The politics of hoodie wearing

We were fed doctored 911 tapes and doctored pictures of Z's head. That is intentional defamation of the accused and propaganda by an American news organization. This guy may be guilty. I may seem to be advocating for Zim. I'm following the case. Until NBC admitted doctoring the 911 tape, I was sure Zim was guilty of the worst possible behavior. Now, I'm just amazed at what is being perpetrated by the media.

Why didn't anyone take a picture?

I'd love to see a link to what this one left out!

Which doctored tapes of Zimmerman's head?

The originals were just that, original tapes. Details were hard to see but from what we could see, the guy looked fine. (Face, head, and also things like how he was walking and how he held himself.)

A guy "enhanced" that video. It might be actually enhanced, showing something that hadn't been visible before. Or it might be that he introduced distortions. (Not purposely, just a predictable artifact of the enhancement.)

The tape showing a head injury is more "doctored" than the one that doesn't show an injury.

i think she's referring to the edited 911 tapes, that NBC released

NBC's spliced 911 tape - the call from Zim pre-shooting, which made it seem like Zim equated "black" with "suspicious." I practically convicted Zim on that alone.

I'll get something more definitive about the pictures.

They were not doctored. Doctoring implies false information was added. They were computer enhanced in some cases, which is something completely different. The use of such techniques is standard in cases where you have comparatively grainy data, like government satellite intelligence pictures. By using techniques like edge enhancement for example you can make something more distinct and separate it from the background. You can also introduce artifacts purely from the enhancement process itself. And then you can have differing analyses of the results. Of course you have those differences whether you try to enhance the data or not. I've hears what were allegedly the original tapes of Zimmerman's 911 calls, and I've heard NBC's enhanced versions from their expert, who from how they describe him is one of their usual crew of audio engineers, rather than a specialist in enhancement, using off the shelf software, and I'm a bit suspicious of their enhanced version, since the original is much clearer, doesn't have windshield wiper noise every half second anywhere near as loud, and has changed what's a fairly clear "ns" sound in the original into a possible tho far less clear "ld" in the enhanced version.Where did those phonemes go? I'm not saying they're doctoring it in the revised version, but I also don't have much confidence in their methodology. And the original version, for which there was no mention as far as I know, of any enhancement, sure does sound like he says "coons".

I was referring to this part:



I'll wait and see what she means by that.

For what it's worth, my take on it thus far:

- There are far too many questions for Zimmerman to not have been arrested and for this whole thing to not have been treated like a crime (in terms of gathering evidence that would indicate guilt or innocence, etc.). That is my main concern. (FreeDuck and Parados have already said variations of this very well.)

- I don't think we have enough information yet to know whether or not Zimmerman acted in self-defense. From what I've seen so far, I would say no, he didn't.

- Another question though is whether he is without culpability even if he did act in self-defense in the moment. Right now the best-case scenario for him seems to be that he approached Trayvon, who then rounded on him, punched him on the nose, and beat his head on the pavement. However, Zimmerman already followed Trayvon in the car, and then left the car, contrary to orders from the police, and followed him on foot.

Soz, you're right. I read back over the multitude of articles - and although it is suggested that the grainy PD video was used to prove Zim to be lying - and the enhancement that now shows lacerations (plus paramedic logs of a bleeding head and nose), "doctored" was the wrong word for the video.

Correct for the NBC audio, though.

Anyway, thankful to see someone who hasn't locked down their opinion yet.

From what I've been able to glean from the reports, everyone Zimmerman reported was black. He might not have mentioned that until asked, but that's what he did. Making that edit on the tapes didn't really misrepresent what he actually did.

MJ, please never accept manipulation like that from the media. I think we take for granted certain freedoms and expectations in this country. Please never accept this bullshit - even if it does support your political opinion. One day, it won't.

There is no excuse for what they did. I hope it's as important to stop propaganda as it is to find justice in this case.

How sensible is that? Are you saying it's equally important to you that the media doesn't spin things as it is that the killing is adjudicated?

Since you put it that way then yes.....it is much more important that journalism functions than it is that one individual gets hammered by the state. All of this high pitched emotional tantrumming comes at a very dear cost to democracy and to our freedom.

I've been teaching revolution - and have been reminded recently how fortunate we are to be relatively free and have news orgs a bit more forthright than Tass, Pravda, Xinghua etc. I'm also reminded of how fragile these freedoms are when I see news agencies deciding how they want a story to go - and then tampering with the news to create their desired story.

Spin happens. We'll never stop it. What happened here is more important and more deeply disturbing than spin. I think deliberate - and widely accepted - tampering with the news (especially to incite racial hatred) is a dangerous step on a slippery slope for a country.

For this reason, I hope it's as important to stop propaganda as it is to find justice in this case.

News has always done that. The readers have always claimed the news does that MORE than they do when they disagree.

Freedom is to keep the government from being the one that provides the slant.

This reminds me of a recent Walter Mosley book I read, White Butterfly. There were some murders going on in south LA and one finally made the newspaper, that victim being white. Mosley books' storylines take place in the fifties, but I think some of this "who is important to report about/take seriously" still goes on.

That said, I hear that the police did want to hold Zimmerman, that it was the prosecutors who said no, said to be because of the Florida Stand law. Not treating it as a crime scene in any case - whatever the prosecutor(s) would decide later - does startle me.

OK, back to hoodies.

If you have any knowlege of history you'll know that there was nothing more unreliable and scurrilous than the newspapers in the early days of the republic. We are far, far better off in terms of reliable journalism than we were even as recently as a century ago. Old Joe Pulitzer made his name and his fortune as the king of the yellow press.

What is the rationale of your revolution ?

You are somewhat alone then.

Now we need a determination on what transpired between the two in terms of physical assault in order to resolve whether or not the Stand Your Ground law unneccessarily contributed to the young man's death.

If Martin was as violent as Zimmerman claims, then the victim might have reasonably feared for his life and reasonably defended himself.

Whether or not carrying the gun was legal, Zimmermand could have carried a gun on his "patrols," and so outlawing guns would not necessarily have prevented Martin's death.

Without the Stand Your Ground law, Zimmerman might not have carried a loaded gun, in which case Martin wouldn't have been killed. Of course Zimmerman might have met his end, but that wouldn't get the attention this story has received.

And why would Zimmerman have been killed?

Do you think he would have been as emboldened to go after a person who thought was suspicious without a gun?

And remember, that fact is not in dispute. Trayvon Martin was walking along when he was first followed in a car for a while, then the guy got out and followed him on foot.

Even if it turns out that Trayvon did hit Zimmerman -- and I still find the evidence less than compelling there so far -- it would be in the context of this guy following him.

This wasn't a policeman, in a police car, where it was obvious where it was going on. It was some random guy following him and quite possibly up to no good, so far as Trayvon knew.

Under Florida's Kill At Will Law,Trayvon reasonably could have concluded that his life was under imminent threat and killed Zimmerman. He knew he'd done nothing, he was only trying to get home. He'd run to avoid confrontation, and here was this guy again, coming after him with a gun on his hip, and confronting him.There is no getting around the fact that guns have an intimate connection with violence. If Trayvon wasn't reasonably afraid for his life, he was naive. And that, under Florida law, is all you need. Under Florida's incredibly lax conception of evidence, he should have taken out his piece and blown Zimmerman away. And I can just imagine the flap that would cause among the right wing faithful and the NRA. Unfortunately in this case he didn't have a gun. Under David's and Florida's conception of preemptive violence, he could have and should have done all he could to stop Zimmerman before he shot him. He should have kicked him, beat him with a tree limb, pounded his head on the sidewalk, to defend himself from the likely prospect of violence. Somehow I don't see you guys defending Trayvon's clear right under Florida law to stop Zimmerman however he could and kill him if he felt it necessary. Why is that?