Zimmerman Speeding, Pulled Over W/ Gun

[PopeyesPappy]

He wasn't "caught" with the gun, he told the police officer he had a gun in the vehicle which is what anyone who isn't a retard would do.

If I got pulled over in Texas while in possession of a firearm there are only a limited number of circumstance in which I would tell the officer I was armed. For one thing I am not required to volunteer that type of information in the state of Texas. But if the officer asked if I was armed I would tell him I was. If the officer asked me to get out of the vehicle I would tell him I had a gun before moving to comply then wait for further instructions. If the officer asked me to do something which might expose the gun like open the console I would tell them there was a gun in there before doing so if that is were the gun was . There are probably other circumstances in which I would tell an officer I was armed, but it isn't something I would do automatically. This isn't a retarded position. It is actually just common sense.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I'm waiting for Zimmerman to rescue jesus from those evil Romans..

[Nonsensei]

He wasn't "caught" with the gun, he told the police officer he had a gun in the vehicle which is what anyone who isn't a retard would do.

This article is written in a particular style that gives the minimum of information so as to allow the reader to draw a particular conclusion. Someone reading this article could easily think that Zimmerman is cruising around with a gun trying to find someone to shoot, when in reality his weapon is probably secured in his vehicle like millions of other Florida drivers. I love the part about how he said he was going "nowhere in particular", the information presented as though he were being evasive about his destination.

A subtle hit piece.

Agreed. There desperately needs to be some sort of regulatory body that enforces basic journalistic practices. Not controls the press and restricts what they can and cannot cover, but one that can restrict deliberate misinformation such as this.

How exactly is this deliberate misinformation? I seriously want to know.

The author went out of their way to present the facts in such a way as to shed the worst possible light on what is otherwise a relatively benign and common occurrence. The author makes sure to mention the part about Zimmerman having a gun "less than a month" after the trial as if to say "he just can't help himself can he folks? It hasn't even been one month". He also makes sure to mention that Zimmerman had no particular destination, painting a picture in the reader's mind of a recently (and controversially) exonerated murder trial defendant driving around aimlessly with a weapon.

Similarly, there are a couple crucial pieces of information conspicuously absent from the article. For one, the article fails to make clear whether or not Zimmerman was asked if he had a weapon, and two it fails to mention critical information such as where the weapon was kept in the car, whether or not it was loaded etc. Pieces of information that might change the flavor of the story and are therefore omitted or at least not pursued.

"Less than a month after his murder trial, Zimmerman is pulled over by police while speeding aimlessly with a hand gun."

could in fact be

"Zimmerman is pulled over by police, and when asked, he informed them that he had an unloaded handgun stored in his locked glove compartment".

But that second one isn't interesting. It sounds like a routine traffic stop...which is exactly what this was.

[Jmpty]

"Less than a month after being acquitted of second-degree murder charges related to his killing of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman was reportedly caught speeding Wednesday, with a gun in the glove compartment of his vehicle. The incident took place in the town of Forney, Tex., TMZ reports.

Zimmerman, who informed police that the weapon was in the car shortly after being pulled over, was asked where he was going, to which he responded, "nowhere in particular," according to the site.

CBS News reports that, during the traffic stop, which occurred at 12:54 p.m., Zimmerman also asked the officer if he recognized him from television.

This is the second time Zimmerman has been in the news since his trial ended on July 13.

Three days later, Zimmerman reportedly came to the aid of a family trapped under an overturned SUV on a Florida highway, pulling two children and their parents to safety.

The Huffington Post reached out to the Forney Police Department for comment, but they were not immediately available."

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Even mentioned the incident about helping those people in the accident, and that he informed the officer that he had a weapon. Misinformation implies that someone is being less than truthful, or has the wrong information, which I don't see here.

[Colanth]

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Even mentioned the incident about helping those people in the accident, and that he informed the officer that he had a weapon. Misinformation implies that someone is being less than truthful, or has the wrong information, which I don't see here.

Lean a little further to the right.  No, WAY over to the right.

Now does it look as if "the author went out of their way to present the facts in such a way as to shed the worst possible light ..."?

[Jmpty]

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Even mentioned the incident about helping those people in the accident, and that he informed the officer that he had a weapon. Misinformation implies that someone is being less than truthful, or has the wrong information, which I don't see here.

Lean a little further to the right.  No, WAY over to the right.

Now does it look as if "the author went out of their way to present the facts in such a way as to shed the worst possible light ..."?

I tried the lean. I just ended up falling over, and looking really foolish.

[Colanth]

Oh, you mean like the argument.

[Jmpty]

Oh, you mean like the argument.

8-)

[Aroura33]

I could hardly care less if he was pulled over for a speeding ticket, but reading the entire article, I do not see how it is negative towards Zimmerman at all, except that he was speeding.  It also seems pretty straight forward to me.

[Nonsensei]

Heh. What was I thinking?

"Hey please explain this to me"
"Ok here is the explanation"
"LOL NO U RIGHT WING NUTJOB"

[Jmpty]

The author went out of their way to present the facts in such a way as to shed the worst possible light on what is otherwise a relatively benign and common occurrence. The author makes sure to mention the part about Zimmerman having a gun "less than a month" after the trial as if to say "he just can't help himself can he folks? It hasn't even been one month". He also makes sure to mention that Zimmerman had no particular destination, painting a picture in the reader's mind of a recently (and controversially) exonerated murder trial defendant driving around aimlessly with a weapon.

Similarly, there are a couple crucial pieces of information conspicuously absent from the article. For one, the article fails to make clear whether or not Zimmerman was asked if he had a weapon, and two it fails to mention critical information such as where the weapon was kept in the car, whether or not it was loaded etc. Pieces of information that might change the flavor of the story and are therefore omitted or at least not pursued.
The article states that it was in the glove compartment
"Less than a month after his murder trial, Zimmerman is pulled over by police while speeding aimlessly with a hand gun."
I couldn't find this line in the story.

"Zimmerman is pulled over by police, and when asked, he informed them that he had an unloaded handgun stored in his locked glove compartment".

But that second one isn't interesting. It sounds like a routine traffic stop...which is exactly what this was.
That's exactly what I got from the article.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

The author went out of their way to present the facts in such a way as to shed the worst possible light on what is otherwise a relatively benign and common occurrence. The author makes sure to mention the part about Zimmerman having a gun "less than a month" after the trial as if to say "he just can't help himself can he folks? It hasn't even been one month". He also makes sure to mention that Zimmerman had no particular destination, painting a picture in the reader's mind of a recently (and controversially) exonerated murder trial defendant driving around aimlessly with a weapon.

Similarly, there are a couple crucial pieces of information conspicuously absent from the article. For one, the article fails to make clear whether or not Zimmerman was asked if he had a weapon, and two it fails to mention critical information such as where the weapon was kept in the car, whether or not it was loaded etc. Pieces of information that might change the flavor of the story and are therefore omitted or at least not pursued.
The article states that it was in the glove compartment
"Less than a month after his murder trial, Zimmerman is pulled over by police while speeding aimlessly with a hand gun."
I couldn't find this line in the story.

"Zimmerman is pulled over by police, and when asked, he informed them that he had an unloaded handgun stored in his locked glove compartment".

But that second one isn't interesting. It sounds like a routine traffic stop...which is exactly what this was.
That's exactly what I got from the article.

This kind of formatting makes it damn near impossible to figure out which text is yours and what point you're trying to make. Please use

quotes

like a normal person.

[Seabear]

There is nothing evasive or dishonest in answering "nowhere in particular" when asked "where are you going?" By a police officer. He was simply exercising his right to privacy by declining to discuss his personal business, which is entirely within his rights.

The cop was probably asking him where he was going just to give him an opportunity to tell him if he was speeding because had an emergency of some sort. The fact that he had a gun is a non-issue as well. It's totally legal to have a gun in your car in Texas.

Really, there is nothing to see here. It's an ordinary traffic stop.

[Jmpty]

The author went out of their way to present the facts in such a way as to shed the worst possible light on what is otherwise a relatively benign and common occurrence. The author makes sure to mention the part about Zimmerman having a gun "less than a month" after the trial as if to say "he just can't help himself can he folks? It hasn't even been one month". He also makes sure to mention that Zimmerman had no particular destination, painting a picture in the reader's mind of a recently (and controversially) exonerated murder trial defendant driving around aimlessly with a weapon.

Similarly, there are a couple crucial pieces of information conspicuously absent from the article. For one, the article fails to make clear whether or not Zimmerman was asked if he had a weapon, and two it fails to mention critical information such as where the weapon was kept in the car, whether or not it was loaded etc. Pieces of information that might change the flavor of the story and are therefore omitted or at least not pursued.
The article states that it was in the glove compartment
"Less than a month after his murder trial, Zimmerman is pulled over by police while speeding aimlessly with a hand gun."
I couldn't find this line in the story.

"Zimmerman is pulled over by police, and when asked, he informed them that he had an unloaded handgun stored in his locked glove compartment".

But that second one isn't interesting. It sounds like a routine traffic stop...which is exactly what this was.
That's exactly what I got from the article.

This kind of formatting makes it damn near impossible to figure out which text is yours and what point you're trying to make. Please use

quotes

like a normal person.

How about you just fuck off. If you don't like it, don't read it.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

How about you just fuck off.

Wow, real mature. Any more nuggets of wisdom you'd like to share?