Posted on 12/06/2012 7:43:04 PM PST by marktwain
I think they’re trying to get his school records to see if he had violent incidents there.
If this country still had a basis of justice under the law, entities like NBC (and most of the rest of them as well) who have this pattern of deeply harmful dishonesty and persecution of innocents should lose their licenses and be off the air FOREVER!
Yes, I know it's not going to happen, but it should.
Please, can you provide a link to the official audio transcript and that he actually said.
Thanks in advance.
I find it odd that Zimmerman filed a complaint against NBC, etal, because of editing the audio tape of his 911 call ... then in his complaint he edited the tape himself.
“f’ning _oons” ... or “f’ning punks” ... or “f’ning cold” ... whatever he said - he left that part out.
*********************************************************************
Is that you, Sharpton—or just some other slug trying to further defame the innocent?
Peruvian-American, with some African ancestry.
____________________________________________________________
George Zimmerman Video Shows Little Evidence of a Broken Nose, Doctor Claims
By MATT GUTMAN (@mattgutmanABC)
April 2, 2012
-snip-
But Dr. Vidor Friedman, president of the Florida College of Emergency Physicians, remains unconvinced.
"If somebody had been beating his head against concrete I'd think we'd see more obvious scrapes," Friedman said. He also said he would expect to see bandages on Zimmerman's head.
More significantly for Friedman was the condition of Zimmerman's nose.
"All of the ridges in his nose are clearly defined. You would expect significant swelling in the hour or two after a break. There appears to be none. It doesn't look like his nose was broken or badly broken," Friedman said.
George Zimmerman Video Shows Little Evidence of a Broken Nose, Doctor Claims
I finally had time to take a long look at your post. You make many good points, but I actually think you were a bit too kind. I believe the motives of the press are much more malevolent than you stated, and I mean to a very deep level.
Your post also makes a lot of concentrated points, which I really am going to mull over... one seems to be, the conservative media isn’t much better - in the same way the repubs aren’t much better than the dems.
The question remains: what can be done about it? I mean that seriously.
We might as well cede 14 and 16 if someone or something doesn’t put the fear of God into the press. I was never in love with, but tolerated Romney, but had he had one iota of balanced press, I think he would have come much closer.
What are those racketeering charges that we hear about sometime? would they apply here? If not, what would?
Listen, I am willing to do whatever I can, to great expense of time and effort (all I have) to pursue this, but I don’t where to start - though it does seem FR would be a good place... :)
I have some ideas, do you?
Me: "I am tired of being slandered... and I have felt for a long time that the only thing that gets the attention of the media or dems is litigation... they have no conscience, no shame, no integrity that can be violated..
AGain, would a registered republicans class action slander suit be remotely possible? thanks for listening everybody.
CIC: I am not a lawyer, but I certainly want to believe that it is possible. Not just to sue NBC, but the whole of mainstream journalism. See my #83. IMHO you’l find it interesting.
Link for 83: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2966440/posts?page=83#83
This is my response which I thought might be interesting to others:
I finally had time to take a long look at your post. You make many good points, but I actually think you were a bit too kind. I believe the motives of the press are much more malevolent than you stated, and I mean to a very deep level.
Your post also makes a lot of concentrated points, which I really am going to mull over... one seems to be, the conservative media isn’t much better - in the same way the repubs aren’t much better than the dems.
The question remains: what can be done about it? I mean that seriously.
We might as well cede 14 and 16 if someone or something doesn’t put the fear of God into the press. I was never in love with, but tolerated Romney, but had he had one iota of balanced press, I think he would have come much closer.
What are those racketeering charges that we hear about sometime? would they apply here? If not, what would?
Listen, I am willing to do whatever I can, to great expense of time and effort (all I have) to pursue this, but I don’t where to start - though it does seem FR would be a good place... :)
I have some ideas, do you?
Zimmerman’s the perfect person to sue. He was not a public figure or politician at the time, and he’s suing so called “professionals” who have clear ethical standards the lawyers can use to define “breach of duty.”
The next person to sue should be the director of that film Obama cliamed caused the Embassy “spontaneous protests.”
Zimmerman’s the perfect person to sue. He was not a public figure or politician at the time, and he’s suing so called “professionals” who have clear ethical standards the lawyers can use to define “breach of duty.”
The next person to sue should be the director of that film Obama claimed caused the Embassy “spontaneous protests.”
No, he does not have to prove malice. That standard applies to public figures. Zimmerman was not a public figure at the time.
The corporate run politically correct racist MSM made a conscious decision to portray and put the blame on Zimmerman, and make Martin the victim.
Why else would they continually use that old photo of Martin if not to gin up sympathy? I’m cynical of every news outlet, even ones who claim to only report the news and let the viewers decide. Manipulation of viewers/readers is done by omission as much as the script they use.
The news media should stand behind a basic oath of policy that promotes honest ethical reporting and without agendas and be held liable if they cross it. It might take some major awards to get them back on track and report objectively.
Zimmerman: No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left…uh
you go straight in, don’t turn, and make a left. Shit he’s running.
Dispatcher: He’s running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he’s heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance…fucking [unintelligible]
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don’t need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/326700/full-transcript-zimmerman.pdf
and at 2:22 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9A-gp8mrdw
vs
page 11 here: http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/nbc/complaint.pdf
I see no way to prove, and no reason to believe, that “the conservative media” are objective. So in that limited sense, I would agree. But. The difference between journalism which is simpatico with “liberalism,” on the one hand, and conservative opinion is that conservative opinion does not belong to a cabal of reporters who promote the conceit that they are objective. They are conservative, and openly so. Whereas so-called “objective” journalism transmits a strong socialist slant but claims not to have any slant at all. And because of their “vast left wing conspiracy” organized by the Associated Press, their propaganda is highly effective in distracting the public from whatever truth may lie in conservative opinions.So even assuming that the conservative promoting his agenda is no more objective in the formulation of his agenda than the socialist is, the socialist is - because he has the ability to get away with it - far more tendentious in the expression of his agenda than the conservative is.
In the sense of the original meanings of “philosopher” and “sophist,” conservatives are perforce “philosophers, and journalists and their “moderate” “centrist” “progressive” “liberal” cohorts get away with being sophists.
- sophist
- 1542, earlier sophister (c.1380), from L. sophista, sophistes, from Gk. sophistes, from sophizesthai "to become wise or learned," from sophos "wise, clever," of unknown origin. Gk. sophistes came to mean "one who gives intellectual instruction for pay," and, contrasted with "philosopher," it became a term of contempt. Ancient sophists were famous for their clever, specious arguments.
- philosopher
- O.E. philosophe, from L. philosophus, from Gk. philosophos "philosopher," lit. "lover of wisdom," from philos "loving" + sophos "wise, a sage."
"Pythagoras was the first who called himself philosophos, instead of sophos, 'wise man,' since this latter term was suggestive of immodesty." [Klein]
Oh, I have no difficulty agreeing.It’s just that the strongest objection requires the strongest proof. And ever since I internalized the fact that journalism is tendentiously left wing, the objective of my analysis of journalism has been to formulate the best intellectual case for why journalism - the “objectivity of which we absorbed with our mothers’ milk - actually should be expected to be tendentiously left wing.
If I make a lot of concentrated points, well, I certainly intend to - they are the fruit of study which I began back during the Carter Administration. Close to half my life, when you get down to it.What are those racketeering charges that we hear about sometime? would they apply here? If not, what would?
My dream would be a RICO lawsuit for triple damages and restraining orders. One of the biggest torts was the call of Florida for Gore in ’00. In the counterfactual case in which Bush could have done a fundraiser to buy off the announcement of that incorrect call, he would have been able to raise billions of dollars. Theoretically we have campaign contribution limits - but that doesn’t apply to socialists who call themselves objective. And whom the FCC basically certifies as objective, when it licenses them.
In the complaint he is swearing to the facts of the case, and in this case, exactly what he said. The tape is inconclusive, therefore, he can't swear what he said other than what is in the official transcript.
The complaint and the transcripts are quoted accurately (too include profanity), so I see nothing nefarious in including what was actually understood and heard and omitting a single unintelligible comment that he can't recall and the media can't decipher. Indeed, like you in any number of situations, Zimmerman simply can't recall word-for-word what was said in a highly stressful encounter and the resulting confusion that followed.
Consequently, that comment is omitted because it is not understandable and cannot be swore to. It is listed as "unintelligible" in the transcripts.
Therefore, the suggested comments you inserted earlier I cannot hear and they have no place.
Final note: Deliberate editing to change a meaning is far from merely omitting an unintelligible comment that does not change the facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.