tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post5835177922894859865..comments2024-03-29T06:44:19.414-04:00Comments on the daily howler: SOCIETY DOWN: Is Anderson Cooper a journalist?<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-6224463382064431902013-07-22T07:55:26.626-04:002013-07-22T07:55:26.626-04:00+1 million+1 millionAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-29864735293120627802013-07-20T15:59:33.067-04:002013-07-20T15:59:33.067-04:001st: Thank you for this thoughtful essay on irres...1st: Thank you for this thoughtful essay on irresponsibility in journalism. I was born in the early 70's, so I don't know what public discourse was like earlier in the century, but I doubt it was much more thoughtful. There simply must be a better way to speak publicly about all subjects. The profit motive in journalism is a source of much of the confusion that journalism spreads--but that's much the same as in any area of human communication. There are benefits to supplying one's interlocutors or audience (from small private groups of friends, to communities, to nations and the world) with stories (in the widest sense) that fit in with what we think we already know about the world, or with interjecting humor. It seems to me that people simply are uncomfortable with being serious about what we see and say. <br /><br />Journalists should be BETTER at being serious and responsible than the general public. Instead, they seem to me to be more skilled at making some of the moral errors that people-in-general make when they speak to one another: The desire to be witty, the desire to play into stereotypes of all kinds, the desire to enact "revenge" against societal enemies, the desire to flatter their viewers, the desire to over-simplify. It really gets at the heart of human nature itself. If seriousness (not to say "dourness") were rewarded socially, that would be a great thing. <br /><br />Let's dare to be boring. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-17925684442844870492013-07-20T15:47:23.686-04:002013-07-20T15:47:23.686-04:00People are often killed from blows to the head. Y...People are often killed from blows to the head. You placed the word 'injuries' in quotes, as though to say that the damage he had sustained to his head were not injuries. <br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-48901944105383237822013-07-20T15:41:07.895-04:002013-07-20T15:41:07.895-04:00@10:05pm re 1:42pm-- I believe that M is not allo...@10:05pm re 1:42pm-- I believe that M is not allowed to physically assault Z just because he felt threatened, though. It has to be "reasonable," which is open to interpretation, I imagine. But the mere presence of Z is not enough, in a public place. (I'm not sure we're in disagreement here.) Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-64475653332717989702013-07-20T10:27:38.304-04:002013-07-20T10:27:38.304-04:00You are worse than Anderson, assuming that Zimmerm...You are worse than Anderson, assuming that Zimmerman told the truth about everything. Zimmerman was in no danger of losing his life. His 'injuries' were insignificant. I am white and 73 years old and I can see that this was simply a case of kill the black boy and get away with it. And yes, 17 is a boy.Ron Cantrellnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-34979152164844488192013-07-19T22:05:22.470-04:002013-07-19T22:05:22.470-04:0012:39, GZ is not legally innocent; there's no ...12:39, GZ is not legally innocent; there's no such thing; he's legally not guilty.<br />"No police; no trial; just execution" That's not what they law says, but that's how it often works in practice when the killer kills the only rebuttal witness. This is not a bug; it's a feature.<br /><br />1:27P, No, the homeowner gets to kill the intruder whether there's an escape route or not. Thanks to the NRA, in public, too. The difference is that the presumption of reasonable fear rests with the homeowner but not with the person in public.<br /><br />1:30P, the way the law is written, neither of them might have been the provoker. All that's required is reasonable fear even if mistaken. They both could have been reasonably fearful and mistaken as to the other's intention when they stood face to face just before things became irreversible.<br /><br />1:37P, in your scenario, GZ is trespassing on private property, and the homeowner is presumed to be reasonably afraid of intruders. GZ's family would have no chance of getting the homeowner tried, and it's practically a slam-dunk self-defense case.<br /><br />1:42P, M was under no legal duty not to throw the first punch if he'd been threatened and was reasonably afraid. We have only Z's word about M's trespassing, and he's a very interested party. The pictures on cell phones are not evidence of trespassingdeadratnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-31534555565530984222013-07-19T18:09:17.469-04:002013-07-19T18:09:17.469-04:00so rachel assumed that trayvon threw the first pun...so rachel assumed that trayvon threw the first punch. why would she assume that? did trayvon like to fight? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-9311814971882718352013-07-19T17:08:41.784-04:002013-07-19T17:08:41.784-04:00The Martin/Zimmerman story you hear on television ...The Martin/Zimmerman story you hear on television and read in the media is the Seinfeld version. "Trayvon Martin went to buy Skittles...yada yada yada...George Zimmerman killed him."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-35332509758333952292013-07-19T14:56:06.766-04:002013-07-19T14:56:06.766-04:00So you're saying Martin was forced to attack Z...So you're saying Martin was forced to attack Zimmerman, forced to break his nose, forced to pound his head on the pavement -- because "some reaction" is going to happen if a person is followed?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-8836924624581144462013-07-19T14:01:43.347-04:002013-07-19T14:01:43.347-04:00Martin glared at Zimmerman because Zimmerman was f...Martin glared at Zimmerman because Zimmerman was following him. Being followed is threatening, whether or not you have some kind of bad intent. Martin's apparent reaction, to assault Zimmerman, was extreme, but it was foreseeable that there could be some reaction from a person being followed. Zimmerman's perfectly legal behavior, in spotting a suspicious person and following him, created a situation that Zimmerman couldn't handle and Martin died.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-26022983158007507352013-07-19T13:42:26.509-04:002013-07-19T13:42:26.509-04:00"he elected to follow the "suspect"..."he elected to follow the "suspect" in the dark. He ended up killing the "suspect" who, until the time the adult spotted him, was doing absolutely nothing wrong."<br /><br />Between the following and the killing you left out a whole lot of stuff, such as the beat-down Zimmerman experienced at the hands of Martin. Martin did do something illegal -- he hit Zimmerman. So far, nothing alleged against Zimmerman is remotely illegal -- there isn't even any evidence he hit Martin back. You mention the first punch, but there is no evidence Zimmerman threw any punch. Trespassing onto other people's property and looking into their windows is illegal too, but there is less evidence Martin did those things beyond Zimmerman's word and the pictures of stolen items on Martin's cell phone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-44908348208999938242013-07-19T13:37:16.431-04:002013-07-19T13:37:16.431-04:00George Zimmerman pokes his head inside. Neighbor t...George Zimmerman pokes his head inside. Neighbor thinks, there's Zimmerman, the guy I've been fighting about because my dog cornered his wife in his yard that time. I heard he carries a gun after that incident. Just now he said something disturbing to me like "I'm going to put an end to your bullshit." I don't know what that means. He's faster and bigger than I am, I'm 72 years old and can't leave my garage because the door to the house is locked. <br /><br />George's family could easily be out of luck in pushing for a charge and conviction under that scenario, even though a conclusion of justified self defense would be much less justified by facts and evidence than Zimmerman's case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-54769254178612464232013-07-19T13:36:46.447-04:002013-07-19T13:36:46.447-04:00Some people suggest Zimmerman confronted by follow...Some people suggest Zimmerman confronted by following with his car and by getting out of his car. These are legal actions but they can also be considered confrontational. If it were being done unobtrusively, it would be hard to see them as that because why would Trayvon think this was aimed specifically at him? If the following were very overt, intended to deter a potential burglary by making it obvious they were being watched, then Trayvon needed to call the police or go back to his home after running away, or go back to a public place, such as the 7-11 store. Women and young girls are often the targets of creepy-assed white guys. We know better than to engage them. If some creepy person is bothering you, the last thing you do is approach them, speak to them or hit them. All young kids are taught to run from creepy strangers who may be potential child molesters. Trayvon, being on the brink of adulthood, may have considered child-protective behavior inappropriate, but adult behavior is still to avoid such a person, report them to police, not take the law into their own hands by beating them up, especially without knowing why they are following you. Law enforcement officers follow, sometimes overtly. Potential muggers follow. Pedophiles follow. It doesn't matter what the motivation is -- you avoid them. So once again, Martin did the confronting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-45251143154055745612013-07-19T13:30:17.951-04:002013-07-19T13:30:17.951-04:00"who until the time the adult spotted him, wa..."who until the time the adult spotted him, was doing absolutely nothing wrong." - This is not necessarily true. Zimmerman said Trayvon was in someone else's yard, looking into their window. <br /><br />"Precipitating event" is meaningless word salad. Zimmerman being conceived in his mother's womb is a precipitating event. Probably Trayvon was doing nothing illegal, but NEITHER WAS ZIMMERMAN. So who did something illegal first? If Trayvon threw the first punch, then its on Trayvon. Marcusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-63255882917856732282013-07-19T13:27:45.720-04:002013-07-19T13:27:45.720-04:00If the homeowner reasonably believes he is in dang...If the homeowner reasonably believes he is in danger of serious injury or death, he has the right to shoot if he has no means of safe escape.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-72640909232207380472013-07-19T13:25:40.499-04:002013-07-19T13:25:40.499-04:00the decision of an armed man to follow someone he ...<i>the decision of an armed man to follow someone he decided was suspicious is the precipitating event.</i><br /><br />As Bob said, a suspicion, even a false one, is not morally wrong and neither is keeping an eye on the suspected person.<br /><br />By the way, the "precipitating event" to the following was Trayvon Martin glaring at Zimmerman, and "coming to check out" Zimmerman. <br /><br />You simply don't have an argument. There is not a "both sides" here.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-76879226095744826962013-07-19T13:12:25.867-04:002013-07-19T13:12:25.867-04:00It seems the purpose of the posts is to discuss th...It seems the purpose of the posts is to discuss the was the press fosters or fails to confront tribalist renditions of an event, complete with fabrications of fact.<br /><br />Many of the commenters, on either side, want to try the case, and exhibit the same tribal behaviors.<br /><br />Here are simple facts that cannot be denied. An armed adult on an unrelated errand spotted a young man walking in his neighborhood, decided he was suspicious and called the police. Instead of sticking to his role as a member of the "neighborhood watch" from his vehicle, he elected to follow the "suspect" in the dark. He ended up killing the "suspect" who, until the time the adult spotted him, was doing absolutely nothing wrong.<br /><br />Regardless of how many variable versions, seasoned or unseasoned with snippets of facts, the decision of an armed man to follow someone he decided was suspicious is the precipitating event. I could care less whether the adult with the gun was purple and suspected the ultimate victim, also purple, was suspicious because he was whistling and skipping.<br /><br />Let's engage in a hypothetical keyed from a real fact.<br /><br />Zimmerman once called police because he saw a garage door open. Presume he decided to go investigate for himself, poked his head inside, and was blasted by a startled homeowner with a shotgun. Who is to blame?<br /><br />rickAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-84209720578006326112013-07-19T13:00:28.461-04:002013-07-19T13:00:28.461-04:00Why was it OK for him to whupp Zimmerman for stari...<i>Why was it OK for him to whupp Zimmerman for staring at him?</i><br /><br />Because as Ann Coulter said, the racist white left has yet to recognize blacks as volitional human beings. The behavior of the racist white left around this case has created a reality in which Ann Coulter is accurate. Chilling.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-4841130936352358172013-07-19T12:54:43.124-04:002013-07-19T12:54:43.124-04:00If you have a sensible proposal about reforming se...If you have a sensible proposal about reforming self-defense law, let's hear it. HINT: Try to state it legalistically, without reference to this case.<br /><br />And, yes, for the most part "everyone has the right to arm themselves."<br /><br />For the most part, everyone has the right to be suspicious if they suspect something, and the right to "follow," and the right to defend themselves if they are "confronted violently."<br /><br />Honestly, I don't see how you're going to change those things, but let's hear your best effort.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-75138949103023914432013-07-19T12:52:48.696-04:002013-07-19T12:52:48.696-04:00There are people who are well-paid to do just this...There are people who are well-paid to do just this, namely police patrolmen. George Zimmerman was part of a formal program, coordinated with the police, to perform some of the functions of a patrolman. In this case, it turned into a disaster. Nevertheless, I think we should be grateful to our fellow citizens who volunteer to make our communities a better place.David in Calnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-3396011507381587452013-07-19T12:51:28.176-04:002013-07-19T12:51:28.176-04:00I'm really glad to hear that!I'm really glad to hear that!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-60683911152804189962013-07-19T12:50:56.084-04:002013-07-19T12:50:56.084-04:00Following people around is not illegal -- paparazz...Following people around is not illegal -- paparazzi do it to famous people all the time. You don't have the right to confront someone violently just for following you around. That is why actors are charged with assault when they attack paparazzi and break their cameras. If you confront someone else violently, whether for following you or saying something nasty to you or doing something you don't like, they DO have the right to use force to defend themselves, up to and including killing you. It is not vigilantism because it is the law. In this case, police were involved immediately and the initial investigation suggested to charges were warranted. Later, there was a trial.<br /><br />If someone attacks you violently and you are killed or injured as the result of that violence, where is your trial? Isn't that vigilantism? Couldn't Trayvon have used his cell phone to call the police and complain about Zimmerman if he had wanted to? Why was it OK for him to whupp Zimmerman for staring at him?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-59796448253888208302013-07-19T12:48:52.259-04:002013-07-19T12:48:52.259-04:00WORK to change gun laws!!WORK to change gun laws!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-75566920390700927182013-07-19T12:39:06.644-04:002013-07-19T12:39:06.644-04:00Although I can agree that George Zimmerman is lega...Although I can agree that George Zimmerman is legally innocent, I am disturbed by the comments that suggest that everyone has the right to arm themselves and protect their neighborhoods by following around any suspicious persons (suspicious to them). Then, if the people they are following confront them violently, they can simply kill them (in self defense). This seems to me to be simply vigilantism. No police, no trial, just execution.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-83964965963247138192013-07-19T12:36:56.483-04:002013-07-19T12:36:56.483-04:00(And even if we choose not to permit our brains to...(And even if we choose not to permit our brains to put those facts together in any conclusive way, our morals or ethics should prohibit us from uttering anything that contributes to the lynch mob's unfounded effort to imprison George Zimmerman)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com