Trayvon Martin is DEAD. It is general policy to show the nicest picture obtainable of a deceased person. That's just courtesy and respect for the dead. Its also general policy to show studio pictures of deceased people as those pics are usually the best to reprint.
So far as perps go, journalists prefer to get their own during exposure but if not is not possible, they'll get a hold of the mug shot because mug shots are public domain. Private photos are not and while a decedent's family is usually willing to hand over a nice picture (and waive rights), usually the perp/accused is not willing to give ANY photo up.
So there's policy and there's good reasons for the policies. If perps were to give out really nice retouched studio shots of themselves, you'd probably see those quite often. Ted Bundy, i do believe, was one of the rare vain perps who gave out shots of himself.
Nor any more true. You have no proof whatsoever and if any of those pictures are false or doctored, it will reveal your foolish presumptions. I wonder if it would give you pause.
Yeah, so? If your murdered son was at the center of a miscarriage of justice, wouldn't you give the press the best pictures you had?
Trayvon was the VICTIM, he is dead. The onus is not on the media or his family to portray him as a threatening black man. Again, HE IS DEAD. To run only "blacker" (ugh) pictures would only serve to indict a dead teenager. Sorry, it's not a media conspiracy, just basic respect for the dead.
"wouldn't you give the press the best pictures you had?"
That's my reaction too. If I was murdered, I rather suspect that my family and friends would provide nicer photos of me rather than ones were I don't look so sympathetic. That doesn't quite amount to conspiracy.
I think that people in the media are aware of the narratives they push.
Someone is hospitalised after a car crash, you get the worst photo of them in hospital you can take and then put that next to a picture of them looking as pretty as possible from before the crash.
An unarmed black person gets shot walking to the shops? Of course they're going to do with the nicest photo of the the boy they can. The aim is to make the crime look as shocking as possible because that sells papers.
That surely shouldn't surprise anyone here; we all know that this is how the media works.
I think the underlying point though is that the car crash still happened and the unarmed black person is still dead. The media may choose what images they use carefully to really hammer those points home but they still happened. Nothing is being significantly distorted here.
"narrative" in this case? He's dead and he was a teenager AKA a CHILD. Christ on a stick you're really coming off as a stone-hearted jerk right now. I can't believe you want to argue for politicizing the MEMORIAL PICTURES of a DEAD CHILD.
I think the problem is that we already know that Zimmerman was following and 'giving chase' to Martin; that much is pretty clear from the 911 recording.
Even if we're being sympathetic to Zimmerman, what we're left with is that he saw someone he deemed as being 'suspicious' (for reasons that turned out to be false; he had good reason to be in the area and wasn't on drugs), reported him to the police for dubious reasons, followed him (whilst armed with a firearm) only for the young person he had chased down to react violently after being followed and chased by someone with no authority to do so.
Now, that might not excuse Martin assaulting Zimmerman but it doesn't put Zimmerman in the clear either (it's a pretty dodgy situation in which to claim a 'standing your ground' defence).
If you want to argue that it may turn out to be not as bad as it looks at the moment based on the evidence then, sure, there are details yet to be worked out. However, it seems pretty clear that one thing Zimmerman is definitely not is 'absolutely in
( ... )
The only assumptions I made were in Zimmerman's favour.
The 911 call narrows down the 'what if' scenarios we can reasonably speculate on.
It is still possible that Martin initialised the physical assault but we do know that Zimmerman was following Martin against police orders, to the extent of being worried about how they 'always get away'.
If Martin did assault Zimmerman, it was after being chased by Zimmerman.
what if he did? the family still would have given out the nicest picture and that's what the media would have used. As I explained earlier a large part of it has to do with copyright and the rest is respect for the dead. Any dead.
Reply
So far as perps go, journalists prefer to get their own during exposure but if not is not possible, they'll get a hold of the mug shot because mug shots are public domain. Private photos are not and while a decedent's family is usually willing to hand over a nice picture (and waive rights), usually the perp/accused is not willing to give ANY photo up.
So there's policy and there's good reasons for the policies. If perps were to give out really nice retouched studio shots of themselves, you'd probably see those quite often. Ted Bundy, i do believe, was one of the rare vain perps who gave out shots of himself.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Trayvon was the VICTIM, he is dead. The onus is not on the media or his family to portray him as a threatening black man. Again, HE IS DEAD. To run only "blacker" (ugh) pictures would only serve to indict a dead teenager. Sorry, it's not a media conspiracy, just basic respect for the dead.
Reply
That's my reaction too. If I was murdered, I rather suspect that my family and friends would provide nicer photos of me rather than ones were I don't look so sympathetic. That doesn't quite amount to conspiracy.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Someone is hospitalised after a car crash, you get the worst photo of them in hospital you can take and then put that next to a picture of them looking as pretty as possible from before the crash.
An unarmed black person gets shot walking to the shops? Of course they're going to do with the nicest photo of the the boy they can. The aim is to make the crime look as shocking as possible because that sells papers.
That surely shouldn't surprise anyone here; we all know that this is how the media works.
I think the underlying point though is that the car crash still happened and the unarmed black person is still dead. The media may choose what images they use carefully to really hammer those points home but they still happened. Nothing is being significantly distorted here.
Reply
Jumpin jeziz
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Even if we're being sympathetic to Zimmerman, what we're left with is that he saw someone he deemed as being 'suspicious' (for reasons that turned out to be false; he had good reason to be in the area and wasn't on drugs), reported him to the police for dubious reasons, followed him (whilst armed with a firearm) only for the young person he had chased down to react violently after being followed and chased by someone with no authority to do so.
Now, that might not excuse Martin assaulting Zimmerman but it doesn't put Zimmerman in the clear either (it's a pretty dodgy situation in which to claim a 'standing your ground' defence).
If you want to argue that it may turn out to be not as bad as it looks at the moment based on the evidence then, sure, there are details yet to be worked out. However, it seems pretty clear that one thing Zimmerman is definitely not is 'absolutely in ( ... )
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
The 911 call narrows down the 'what if' scenarios we can reasonably speculate on.
It is still possible that Martin initialised the physical assault but we do know that Zimmerman was following Martin against police orders, to the extent of being worried about how they 'always get away'.
If Martin did assault Zimmerman, it was after being chased by Zimmerman.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment