when they gave Florida the broadest self-defense law in the nation in 2005.

State legislators sold "stand your ground" as a legal protection for law-abiding Floridians who were forced, through no fault of their own, to defend their family and property.

But the day Moorer killed his ex-wife's boyfriend in 2008 capped two years of violent behavior that had landed Moorer in jail multiple times and left his wife living in fear.

Still, prosecutors set Moorer free, saying Florida's "stand your ground" law prevented them from pursuing murder charges.

A Tampa Bay Times analysis of "stand your ground" cases found that it has been people like Moorer — those with records of crime and violence — who have benefited most from the controversial legislation. A review of arrest records for those involved in more than 100 fatal "stand your ground" cases shows:

• Nearly 60 percent of those who claimed self-defense had been arrested at least once before the day they killed someone.

• More than 30 of those defendants, about one in three, had been accused of violent crimes, including assault, battery or robbery. Dozens had drug offenses on their records.

• Killers have invoked "stand your ground" even after repeated run-ins with the law. Forty percent had three arrests or more. Dozens had at least four arrests.

• More than a third of the defendants had previously been in trouble for threatening someone with a gun or illegally carrying a weapon.

• In dozens of cases, both the defendant and the victim had criminal records, sometimes related to long-running feuds or criminal enterprises. Of the victims that could be identified in state records, 64 percent had at least one arrest. Several had 20 or more arrests.

Florida's "stand your ground" law has been under intense scrutiny since George Zimmerman claimed self-defense after killing 16-year-old Trayvon Martin at a Sanford apartment complex Feb. 26. Police and prosecutors said they did not immediately charge Zimmerman because they could not disprove his self-defense claim.

All told, 119 people are known to have killed someone and invoked "stand your ground." Those people have been arrested 327 times in incidents involving violence, property crimes, drugs, weapons or probation violations. That does not include more than 100 traffic violations and other minor arrests not considered in the analysis.

The Times' background checks relied on Florida Department of Law Enforcement records, which log arrests within the state. The records do not always show when arrests end in conviction, and it is likely that many did not.

And of course, having an arrest record doesn't mean you give up your right to defend yourself in the future. A person who was guilty of something in the past may be utterly innocent in a different case now.

In some cases examined by the Times, a defendant's prior arrests occurred years before their fatal confrontation and therefore may reveal nothing about their propensity for trouble. For example, Max Wesley Horn Jr. successfully claimed self-defense after he shot a man during a 2010 dispute in New Port Richey. The arrests on Horn's record — for battery, larceny and for violating probation — were more than 15 years old.

Steve Romine, a Clearwater defense attorney, said a person's arrest record may affect their credibility, but that should not disqualify them from claiming "stand your ground."

"It would be impractical to try and apply the law differently between those who do and don't have records," he said. "And frankly, it would be unfair."

But others say the prevalence of criminals invoking "stand your ground" is evidence of a flawed law.

"The legislators wrote this law envisioning honest assertions of self-defense, not an immunity being seized mostly by criminal defendants trying to lie their way out of a murder," said Kendall Coffey, a former U.S. attorney from South Florida.

Coffey said the most troubling part about habitual offenders using the law is that their experience may have taught them how to manipulate the system.

"People who've been through the legal system are going to be more seasoned to using the law to their advantage," Coffey said. "And it doesn't take a master of fiction to write in a few lines of the script to turn a homicide into a stand your ground case."

Repeated arrests

When detectives investigate a homicide, they check the arrest record of their suspect as a matter of course.

Having a record can impact how defendants are treated, including how hefty a sentence they face and even how believable they are to police and prosecutors.

"Stand your ground" cases are no different.

The Times analysis found that 67 percent of all defendants who invoked the law went free. For defendants who had at least one arrest, the success rate dropped to 59 percent. Serial law-breakers — those with three or more arrests — walked free only 45 percent of the time.

Even so, killers with repeated run-ins with the law and with violent accusations in their past have successfully claimed "stand your ground" across the state.

• Jackson Fleurimon had been arrested for battery, aggravated assault and drug possession. Witnesses said he was in a beef over drug turf when he shot and killed a man in Orange County in 2009. A judge granted him immunity.

• Tavarious China Smith was a drug dealer with multiple arrests who killed a man during an 2008 argument over drug territory in Manatee County. He claimed self-defense and went free. Less than three years later, he was back in front of prosecutors for a different homicide, this one the result of a shoot-out outside a nightclub. Smith once again went free by claiming "stand your ground."

• In Tallahassee, Dervaunta Vaughn had been accused of battery at least six times before police arrested him in a gangland shoot-out that left one person dead in March 2009. After Vaughn invoked "stand your ground," prosecutors struck a plea deal that dropped murder charges and sent Vaughn to prison for eight years for illegally carrying a gun.

• Alexander Lopez-Lima's run-ins with the law began two days after his 15th birthday. His half-dozen arrests include battery, selling and possessing marijuana and strong arm robbery, court records show. In 2011 a judge decided the then-18-year-old Lopez-Lima was standing his ground when he wound up in an armed battle and killed another teen who had come to his house to smoke marijuana.

• Norman Borden, a now-deceased West Palm Beach man, racked up arrests for criminal mischief, disorderly conduct and aggravated assault in the 1980s and '90s before he was acquitted of murder in the deaths of two men who threatened him with bats while he walked his dog.

And then there's Maurice Moorer.

Troubled history

In almost every way, Moorer was an unlikely candidate to claim "stand your ground."

He shot an unarmed man. Witnesses disputed his version of events. His victim was dating his ex-wife, a woman he had been fighting with for years.

When police arrested Moorer on murder charges, he had just pumped 14 bullets into his victim's car from 4 feet away. He then ran inside to change clothes before calling 911.

Moorer's criminal record raised further questions about the case. Arrest records in the two years leading up to the killing paint a portrait of a volatile husband willing to use violence and guns to intimidate his wife. But Moorer was never convicted of anything.

In October 2006, Moorer's wife accused him of throwing her on a couch and punching her in the head. She refused treatment, and prosecutors abandoned the domestic battery charge against him.

A year later, the two were separated when Moorer asked his wife to come visit.

He answered the door, shotgun in hand. She told police that when she turned to leave, Moorer fired the gun and called out: "Come stand in my yard and I'll blow your a- - away."

Officers arrested Moorer on an aggravated assault charge. In a police report, they noted a previous incident, where Moorer flashed a gun at his wife and told her: "Don't mess with me. I'll use this on you." Prosecutors never went forward with the case.

Two months later, in December 2007, officers caught Moorer speeding and pulled him over. He seemed "overly nervous" as he assured officers he had no weapons with him, Miami-Dade police officers wrote in a report.

As he stepped out of the car, a semiautomatic pistol fell to the ground.

Prosecutors charged Moorer with carrying a concealed weapon and having ammunition while being the subject of a domestic violence injunction — an injunction later lifted by a judge, records show. A few weeks later, prosecutors dropped the charge.

It was six months later that police were called to investigate a homicide outside Moorer's home.

Moorer told investigators he had argued with Eddy Moore and that he feared the man was going to his car to get a gun, so he unloaded his pistol in self-defense.

Moore was pronounced dead at the hospital.

Police found a gun in Moore's back seat under some laundry. And frustrated prosecutors ultimately dropped second-degree murder charges after saying they could not disprove Moorer's self-defense claim.

The new law, prosecutors told the Miami Herald, "cheapens human life."

"There is no law that we can point to to say Moorer should have backed off, that he should have avoided this," Miami-Dade Assistant State Attorney Kathleen Hoague told the newspaper.

Vague law

Charlie Rose, a Stetson University law professor, said he remembers his students years ago predicting killers with long criminal histories would wind up benefiting from "stand your ground."

He blames the law's vague wording.

"Right now it makes it available to everyone regardless of what you did to put yourself in the situation," he said. "They did not put limitations on who could use it."

That's what makes Mary Martell so uncomfortable.

In March 2008, her son Joseph, 34, was shot and killed by Max Wesley Horn Jr. after the annual Chasco Fiesta in New Port Richey.

Horn told authorities Joseph Martell had threatened a family member, so he shot him six times. A judge denied his "stand your ground" motion, but a jury acquitted him in the killing.

Records show Horn has a criminal arrest record that included aggravated battery and larceny in the 1980s. Details of the cases weren't available, and Horn was never adjudicated guilty.

Mary Martell said she was shocked to learn that Horn was still able to get a concealed weapons permit.

"Your common person doesn't normally carry a gun around with them," she said. "Carrying a gun on your hip at a family event … it's almost like you're looking for trouble."

Rose, the law professor, said "stand your ground" needs fixing.

"I think a reworking of the statute would be to the benefit of the criminal justice system in Florida," he said. "It's a fascinating combination of good intentions, bad politics and bad legislative drafting. This particular statute has a lot to do with the right to bear arms and not a lot to do with self-defense."

Said Mary Martell: "Losing your son is a punch in the gut. Having the man walk free is a slap in the face.

"People who've had brushes with the law or people who've been in trouble are more streetwise. They're more inclined to use this law, to hide behind it, and abuse this law."

Times researchers Caryn Baird, Carolyn Edds and Natalie Watson contributed to this report. Kameel Stanley can be reached at kstanley@tampabay.com or (727) 893-8643.



About this story

The Times relied on information from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to examine the criminal backgrounds of defendants and victims in 119 fatal "stand your ground" cases.

The analysis concentrated on arrests for serious crimes and did not include traffic violations or missed court dates. The outcome of cases was not considered.

The number of serious arrests may actually be understated because FDLE records only include arrests that occur in Florida.

The Times was unable to background check two defendants and 28 victims because the identifying information needed to confirm a match, such as date of birth, was unavailable

[fatbuckRTO]

Stand Your Ground works pretty well for some people.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/many-killers-who-go-free-with-florida-stand-your-ground-law-have-history/1241378
That article is a strong argument for changing the law. It is also, I'm sure unintentionally, a very strong argument that George Zimmerman is not guilty according to Florida law and that the police and prosecutors acted appropriately according to the law the first time around.

[EpyonXero]

That article is a strong argument for changing the law. It is also, I'm sure unintentionally, a very strong argument that George Zimmerman is not guilty according to Florida law and that the police and prosecutors acted appropriately according to the law the first time around.

I think Zimmerman should be put in jail but youre right, what he did was in line with the examples of acquittals in that article.

[Papa_Complex]

I think Zimmerman should be put in jail but youre right, what he did was in line with the examples of acquittals in that article.

Which just goes to show that this law has serious issues.

[nhgunnut]

I will tell you that the law is perfect the way it is. While there will be always be the case the infuriate the public in any law . http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1309225/posts
We have Stand your ground Here in NH and the population is quite satisfied with it. There is an implication here that because in the past you have stood outside of the social norms that you don't have the right to defend yourself. That is just insane.

[Papa_Complex]

I will tell you that the law is perfect the way it is. While there will be always be the case the infuriate the public in any law . http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1309225/posts
We have Stand your ground Here in NH and the population is quite satisfied with it. There is an implication here that because in the past you have stood outside of the social norms that you don't have the right to defend yourself. That is just insane.

The law, as it stands now, seems to give people the ability to instigate a situation and then shoot their way out of it. That is just so wrong, on so many levels, that I don't really have words for it. OK, maybe "wrong" is a good enough word for it.

[nhgunnut]

The law, as it stands now, seems to give people the ability to instigate a situation and then shoot their way out of it. That is just so wrong, on so many levels, that I don't really have words for it. OK, maybe "wrong" is a good enough word for it.

If the Choice is to punish someone for protecting themselves for using deadly force because you don't like or trust their motivations than that is mot just wrong it is evil . From what I have I don't particularly like Zimmerman, but the moment it when hands on, he was within his rights to use deadly force. Suspicious following or even hateful speech is not grounds for assault. Being and A**hole does not end your right to defend yourself. The moment it does then being and A**hole out of season becomes a crime. Given a choice I will choose a "Stand your Ground" with it's flaws over a "Must Retreat" state every time !

[Papa_Complex]

You miss my point. Under this law you can essentially pick a fight, then blow away your opponent if things go against you. That is WRONG. It would also fall under a reasonable definition of evil.

To my mind the law must be amended, to take this into account. If you create the situation, then you should not be able to then claim self defence.

[askmrjesus]

Suspicious following or even hateful speech is not grounds for assault.

That depends on the "hateful speech", and the context in which it was used.

See: Fighting words.

JC

[Homeslice]

Whether or not someone was picking a fight is a big gray area.

[askmrjesus]

Whether or not someone was picking a fight is a big gray area.

That's precisely why Florida's stand your ground law needs tightening up.

JC

[Homeslice]

I say whether or not someone instigated it is a lot less important than whether or not he justifiably felt his life was in danger.

Sounds like we all agree Zimmerman is a dick, and that he shouldn't have done what he did. But, we have no idea whether he felt his life was in danger. If he did, then lethal force is justified.

Punish him separately for instigating, if you wish. That issue should be totally disconnected from the right to defend.

I'm not sure why certain states feel it necessary to create this whole "stand your ground" BS, when a simple standard of whether someone could reasonably believe that their life is in immediate danger should be enough. At least that's how it is in most normal states. I would not call FL or NH or TX normal states. :lol:

Then again, I haven't bothered to read the whole law, so I'm talking out of my ass as usual.

[askmrjesus]

I say whether or not someone instigated it is a lot less important than whether or not he justifiably felt his life was in danger.


I think the application of the old grade school excuse is valid;

"Well, HE started it!".

I see a bunch of Hell's Angels on the side of the road. So I pull over and say, "I heard you guys all like to take it in the ass!".

Now they're coming toward me, and I'm afraid for my life, so I shot them all.

No, that shit shouldn't fly under, "stand your ground".

Don't start shit, won't be shit.

JC

[Papa_Complex]

I'm not sure why certain states feel it necessary to create this whole "stand your ground" BS, when a simple standard of whether someone could reasonably believe that their life is in immediate danger should be enough.

Why? Because it gains votes from a bunch of thick headed knuckle draggers, who don't understand how the law is supposed to work.

Don't start shit, won't be shit.

Yes, of course. Ancient Tibetan philosophy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JdLbYinkZQ

[nhgunnut]

You miss my point. Under this law you can essentially pick a fight, then blow away your opponent if things go against you. That is WRONG. It would also fall under a reasonable definition of evil.

To my mind the law must be amended, to take this into account. If you create the situation, then you should not be able to then claim self defence.
The issue is how do you Judge if someone created the situation? There are NO Grounds in the United States Where Speech and Speech Alone Justifies Assault. It is insane to think that because I choose because I choose to exercise my Second Amendment Rights that I give up My First First Amendment Rights. Which seems Constructing a Law in the Manner which seem to be suggesting demands. So If I am have a discussion with someone that escalates to an argument I am 55 have had 3 heart attacks (that by the way is an accurate description) and this 35 year old says I will kill you old man and swings , did I start a fight ? Or am I justified in using deadly force?
I really wound't argue that FL couldn't use some tweaking. At the same time the idea that I give up First Amendment rights if I choose to Protect myself is just nuts.

[Papa_Complex]

The issue is how do you Judge if someone created the situation? There are NO Grounds in the United States Where Speech and Speech Alone Justifies Assault. It is insane to think that because I choose because I choose to exercise my Second Amendment Rights that I give up My First First Amendment Rights. Which seems Constructing a Law in the Manner which seem to be suggesting demands. So If I am have a discussion with someone that escalates to an argument I am 55 have had 3 heart attacks (that by the way is an accurate description) and this 35 year old says I will kill you old man and swings , did I start a fight ? Or am I justified in using deadly force?
I really wound't argue that FL couldn't use some tweaking. At the same time the idea that I give up First Amendment rights if I choose to Protect myself is just nuts.

I would say that a good test case would involve someone stalking and then accosting someone, who is apparently minding his own business while walking through a neighbourhood where he has reason to be.

[Homeslice]

I would say that a good test case would involve someone stalking and then accosting someone, who is apparently minding his own business while walking through a neighbourhood where he has reason to be.

But then he should be charged for instigation/abuse of some kind. The shooting is a separate issue IMO.

Just because he was wrong to instigate, doesn't prove that he was wrong to defend himself. If in fact he feared for his life.

Aren't judges & juries smart enough to consider each issue separately?

[Papa_Complex]

But then he should be charged for instigation/abuse of some kind. The shooting is a separate issue IMO.

Just because he was wrong to instigate, doesn't prove that he was wrong to defend himself. If in fact he feared for his life.

Aren't judges & juries smart enough to consider each issue separately?

The issues aren't separate.

[askmrjesus]

But then he should be charged for instigation/abuse of some kind. The shooting is a separate issue IMO.


Right. I was just carrying a backpack full of gasoline past the bonfire.

I should just be charged with an improper container violation, not manslaughter.

JC

[ceo012384]

Shooting someone in self defense is still labeled "homicide".

I bet if you remove those cases from the results, the numbers go down.

Just about any statistical analysis I have read about is full of smoke & mirrors in an effort to push the writers' agenda. Very rarely do I see something that is truly objective and thorough.
Exactly, you can bend data to make it say anything you want it to say, certianly the data was biased by the writer based on his/her agenda.

Kind of like that famous brady campaign statistic about how guns in homes were several times more likely to be used on a family member than on a burgler... but the statistic included suicides... LOL

[Smittie61984]

I'd be more interested in seeing data on how much government has grown ever since owning a firearm became regulated by the government.

As for the affectiveness of "stand your ground". Illinois bans any form of carrying and is the only state to do so. To transport your gun it must be locked up in a gun case and not easily accessed. Chicago bans pistols all together and more people are killed in Chicago than US troops in Afganistan.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/chicago-homicide-rate-wor_n_1602692.html

I can already see soldiers dreading the day they are stationed in Chicago.

[RACER X]

(Mytheos Holt) Florida neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman will imminently put NBC News on notice — legally — that doctoring tapes inaccurately has consequences.

Back when the news first broke that Zimmerman shot unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, one of the main bits of evidence that anti-Zimmerman commentators used to condemn the accused was the tape of Zimmerman’s 911 call leading up to the shooting.

Usually, they would point to one line in particular: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”

There’s just one problem: that line, as it was played, didn’t exist. The call had been doctored by NBC News staffers — who were subsequently fired — seemingly to make Zimmerman sound racist.

This is what was actually said:

Zimmerman: 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.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

The edit failed to include the key question that put Zimmerman‘s mention of Martin’s race in context.

Now, the New York Post reports that Zimmerman is suing NBC for this apparent attempt to malign him using doctored tapes:

Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman is suing NBC over the network’s botched editing of his 911 tape, Page Six can exclusively reveal.

We hear Zimmerman’s attorneys are about to file a complaint against NBC and its top executives, naming news president Steve Capus and correspondent Ron Allen, who was the reporter on the scene for the broadcast on “Today” on March 27. He also remained the reporter for the story on “NBC Nightly News.”

A source tells us, “The suit will be filed imminently against NBC and its news executives. The network’s legal department has put everybody in the news department involved with this incident on notice, telling them not to comment.”

[Smittie61984]

In journalism school a required class besides "how to waste money on a useless degree" should be "if some random bloggers who are really into typewriters can notice a fake typewriter superscript in a news report, what do you think they'll do with video and audio?"

I assume these journalists are at least educated with a 4 year degree. Even at your dumbest community colleges you have to have some brain power to make it through. I understand editing out useless details but they had to of known that a major story like this is going to have people fine combing over everything. Fuck, what school did those people go to to be so fucking stupid? Top 20 or bottom 20?

[RACER X]

oops wrong thread, lol

[Homeslice]

(Mytheos Holt) Florida neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman will imminently put NBC News on notice — legally — that doctoring tapes inaccurately has consequences.

Back when the news first broke that Zimmerman shot unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, one of the main bits of evidence that anti-Zimmerman commentators used to condemn the accused was the tape of Zimmerman’s 911 call leading up to the shooting.

Usually, they would point to one line in particular: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”

There’s just one problem: that line, as it was played, didn’t exist. The call had been doctored by NBC News staffers — who were subsequently fired — seemingly to make Zimmerman sound racist.

This is what was actually said:

Zimmerman: 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.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

The edit failed to include the key question that put Zimmerman‘s mention of Martin’s race in context.

Now, the New York Post reports that Zimmerman is suing NBC for this apparent attempt to malign him using doctored tapes:

Trayvon Martin shooter George Zimmerman is suing NBC over the network’s botched editing of his 911 tape, Page Six can exclusively reveal.

We hear Zimmerman’s attorneys are about to file a complaint against NBC and its top executives, naming news president Steve Capus and correspondent Ron Allen, who was the reporter on the scene for the broadcast on “Today” on March 27. He also remained the reporter for the story on “NBC Nightly News.”

A source tells us, “The suit will be filed imminently against NBC and its news executives. The network’s legal department has put everybody in the news department involved with this incident on notice, telling them not to comment.”

:zowned:

[Riceaholic]

I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

This