Trayvon Martin shooting - murder or justified?

[Copernicus]

I agree that pursuing Martin was wrong, but the actual recording shows that he wasn't
instructed not to follow. That was an inventive interpretation in some media.

A portion of the transcript.....
911 dispatcher:
Are you following him? [2:24]
Zimmerman:
Yeah. [2:25]
911 dispatcher:
OK.
We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]
Zimmerman:
OK. [2:28]

The media ought to be more careful about taking actual facts (eg, the recorded 911 conversation), & reporting their personal
interpretation as though it were a fact. I find it particularly vexing that NPR refers to Martin's "murder", when such is not known.
This turns news into stealthy editorializing & advocacy.

The expression "We don't need you to do that" in that context was an instruction to stand down. It was what is sometimes referred to as an indirect speech act--what might be called a "directive" speech act, in this case. The operator most likely would have used a direct command, if she had understood that Zimmerman was continuing to pursue Martin. Zimmerman replied with a deceptive "OK", which sounded like he was agreeing not to pursue. When reporters characterize this exchange as Zimmerman being ordered not to pursue, they are accurately reporting the intent of the dispatcher. Zimmerman understood what was being asked of him and intentionally ignored the advice. He had his gun and his self-appointed mission to rid the neighborhood of miscreants.

 

[Revoltingest]

The expression "We don't need you to do that" in that context was an instruction to stand down...

"Instruction" is a very strong word to describe that phrase.
"Suggestion" would be much more accurate.

When reporters characterize this exchange as Zimmerman being ordered not to pursue, they are accurately reporting the intent of the dispatcher.

That is merely one interpretation, & it's an agenda laden one at that.
To present it as factual is inaccurate, & gives a very false impression.
Why not just report the incontrovertible facts as they are? That wouldn't further their agenda.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Why not just report the incontrovertible facts as they are? That wouldn't further their agenda.

1) There are no incontrovertible facts. If it were possible for us to know something so completely, there would be no need for the news media.

2) Even if there were such "facts," it would be impossible for the "news media" to put them in any kind of a meaningful narrative without incorporating some kind of interpretation that has a bias.

 

[Revoltingest]

1) There are no incontrovertible facts. If it were possible for us to know something so completely, there would be no need for the news media.

This is a relative matter.
Example: A couple big NYC buildings fell when hit by planes on 9.11.01. This qualifies as a fact. That the US plotted to do it, is opinion rather than fact.
Example: Zimmerman shot Martin dead. Zimmerman & the 911 operator said specific things to each other. These are facts. Zimmerman stalked & murdered
Martin is an opinion. Yet the latter has been presented as fact. (I know some who bought this 'fact', unaware of & even in denial of Zimmerman's injuries.)

2) Even if there were such "facts," it would be impossible for the "news media" to put them in any kind of a meaningful narrative without incorporating some kind of interpretation that has a bias.

Certainly, you are correct. But media must exercise care to differentiate between their editorializing & their reporting.
If something is wrong for Fox News to do, then it's wrong for MSNBC, NYT, NPR & others to do it too.

 

[Copernicus]

"Instruction" is a very strong word to describe that phrase.
"Suggestion" would be much more accurate.

I didn't say "direction". I said "directive", which is the name of the type of indirect speech act that the dispatcher used. You probably didn't follow my link to Searle's discussion of indirect speech acts. "Directive" is defined at the bottom of that web page. Whether you call it a "directive" or a "suggestion", it was clear that the dispatcher was telling Zimmerman not to pursue. It was also clear that Zimmerman was being deliberately deceptive when he responded with "OK".

That is merely one interpretation, & it's an agenda laden one at that.
To present it as factual is inaccurate, & gives a very false impression.
Why not just report the incontrovertible facts as they are? That wouldn't further their agenda.

It happens to be the interpretation that most people put on the tape when they hear it. I don't know why you strain so hard not to hear it. In any case, it is not for you or me to decide. A jury will listen to it and come to their own conclusions. I just hope that they are not one of those juries that equates "reasonable doubt" with "shadow of a doubt".

 

[Revoltingest]

I didn't say "direction". I said "directive", which is the name of the type of indirect speech act that the dispatcher used. You probably didn't follow my link to Searle's discussion of indirect speech acts. "Directive" is defined at the bottom of that web page. Whether you call it a "directive" or a "suggestion", it was clear that the dispatcher was telling Zimmerman not to pursue. It was also clear that Zimmerman was being deliberately deceptive when he responded with "OK".

Your inferences strike me as too speculative.
There are other reasonable views.

It happens to be the interpretation that most people put on the tape when they hear it.

Most people believe in God, & see plenty of evidence for it.
The "most people" argument doesn't sway me.

I don't know why you strain so hard not to hear it.

Perhaps thou art hoist by thine own petard, eh?
You're the one arguing that only a single interpretation is valid.

In any case, it is not for you or me to decide. A jury will listen to it and come to their own conclusions. I just hope that they are not one of those juries that equates "reasonable doubt" with "shadow of a doubt".

Having served on a jury, I wouldn't put 100% certainty that they reach a just verdict.
As they say, you want to be screwed, go to court. You want justice, go to a wh***house.
Our job here as RF posters is to kibbitz, & a fine job we're doing too.