Why Did NBC Delibertly Alter Zimmerman 911 Call?

[Guest123018-4]

My only concern about the whole thing is the obvious media manipulation to make this fit into a preconceived mold as though they have been waitn on something like this to fan the flames of racial discontent. the issue is that they were looking for a white on black issue and instead got a mixed race against what appears to be a black person.
the facts of what the media has done to manipulate everything about this is criminal . Doctored photos, doctored recordings, an all new racial term of white Hispanic.

A killing is local news, race riots are the dreams of the mainstream media.

[bladtinzu]

Originally Posted by Old-T

So kind of you to judge him as a "little punk thug". Aftrer all, what you wear determines if you are a sleazeball or not. Who dressed better, Martin or Madoff? In your lunatic world, which is the capital offense, the music he listened to or the tattoos? I didn't realize either was cause for execution. And lest the pea-brain crowd get all insenced I am NOT referring to Zimmerman here, but rather YOUR stupid comment that because a guy wears certain clothes and looks a certain way that his death is no loss to society. Who gets to vote on how you look?

The fact that this little useless person was well on his way to full thugdom. But opinions are like assholes. Just mine is factual where your's is pie in the sky wishful dreaming of the inept.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by The2Dogs

My only concern about the whole thing is the obvious media manipulation to make this fit into a preconceived mold as though they have been waitn on something like this to fan the flames of racial discontent. the issue is that they were looking for a white on black issue and instead got a mixed race against what appears to be a black person.
the facts of what the media has done to manipulate everything about this is criminal . Doctored photos, doctored recordings, an all new racial term of white Hispanic.

A killing is local news, race riots are the dreams of the mainstream media.

+1 The Rodney King riot marks its twentieth anniversary tomorrow: 29 April 1992.

Widespread looting, assault, arson and murder occurred, and property damages topped roughly $1 billion. In all, 54 people died during the riots and thousands more were injured.Wiki

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by bladtinzu

The fact that this little useless person was well on his way to full thugdom. But opinions are like assholes. Just mine is factual where your's is pie in the sky wishful dreaming of the inept.

No, I just happen to actually believe in "innocent until proven guilty". You seem to believe that a few all knowing types--like yourself--can identify at an early age who should be killed as a preventive measure for the good of society.

Why is it that the right wing extremists are so willing to forego other people's rights in the name of freedom? The left wing extremists are little better, they just word it differently: they admit to stepping on other people's freedoms but justify it as necessary for the better good.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Old-T

No, I just happen to actually believe in "innocent until proven guilty". You seem to believe that a few all knowing types--like yourself--can identify at an early age who should be killed as a preventive measure for the good of society.

Why is it that the right wing extremists are so willing to forego other people's rights in the name of freedom? The left wing extremists are little better, they just word it differently: they admit to stepping on other people's freedoms but justify it as necessary for the better good.

Innocent until proven guilty is the standard IN THE COURT ROOM because the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution fails to meet that high standard, the defendant goes free because he is presumed to be innocent. The point of the presumption of innocence is that you don't have to prove you're innocent in the court; it's presumed.

We're free to speculate on guilt or innocence as we see fit. There's nothing unethical or unpatriotic in freely expressing your opinion on pending cases. When someone is caught red handed commiting a crime and there's a video tape of the crime, are we required to refrain from concluding they're guilty?

As far as who should be killed for the good of society, people who try to beat other people to death might be a good place to start. If Trayvon had you down on the ground pounding your head into a sidewalk, you would have shot him too; anyone would have. It's called self defence.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Innocent until proven guilty is the standard IN THE COURT ROOM and, one would hope, before someone dies.

We're free to speculate on guilt or innocence as we see fit. Completely agree!!!! Of course IB Dumb disagrees (or WOULD come on here and disagree if he wasn't the hypocrit he is, but I digress).

As far as who should be killed for the good of society, people who try to beat other people to death might be a good place to start. If Trayvon had you down on the ground pounding your head into a sidewalk, you would have shot him too; anyone would have. It's called self defence.
And that is exactly what the courts need to decide, not a blog like this, not the press. Speculate is one thing, execute is another. My point was blad seeming to think lethal punishment for how one looks is appropriate.

.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

We're free to speculate on guilt or innocence as we see fit. Completely agree!!!! Of course IB Dumb disagrees (or WOULD come on here and disagree if he wasn't the hypocrit he is, but I digress).

You are a lying jackass, Old-goaT. It was your Kool Aid dispensing MSM that violated that tenet of American jurisprudence -- and you swilled it down and then regurgitated it here in this forum.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are a lying jackass, Old-goaT. It was your Kool Aid dispensing MSM that violated that tenet of American jurisprudence -- and you swilled it down and then regurgitated it here on this forum.

Lying as usual, hypocrit. You rant and rave (poorly, I might add) that "pre-judging is wrong and evil", when what you really mean is "expressing anything that disagrees with the all-knowing I B Hypocrit" is wrong and evil.

People coming in here and pre-judging Zimmerman to be innocent are not atacked by I B Hypocrit, are they? People who read a few press releases and pre-judge Martin as a thug, and who say "good riddance he's dead" are not attacked by I B Hypocrtit, are they? No, of course not. Don't THEY "violate American jurisprudence"? Of course they do, but it's OK since they agree with you. You can agree with them, THAT is yourright. But to post ad nausium that "pre-judging is bad" and completely ignore the majority of prejudgers on here is what is hypocritical. Just admit you attack me (and others) because we disagree with your views. You accuse me of being anti-Hispanic without knowing what race I am. You don't believe if freedom of expression, you believe in mind control wth you at the controls.

A lying, hypocritical, hate monger. That's all you are. And one who posts often enough on here that he/she may well be an unemployed welfare recipient--you have enough free time to qualify. I really do ponder how ironic and hysterically morbid that would be.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are a lying jackass, Old-goaT. It was your Kool Aid dispensing MSM that violated that tenet of American jurisprudence -- and you swilled it down and then regurgitated it here in this forum.

I think you're mixing metaphors. Is he a goat or a jackass?

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Old-T

.

Surely you don't think Zimmerman should have presumed that Trayvon was innocent while he was trying to beat him to death. That's absurd.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Lying as usual, hypocrit. You rant and rave (poorly, I might add) that "pre-judging is wrong and evil", when what you really mean is "expressing anything that disagrees with the all-knowing I B Hypocrit" is wrong and evil.

People coming in here and pre-judging Zimmerman to be innocent are not atacked by I B Hypocrit, are they? People who read a few press releases and pre-judge Martin as a thug, and who say "good riddance he's dead" are not attacked by I B Hypocrtit, are they? No, of course not. Don't THEY "violate American jurisprudence"? Of course they do, but it's OK since they agree with you. You can agree with them, THAT is yourright. But to post ad nausium that "pre-judging is bad" and completely ignore the majority of prejudgers on here is what is hypocritical. Just admit you attack me (and others) because we disagree with your views. You accuse me of being anti-Hispanic without knowing what race I am. You don't believe if freedom of expression, you believe in mind control wth you at the controls.

A lying, hypocritical, hate monger. That's all you are. And one who posts often enough on here that he/she may well be an unemployed welfare recipient--you have enough free time to qualify. I really do ponder how ironic and hysterically morbid that would be.

You are a liar and and hypocrite, Old-goaT, everything you wrote above contradicts you statement below, jackass.

Originally Posted by Old-T

No, I just happen to actually believe in "innocent until proven guilty".

According to the American jurisprudence system, Zimmerman is presumed innocent until proved guilty. You made several statements contradicting that 'presumption of innocence', and you had your ass handed to you.

Now you want to whine and deflect. You've called everyone who has disagreed with you a racist despite the fact both parties in this incident were minorities -- and despite the fact you do not know the race of those with whom you are arguing.

You called Zimmerman a vigilante, and you presumed he was the aggressor despite witness reports stating he was the victim of an assault. Guess what Old-goaT, Zimmerman remains "innocent until proven guilty" despite your -- and the MSM's -- attempts to control and distort the story.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Why MSNBC did what they did? Because they are Ozombies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iF0N1...eature=related

[IIFFOFRDB]

Could this be why? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=646JG...eature=related

[IIFFOFRDB]

I think I found the answer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouiMy73Ouvs

[Bigh1955]

There'a a reason NBC is consistently last in the ratings...and this is just one of the many reasons. Somebody aught to pull the peacocks feathers and cause them to go bankrupt defending their First Amendment right to intentionally distort, mislead, lie and perjure...oh wait, that's not what the Constitution protects.