Shot for getting skittles

Way to go with stretching it.[/quote]

Stretching it? Check the statistics on stranger rape and child abduction and get back to me.

But if there's nothing the police can do, and he knows it, he'll keep stalking until he finds someone who's not sufficiently vigilant, and we know what happens next.

In addition to being cautious, I was also lucky the time the guy followed me from the subway. This was before cell phones. It happened to be a Friday night, and there was a big bash at the local American Legion hall. I just ducked into the doorway, and Mr. Stalker took one look at the meeting room full of beer-drinking vets and took off.

Mm, flyover country...Wisconsin: home to more serial killers than anywhere else in America.

And, as I've mentioned, crime rate in my 'hood is extremely low.

I wonder, did Martin bounce that can of Arizona Iced Tea off the back of Zimmerman's skull?

He should have after that fucker followed him around town.

It also doesn't mean he should be shot for it either.

I don't think so.

That depends entirely on the choices.

No. The choices he made did not involve anything illegal. The only bad decision he made was to "stand his ground".

That remains to be seen.

It's been mentioned a few times in this thread, but I don't know if anyone has posted them yet. Here are a few pics of Trayvon Martin that the media or his family have chosen not to show.

These do show a different Trayvon than the media is portraying him as. If the media had shown the 3rd, 4th, or 5th photos how do you think the public would have reacted to the story?

And yes, I know someone or several someones might say appearance has nothing to do with it, or will say that I'm trying to justify his shooting, or think he deserved because of his appearance.

Oh my GOD! He dressed like a teenager!

Clearly he had to be stopped.

As I said upthread when someone posted these same pictures, he's a teenager acting like a teenager.

If you've never been silly in front of a camera, it's not Trayvon's fault. Don't condemn him because of his pictures.

Why would they use grainey, blurry pictures?

I don't fault the family for wanting their child to be portrayed in the most flattering light, as a harmless barely post-pubescent young lad. I do take issue with the Media, for actively perpetuating their manipulative deception.

He's go a clear, relatively recent picture showing his face. And a bunch of silly photos taken in the mirror or by his friends.

Which one would you suggest the media use?

All of them or none of them.

In fact, I've got some punkish pictures of the 8 year old that he took using my macbook's Photobooth program. I could show you those and you can tell me he looks like someone who would cold-bloodedly attempt to kill a twenty five year old man.

Why?

Initially, the family-supplied photo(s) were probably the only ones "the media" had available. Contrary to what a lot of y'all think, "the media" isn't some all-powerful entity that gets everything it wants immediately. Sometimes you have to wait until more information or resources become available.

Why not?

God forbid a reporter should visit the boy's facebook page or high school. That's too much like engaging in journalism. Far easier to take the hand picked photos from the family.

I asked first.

For one thing they're more recent. Your turn.

The kid's Facebook page was likely private. I know at my station, Facebook is usually the first place we look when we're trying to find a photograph of someone. If it's set to private, you aren't going to see anything. Try it sometime.

And high schools don't just "hand out" yearbook photos. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read here.

Can you confirm that was the case?

They do have yearbooks and classmates though. Now don't they?

Your welcome.


And how are we seeing these pictures now? Hmmmm?

They're irrelevant. Much like the ones of you with your fingers sticking up behind someone's head or where you're making a face in a non-posed photo.

Then why use any pictures at all?

I don't know. I didn't go out to find them.

I can't say definitively one way or another, but given that the one "youthful"-looking photo was the only one we saw for a while, my bet would be that it was private. Like I said, at my job Facebook is the first place where we look. Sometimes we luck out, most of the time we don't.

They do have yearbooks and classmates though. Now don't they? [/quote]

Why yes, yes they do. Where do you think these "other" photos are coming from.

Sometimes, though, it takes...time...to get access to that stuff. You can't just go around demanding that people give you want you want or need to do a story. You have to find someone who's willing to help out or wait until someone comes forward with the information that you're seeking. I'm constantly amazed by people who seem to think that "the media" is some sort of all-powerful organization that gets everything it wants, instantly, every single time.

It's the same thing that you see in an obituary about someone who has been arrested several times, had DUI's, didn't pay child support and was forced to pay instead of going to jail, and was an all around asshole. They won't say that in the obit, but will come up with something like.

"Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo was a family man who leaves behind 3 children, and had recently been working 2 jobs to support his children from a divorce. He will be remembered as a man who held his own and as a lively character. While not a very social person, he will be remembered by all that knew him."

And who in the Media are publishing them?

And who in the Media are publishing them?[/quote]


I have no idea of what outlets are doing that. I haven't been following the story all that closely.