Trayvon Martin's murderer George Zimmerman is still a free man

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
maycocksean said:
Anybody else notice that the Fox News picture of Zimmerman is different from the mug shots the rest of the "lamestream" media are using?

Fox uses smiling tie Zimmerman and 17 year old grill wearing scary to old white people treyvon pictures... CNN and MSNBC use fat frowning ugly mug shot Zimmerman and smiling 14 year old treyvon pictures...

so they all get their point across. the point being that the media sucks.
 
This case has really done one important thing: show how horrible American television media is, across the board.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
Fox uses smiling tie Zimmerman and 17 year old grill wearing scary to old white people treyvon pictures... CNN and MSNBC use fat frowning ugly mug shot Zimmerman and smiling 14 year old treyvon pictures...

so they all get their point across. the point being that the media sucks.

Word
 
Is there some particular 'totally neutral' photo combo available that everyone 'should' be using?

I don't watch TV, so I haven't personally observed which cable networks favor which photos. I know one reason why the "smiling tie" employee pic remained in relatively limited circulation (at least online) is because its source, the Orlando Sentinel, had acquired the pic, 3 weeks back, from an anonymous coworker of Zimmerman's. As such, they can't legally grant others permission to use it, and many outlets--not all, clearly--held back from 'borrowing' it on the off-chance of finding themselves in a fair-use lawsuit. Otherwise, until this week the only generally available photo of Zimmerman had been that "fat frowning" 2005 mugshot.

In Martin's case, his family made several photos available to media from the beginning. The most recent of those was the black-and-white 'hoodie pic,' but initially many outlets were reluctant to choose that one; I assume because he'd been profiled and, ultimately, shot while wearing a hoodie, so until the wave of 'Million Hoodie' marches normalized that image, it probably seemed like a macabre association. In late March his parents also made available several pics from a family party 9 days before his death, but I've seen very few outlets use those, perhaps because they have mutiple other people in them. The "grill-wearing," etc. pictures from Martin's Twitter were obviously taken without his family's permission, but it's Twitter, so, no permission required.

It's really not as easy as many assume for media to get their hands on fair-use pics of ordinary people who wind up in crime cases, and while there will always be journalists who do indisputably gratuitous things with photos, the reality is most photojournalists spend a good deal of time fretting over which pic to choose and why from the limited options available, whether it's OK to shift to new pics after other iconic images have become established and if so what's our justification for that, etc. I've not myself been much bothered by which outlets seem to favor which pictures in this case; the only thing that really perturbed me were some openly racist commenters, and in a few cases bloggers, who clearly felt that using ANY pictures of Trayvon Martin beyond (what they considered) the 'thuggish-looking' ones constitutes some sort of whitewash. But we're talking Stormfront-ish types there, so, par for the course. (And ironically, those same people usually have a similarly strong preference for "fat frowning" Zimmerman, because to them he looks more 'nonwhite' in that pic.)

Whenever I'm especially interested in some particular news story, I supplement my usual everyday sources (NYT, WSJ, LA Times etc.) by following the story on an automatic, algorithm-based aggregator like Google News or (for newsblogs) Memeorandum. That way I can skim through a much larger and more diverse array of sources in search of details and perspectives that, inevitably, won't be available just anywhere. Local sources, too--the Orlando Sentinel, Miami Herald, and Tampa Bay Times have in different ways all done an especially great job covering this case, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Integrity in journalism is at an all time low on all sides of the spectrum. It's sickening. It's also so common and prevalent for media organizations to manipulate stories to fit the agenda of their audience, thus driving ratings, that its hard not to tale everything they do and/or report with a giant grain of salt.
 
Integrity in journalism is at an all time low on all sides of the spectrum. It's sickening. It's also so common and prevalent for media organizations to manipulate stories to fit the agenda of their audience, thus driving ratings, that its hard not to tale everything they do and/or report with a giant grain of salt.

Until we get ratings out of journalism this unfortunately is not going to change. Sensationalist media is a bad thing. :reject:
 
Is there some particular 'totally neutral' photo combo available that everyone 'should' be using?

I don't watch TV, so I haven't personally observed which cable networks favor which photos. I know one reason why the "smiling tie" employee pic remained in relatively limited circulation (at least online) is because its source, the Orlando Sentinel, had acquired the pic, 3 weeks back, from an anonymous coworker of Zimmerman's. As such, they can't legally grant others permission to use it, and many outlets--not all, clearly--held back from 'borrowing' it on the off-chance of finding themselves in a fair-use lawsuit. Otherwise, until this week the only generally available photo of Zimmerman had been that "fat frowning" 2005 mugshot.

In Martin's case, his family made several photos available to media from the beginning. The most recent of those was the black-and-white 'hoodie pic,' but initially many outlets were reluctant to choose that one; I assume because he'd been profiled and, ultimately, shot while wearing a hoodie, so until the wave of 'Million Hoodie' marches normalized that image, it probably seemed like a macabre association. In late March his parents also made available several pics from a family party 9 days before his death, but I've seen very few outlets use those, perhaps because they have mutiple other people in them. The "grill-wearing," etc. pictures from Martin's Twitter were obviously taken without his family's permission, but it's Twitter, so, no permission required.

It's really not as easy as many assume for media to get their hands on fair-use pics of ordinary people who wind up in crime cases, and while there will always be journalists who do indisputably gratuitous things with photos, the reality is most photojournalists spend a good deal of time fretting over which pic to choose and why from the limited options available, whether it's OK to shift to new pics after other iconic images have become established and if so what's our justification for that, etc. I've not myself been much bothered by which outlets seem to favor which pictures in this case; the only thing that really perturbed me were some openly racist commenters, and in a few cases bloggers, who clearly felt that using ANY pictures of Trayvon Martin beyond (what they considered) the 'thuggish-looking' ones constitutes some sort of whitewash. But we're talking Stormfront-ish types there, so, par for the course. (And ironically, those same people usually have a similarly strong preference for "fat frowning" Zimmerman, because to them he looks more 'nonwhite' in that pic.)

Whenever I'm especially interested in some particular news story, I supplement my usual everyday sources (NYT, WSJ, LA Times etc.) by following the story on an automatic, algorithm-based aggregator like Google News or (for newsblogs) Memeorandum. That way I can skim through a much larger and more diverse array of sources in search of details and perspectives that, inevitably, won't be available just anywhere. Local sources, too--the Orlando Sentinel, Miami Herald, and Tampa Bay Times have in different ways all done an especially great job covering this case, IMO.

This is all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that it's embarrassingly predictable as to which networks use which photos.
 
but it's Twitter, so, no permission required.

I haven't really read into Twitter's copyright agreements, but I don't think this is true. You don't give up copyright just because you post something online. It's possible that Twitter will be automatically entitled to unlimited usage, but that doesn't mean the photo is up for grabs for anyone to use
 
Jive Turkey said:
I haven't really read into Twitter's copyright agreements, but I don't think this is true. You don't give up copyright just because you post something online. It's possible that Twitter will be automatically entitled to unlimited usage, but that doesn't mean the photo is up for grabs for anyone to use

My understanding of privacy laws (here at least) is that if the account is public, you can use whatever pics you want, because anyone else in the world could see them.
 
My understanding of privacy laws (here at least) is that if the account is public, you can use whatever pics you want, because anyone else in the world could see them.

I can't speak for Australia, but if the laws were so, it would be a complete shit show. It would be no different than saying that since a band put their song on their website, it's a free for all and they don't own the copyright anymore. Or a photographer can't display his or her photos on their website because it's public and they'll lose control of their copyright. It makes little sense to operate that way.
The only difference with Twitter and Facebook is that in their terms of use, there's often a clause that states, by posting a photo on their site, you're granting them unlimited usage in perpetuity, which is ridiculous in itself. I don't know why anyone would post any image that is a potential source of revenue on either of those sites
 
I was really just making a rueful observation about what actually happens--i.e., that news outlets do this stuff routinely--not making a legal statement. But news reporting, like teaching or criticism, is in a different legal category with regard to fair use exceptions than the examples you just gave. I know with our student newspaper for example, I've seen it happen multiple times that they took photos and text from Facebook (without permission) to illustrate crime stories, and while in one case Facebook actually did contact them to yell at them, they didn't back down because their legal advisers said, No, they won't sue you because they have no case here and they know it. As with most copyright issues, you'd really have to look into the case law even to hypothesize about specific situations, because the actual fair use statute is notoriously and deliberately broad.
 
The Orlando Sentinel pictures would fall under the same fair use category then.

You're right that there is a lot of grey area with regard to fair use, but I'm fairly certain there's an exception when the copyright is held by a professional photographer, regardless of news worthiness (and even then, it's a little muddy; at what point can one say he or she is a professional photographer?)
 
ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_wmain.jpg
 
So Martin got the better of him after Zimmerman started the confrontation. Doesn't quite excuse shooting the kid in the chest with a hollow-point round (aside: why the hell are these kinds of rounds available to the general public?), after first letting him scream for his life for a minute or two. To me it makes it seem like Zimmerman, who had already decided that Martin was guilty of something before starting the confrontation, probably didn't like getting beat up by a fucking asshole punk and wasn't about to let him get away with it.
 
that picture does not say very much to me. I stepped off a latter wrong and split my head open. Held a towel on it for an hour, there was blood allover, ruined a shirt, the towel. I drove to the hospital and had 12 staples put in my head.

A bump on the head that leaves a goose egg, hurts more. The head will bleed a lot from a small cut. Anyone that has ever cut themselves shaving knows that.

The fact that he did not go to the hospital, and that the bleeding, was contained on site means it was minor and not life threatening.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
the picture does give some credence to zimmerman's story... and could make it harder to convict on a murder charge.

We already know there was wrestling due to the 911 calls.

So this doesn't really bring anything new to the discussion. The narrative has never been(at least to those paying attention) that Martin never threw a punch. At the end of the day it still, for the most part, comes down to a "he said/he said" story with one side being dead. These pictures don't really say who started what.
 
The nature of Zimmerman's injuries won't be news to the prosecutors; they've already seen all available police and eyewitness photos of them.
the only way that martin's death won't be in vain is if it leads to stricter gun laws in the state of florida.
Hard to see how anything less than a concealed carry ban would prevent cases like this, but AFAIK Illinois is the only state to have such a ban statewide, and considering how powerful the NRA and 'gun culture' in general seem to be in FL, I don't see them following IL's lead anytime soon. Revising or dropping their SYG statute would be better than nothing, though.
 
Doesn't quite excuse shooting the kid in the chest with a hollow-point round (aside: why the hell are these kinds of rounds available to the general public?)

I'd like to know the answer to this question, too.

As for any confrontation that happened-if Trayvon did indeed start things, that will be of some help to Zimmerman. Some would argue it probably would have been wise for him to just try and ignore Zimmerman, continue on home, let his dad know the guy was following him, and take things from there. And for his own sake, that's probably what he should have done.

But at the same time, as has been stated in this thread before, if someone's following another person, intentionally, for no logical reason, yeah, most people in that situation are probably going to turn around and ask what the deal is, or they'll quicken their pace and try to get away. Even if Trayvon had just done his best to ignore the guy and keep walking, Zimmerman was on a mission, so who knows what he could've done if he felt Trayvon was purposefully trying to evade him for one reason or another? There could have been a confrontation no matter what.

Again, I love how in some people's eyes, Zimmerman's "just defending himself", but if Trayvon did indeed come at him, he's "causing trouble". Wouldn't Trayvon have had a right to defend himself, too, against someone following him for no reason?
 
Yesterday's bond hearing sure wasn't the greatest showing for the prosecution; just finished reading the transcript. The investigator clearly wasn't prepared to be questioned by Zimmerman's lawyer, and his answers seemed to give credence to suspicions that there really isn't much more evidence out there beyond what's leaked.
 
Last edited:
If that's the case,he may very well go free in the end, which I guess maybe he should. :shrug:

Perhaps the real focus needs to be on getting rid of Stand Your Ground rather than getting a conviction of Zimmerman.
 
Wouldn't it have made more sense to charge Zimmerman with voluntary manslaughter? Well actually Florida doesn't seperate voluntary and involuntary so it would just be manslaughter. It would be a hell of a lot easier to convict him of, since it's clear he didn't intend to actually kill him, up until the struggle between the two. Then again I dont know a lot about homicide law. :huh:
 
It would be a hell of a lot easier to convict him of, since it's clear he didn't intend to actually kill him, up until the struggle between the two.

I'm not sure how anyone could say it's "CLEAR he didn't intend to actually kill him". We really don't know what he intended. He was a self-imposed neighborhood watch that was carrying a gun. For all we know his intent was anyone who takes a swing at me I'll kill them. We just don't know.

i think he's going free, and i think there will be riots. and the fault should lay at the desk of the DA for kowtowing to public and media pressure and over-charging zimmerman. if they had gone for manslaughter, they could probably get a conviction and zimmerman would have spent some time in jail.

I agree, I'm shocked by the over-charging. At first I thought the charge must have been the result of info we don't know yet or something in Florida law, but it seems to be just overzealousness.
 
I'm not sure how anyone could say it's "CLEAR he didn't intend to actually kill him". We really don't know what he intended. He was a self-imposed neighborhood watch that was carrying a gun. For all we know his intent was anyone who takes a swing at me I'll kill them. We just don't know.

I think if you shoot someone, it should be implied that you were at least willing to accept that it could kill him. There needs to be some sort of inherent responsibility
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom