|
Zimmerman lawyer to move ‘asap’ against NBC News
Zimmerman lawyer to move ‘asap’ against NBC News Back in December, Zimmerman sued NBC Universal Media for defamation over the botched editing, which depicted him as a hardened racial profiler. George Zimmerman George Zimmerman (R) talks to defense counsel Don West during his trial on Saturday. (EPA/JOE BURBANK / POOL) Here’s how NBC News, in a March 27, 2012, broadcast of the “Today” show, abridged the tape of Zimmerman’s comments to a police dispatcher on the evening of Feb. 26, 2012: Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black. The full tape went like this: Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about. Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic? Zimmerman: He looks black. The bastards probably don't even feel guilty at formenting the race riots in Oakland et al. |
I'm almost willing to lower my standards to watch this sideshow again:
Piers Morgan lands Rachel Jeantel interview | TheBlaze.com |
Originally Posted by Washington Post
Zimmerman, who has a white father and a Peruvian mother, claimed self-defense in the death of Martin, an unarmed African American teenager he saw walking through his modest gated community in February 2012. Zimmerman said he shot Martin after the teenager sucker-punched him and started pounding his head into a concrete walkway.
Originally Posted by TorqueZombie
(Post 1031949)
0 fucks would be given if race was never thrown around by the same people who claim the rest of us should stop seeing race.
|
I don’t give a f-ck about the race issue. A plain clothed neighborhood watch guy chasing down an unarmed teenager walking home from a convenience store confronting and shooting him dead is not something that you should get away with reguardless of the circumstances.
Perhaps in this twisted world all teens should carry guns so they can shoot the rent-a-cops first to protect themselves. The verdict doesn’t surprise me though. The nation seems to de-evolving into a nation of the stupid. |
Originally Posted by bbundy
(Post 1032032)
I don’t give a f-ck about the race issue. A plain clothed neighborhood watch guy chasing down an unarmed teenager walking home from a convenience store confronting and shooting him dead is not something that you should get away with reguardless of the circumstances.
Perhaps in this twisted world all teens should carry guns so they can shoot the rent-a-cops first to protect themselves. The verdict doesn’t surprise me though. The nation seems to de-evolving into a nation of the stupid. You obviously know more about this case than the six jurors that were chosen by both counsels to be unbiased and who actually heard all of the evidence presented. |
Originally Posted by bbundy
(Post 1032032)
I don’t give a f-ck about the race issue. A plain clothed neighborhood watch guy chasing down an unarmed teenager walking home from a convenience store confronting and shooting him dead is not something that you should get away with reguardless of the circumstances.
Perhaps in this twisted world all teens should carry guns so they can shoot the rent-a-cops first to protect themselves. The verdict doesn’t surprise me though. The nation seems to de-evolving into a nation of the stupid. Please gtfo until you have any idea what you are talking about. |
Originally Posted by bbundy
(Post 1032032)
I don’t give a f-ck about the race issue. A plain clothed neighborhood watch guy chasing down an unarmed teenager walking home from a convenience store confronting and shooting him dead is not something that you should get away with reguardless of the circumstances.
A more accurate portrayal would be that A plain clothed neighborhood watch guy identified a suspicious person fitting the description of individuals who had been committing robberies in his neighborhood. He calls the police and gets out of his vehicle to go confront the individual to inquire what he is doing in the area (which is not illegal and in most cases would result in a would be robber just leaving the scene because he was noticed). The teen noticed the gentlemen following him and called him a racial slur to the person he was talking to on the phone. The teen then eluded the plain clothed neighborhood watch guy who began to return to his vehicle. Afterward the teen doubled back instead of entering his home and confronted his pursuer. When asked, "What are you doing here?" the teen responded by assaulting the neighborhood watch guy and began pounding his head into the sidewalk. Neighborhood watch guy then pulls out his concealed carry and fires a single shot into the torso of his assailant in order to stop a violent assault that could have resulted in severe head trauma if it continued. Teen dies from wound. This teen also has a history of criminal activity and violence. Often talks and posts online about beating people up. |
Originally Posted by Ryan_G
(Post 1032048)
If that is what happened I would agree but its not what happened.
A more accurate portrayal would be that A plain clothed neighborhood watch guy identified a suspicious person fitting the description of individuals who had been committing robberies in his neighborhood. He calls the police and gets out of his vehicle to go confront the individual to inquire what he is doing in the area (which is not illegal and in most cases would result in a would be robber just leaving the scene because he was noticed). The teen noticed the gentlemen following him and called him a racial slur to the person he was talking to on the phone. The teen then eluded the plain clothed neighborhood watch guy who began to return to his vehicle. Afterward the teen doubled back instead of entering his home and confronted his pursuer. When asked, "What are you doing here?" the teen responded by assaulting the neighborhood watch guy and began pounding his head into the sidewalk. Neighborhood watch guy then pulls out his concealed carry and fires a single shot into the torso of his assailant in order to stop a violent assault that could have resulted in severe head trauma if it continued. Teen dies from wound. This teen also has a history of criminal activity and violence. Often talks and posts online about beating people up. Stop spouting your white privilege. |
Originally Posted by Stein
(Post 1032039)
Please tell me you are just trolling now...
You obviously know more about this case than the six jurors that were chosen by both counsels to be unbiased and who actually heard all of the evidence presented. |
Hello police? I see a guy, im about to shoot him. Meet me exactly here. Don't charge me bro.
|
.
|
If a guy half my age, in much better physical condition then me, and much larger than me starts to whip my ass, I am going to do what ever it takes to get out of the situation. If I have a weapon, I am using it. It is what we call survival.
This whole thing is taking us backwards. |
2 Attachment(s)
|
I hope you're all ready for the only post that's actually worth paying attention to in this thread.
|
That was interestingly accurate.
|
2 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by bbundy
(Post 1032032)
I don’t give a f-ck about the race issue. A plain clothed neighborhood watch guy chasing down an unarmed teenager walking home from a convenience store confronting and shooting him dead is not something that you should get away with reguardless of the circumstances.
|
1 Attachment(s)
|
Originally Posted by miata2fast
(Post 1032076)
If a guy half my age, in much better physical condition then me, and much larger than me starts to whip my ass, I am going to do what ever it takes to get out of the situation. If I have a weapon, I am using it. It is what we call survival.
This whole thing is taking us backwards. "If a guy half my age, in much better physical condition then me, and much larger than me starts to whip my ass, I am going to do what ever it takes to get out of the situation [which starts by not putting myself in the situation to start with]" Both individuals are/were stupid at minimum. -Zach |
Originally Posted by thasac
(Post 1032150)
Edit:
"If a guy half my age, in much better physical condition then me, and much larger than me starts to whip my ass, I am going to do what ever it takes to get out of the situation [which starts by not putting myself in the situation to start with]" Both individuals are/were stupid at minimum. -Zach |
It's funny how people take sides I'm pretty sure there was only two people who knew what happened and now only one person does people who say trayvon was a nice kid and didn't do anything stfu about the skittles you didn't know him and people who say zimmerman was just defending himself yes he was... if he was telling the truth (a big if) but if ur not outraged over every single murder then why are you so pissed about this one? I just can't stand hearing people argue about this anymore... ugh
|
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau
(Post 1032155)
So you can't ask someone you don't recognize what they're doing in your neighborhood without deserving to have your head smashed into the pavement?
In short, the last thing we need are citizens justifiably using guns as an 'out' once they get themselves in too deep because of poor decision making. I DO NOT think Martin was an innocent victim, however, I do not believe Zimmerman was acting a true mode of self defense. -Zach |
Originally Posted by thasac
(Post 1032195)
As soon as Martin ran an intelligent person would have realized the situation had escalated beyond verbal inquiry, and if truly concerned about defending themselves, would not have pursued. By pursing Martin, Zimmerman took on risk and crossed the line between concerned citizen and confrontation.
In short, the last thing we need are citizens justifiably using guns as an 'out' once they get themselves in too deep because of poor decision making. I DO NOT think Martin was an innocent victim, however, I do not believe Zimmerman was acting a true mode of self defense. -Zach Zimmerman had a right to be there. He was within his legal rights to ask Martin a question (no matter how rudely or improperly he posed that question). Martin was not within his legal right to respond by cheap-shotting Zimmerman, and then mounting him and slamming his head into the pavement. When Martin pursued that course of action, Zimmerman had every right to believe his life was within danger and therefore, to use lethal force to defend himself. If anyone has legal proof that Zimmerman's actions were different, they ought to contact Eric Holder. |
4 Attachment(s)
|
Props |
When TM punched him in the nose, he crossed a legal line.
When he grounded and pounded him, he crossed another one. At that point, GZ was in genuine fear for his life and the use of lethal force for defense was justified, under the law. |
Originally Posted by thasac
(Post 1032195)
In short, the last thing we need are citizens justifiably using guns as an 'out' once they get themselves in too deep because of poor decision making. I DO NOT think Martin was an innocent victim, however, I do not believe Zimmerman was acting a true mode of self defense.
|
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 1031990)
Zimmerman lawyer to move ‘asap’ against NBC News
Zimmerman lawyer to move ‘asap’ against NBC News That wasn't "mis-editing", that was intentional. The bastards probably don't even feel guilty at formenting the race riots in Oakland et al. I bet it ends up settled out of court with some type of non disclosure clause. I do hope he makes a huge debacle about it and still gets lots of monies. |
Originally Posted by thasac
(Post 1032195)
As soon as Martin ran an intelligent person would have realized the situation had escalated beyond verbal inquiry, and if truly concerned about defending themselves, would not have pursued. By pursing Martin, Zimmerman took on risk and crossed the line between concerned citizen and confrontation.
In short, the last thing we need are citizens justifiably using guns as an 'out' once they get themselves in too deep because of poor decision making. I DO NOT think Martin was an innocent victim, however, I do not believe Zimmerman was acting a true mode of self defense. -Zach Maybe people should think twice before beating on someone, because maybe they have a gun and will take steps to defend themselves. Whether GZ put himself in a bad position or not, it was TM who ultimately raised the level of confrontation from words to violence. |
CARTMAN comes running up to the bus stop, where STAN, KYLE, and KENNY have been discussing Game of Thrones. CARTMAN: You guys! You guys! Seriously! You're not going to believe it! You guys! KYLE: What is it, fatass? CARTMAN: You guys! Listen! Killing black people is totally legal now! (There is a pause while this sinks in.) STAN: Cartman, what the fuck are you talking about?! CARTMAN: I heard it on the news! It's totally okay to kill black people now! KYLE: What did you hear on the news? KENNY: Mm-mmf-mm mmm-mmm-mm mmm mm! STAN: Seriously, Cartman, that just sounds like one of your messed up, racist dreams! CARTMAN: No, it's real! There's this guy named George Zimmerman, and he totally hunts black people! He killed a black kid named Tray-von Mar-tin, and the courts told him it was okay! KYLE: That's not what happened, dickwad! CARTMAN: Shut up, you stupid Jew! How would you know? Jews can't even own guns! KYLE: Yes we can, fatass! (TOKEN arrives at the bus stop.) TOKEN: Hey, guys, what's up? STAN: Token? What are you doing here? Don't your parents have a chauffeur or something for you? TOKEN: Yeah, but he's on vacation. I'm stuck riding the bus for a week. KYLE: ... But don't you live on the other side of town? TOKEN: For some reason, the bus doesn't stop near my house. I had to take a taxi over here! CARTMAN: (Interrupting.) Um... Tooookeeeen? Um... are you woooorrieeeed that someone's going to kiiiiiill yooooooou? TOKEN: What?! KYLE: Shut up, Cartman! It is not legal to kill black people! TOKEN: What the hell are you guys talking about? STAN: Cartman saw the outcome of the Zimmerman trial, and now he thinks it's okay to kill black people. KENNY: Mmm. Mmm mmm mmm-mmm-mmf mmm mm! TOKEN: What? That's not what the trial was about! CARTMAN: Psh. You would say that, Token. You're black. KYLE: That has nothing to do with it, Cartman! CARTMAN: Oh yeah?! (He points an accusing finger at Kyle.) How about you shut your Jew mouth before I jam a pistol down your throat? TOKEN: You have a gun?! STAN: No, he doesn't. CARTMAN: Wait. Token! You have a gun! Give it to me! TOKEN: No I don't! CARTMAN: Token, you're black, you have a fucking gun! TOKEN: That does it, I'm taking the taxi to school! (TOKEN leaves.) KYLE: Nice going, fatass! CARTMAN: Oh, you are so lucky he didn't give me his gun! STAN: Token doesn't have a gun! Not all black people carry guns! That's racist, Cartman! CARTMAN: Oh yeah? Well, if... black people... if they don't carry guns... Travyon Martin attacked George Zimmerman! KYLE: What does that have to do with anything?! CARTMAN: Duh! It's why hunting black people is legal now! STAN: Jesus, Cartman, this is messed up, even for you! CARTMAN: I'm not the one who said it! KYLE: Yes, you are! There is no way that anyone would go on national television and say that it's legal to hunt black people! CARTMAN: Shows what you know, you stupid Jew! It just so happens that someone did go on national television and say that it was legal to hunt black people. KENNY: Mmf? CARTMAN: His name was Al Sharpton. STAN: Jesus Christ... CARTMAN: HEY! You know what? I'm going to prove it! I'm going to get on the phone to Al Sharpton and tell him to come to South Park. KYLE: Al Sharpton wouldn't come to South Park, dipshit. CARTMAN: Oh, he will... I'll make him an offer... he can't refuse... As the episode progresses, CARTMAN manages to convince AL SHARPTON to visit South Park. AL SHARPTON mistakenly thinks that South Park has - in light of the Zimmerman verdict - made it legal to hunt black people. He decides to use the town as an example of how racist and terrible the country has become. CARTMAN, realizing that AL SHARPTON is black, decides to plan a hunt of his own. He asks JIMBO and NED to help, but they are understandably appalled, and decide to follow AL SHARPTON around town to keep him from being attacked. They dub themselves "The Neighborhood Watchmen," and call themselves "THE SPARROW" and "FREUD," respectively. Meanwhile, KYLE and STAN decide to find out what the trial was actually about (and what its outcome implies), only to discover that everyone in town has a different opinion. OFFICER BARBRADY - having noticed that TOKEN is not following his usual routine - starts following TOKEN around town, and GERALD BROFLOVSKI starts following OFFICER BARBRADY, intent on being the star lawyer in the inevitable trial of BARBRADY VS COMMON SENSE. Eventually, everyone gets sick of following everyone else around, and they all independently decide to go to 7-11 for some M&Ms. They all arrive at once, and they all accuse one another of things. AL SHARPTON decides, for some reason, that the best course of action is to take himself hostage. The situation escalates until KYLE and STAN arrive and inform everyone that although nobody really knows what happened between Zimmerman and Martin, the legal system did its job. They also comment on the absurdity of having the trial televised in the first place, and how turning it into a media circus just wound up creating dissenting opinions and tension. At that moment, CARTMAN manages to track down AL SHARPTON, whom he attacks. Somehow or other, this is seen as a heroic act, and everyone (save for STAN and KYLE) praises CARTMAN for defusing the hostage situation. AL SHARPTON drops his gun, which goes off and kills KENNY. ROLL CREDITS. |
Hmm, the alleged political movers and shakers that created the media frenzy. Goes up all the way to Eric Holder.
A Nation of George Zimmermans Awakened – Understand The Fraud – Post Verdict of Acquittal …. | The Last Refuge |
Originally Posted by FRT_Fun
(Post 1032268)
(South Park)
(slowclap.gif)
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 1032279)
Hmm, the alleged political movers and shakers that created the media frenzy. Goes up all the way to Eric Holder.
A Nation of George Zimmermans Awakened – Understand The Fraud – Post Verdict of Acquittal …. | The Last Refuge |
Originally Posted by thasac
(Post 1032195)
however, I do not believe Zimmerman was acting a true mode of self defense.
JUROR: He had a right to defend himself. If he felt threatened that his life was going to be taken away from him or he was going to have bodily harm, he had a right.... I had no doubt George feared for his life in the situation he was in at the time. Read more here: Zimmerman juror speaks out: Read full transcript of CNN interview - Miami-Dade - MiamiHerald.com |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1032280)
This is honestly starting to become sad, and you have my pity.
|
Originally Posted by Savington
(Post 1032093)
I hope you're all ready for the only post that's actually worth paying attention to in this thread.
so absolutely perfect; it almost scares me how much they understand all the nuances of it. |
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
(Post 1032284)
So Trayvon's family contacts an NAACP lawyer who uses the incident to turn it into a big race issue, and hires a PR expert who plays the mass media that laps it up. Another law firm gets involved that is a big Democratic party donor, and connections make it all the way to Eric Holder. What's so incredible about that?
Okay guys, I'm ready to get get famous now! https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1373973326 |
So I was reading up a bit on whether Zimmerman would be liable from a civil stand point and a few people said that Florida has a law on its books that allows someone who successfully used self-defense in court and was found not guilty can apply for civil immunity. I am from Florida but am no legal expert and really have no intention of looking this up but I would find that pretty interesting.
EDIT: Fuck it. I looked it up. I guess it comes down to whether the Jury decided he was justified or if the prosecution just did not meet its burden of proof. Considering the Jury did not convict him for manslaughter either I imagine they thought the shooting was justified. 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.— (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful. (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1). History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27. |
CHAPTER 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE 776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.— (1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant. (2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful. (3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1). I mean he shouldn't have been charged in the first place according to that statute, so we'll probably see him in civil court very soon. The case will then have to be dismissed based on 776.032, then he'll have to recover his court and attorney fees back from the Martin family...*slap* |
RACHEL JEANTEL, FRIEND OF TRAYVON: Well, the jurys, they sees their fact. None offense to the jury, they old, that's old school people. We in a new school, our generation, my generation.
IE: YOLO. MORGAN: People have said that that is a phrase used by black people, cracka, to describe a white person. Is that true? RACHEL JEANTEL: No! ...that's a person who act like they're a police. IE: I'm still a liar. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1032313)
RACHEL JEANTEL, FRIEND OF TRAYVON: Well, the jurys, they sees their fact. None offense to the jury, they old, that's old school people. We in a new school, our generation, my generation.
IE: YOLO. MORGAN: People have said that that is a phrase used by black people, cracka, to describe a white person. Is that true? RACHEL JEANTEL: No! ...that's a person who act like they're a police. IE: I'm still a liar. |
I don't even care about that, sure its awful, but I'm looking at the content.
You know what she meant by "their facts" right? and you know she's lying and has little value to add when she's trying to say that cracka is a term used to describe someone acting like a police officer or security guard. This is her pathetic attempt at a PR spin. the community as a whole would get a lot more respect if it wasn't such a downward, regressive, self-induced, stockholm-syndrome-victim-based, MLK-rolling-over-in-his-grave, spiral. |
MIKE HUCKABEE: You have said that you thought the prosecutor ought to be disbarred, that’s a pretty serious type of violation to get a person disbarred. It is that serious to you?
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Right, it is. She submitted an affidavit that was, if not perjurious, completely misleading. She violated all kinds of rules of the profession, and her conduct bordered on criminal conduct. She, by the way, has a horrible reputation in Florida. She’s known for overcharging, she’s known for being highly political. And in this case, of course she overcharged. Halfway through the trial she realized she wasn’t going to get a second degree murder verdict, so she asked for a compromised verdict, for manslaughter. And then, she went even further and said that she was going to charge him with child abuse and felony murder. That was such a stretch that it goes beyond anything professionally responsible. She was among the most irresponsible prosecutors I’ve seen in 50 years of litigating cases, and believe me, I’ve seen good prosecutors, bad prosecutors, but rarely have I seen one as bad as this prosecutor, [Angela] Cory. |
happy not being invested in this case
|
here's one for Jason:
George Zimmerman trial: Juror speaks - Associated Press - POLITICO.com The interview came two days after the jury acquitted Zimmerman, a former neighborhood watch volunteer, of second-degree murder in the shooting death of Martin in a gated community in Sanford, Fla. Martin was black, and Zimmerman identifies himself as Hispanic. Zimmerman was not arrested for 44 days, and the delay in charging him led to protests from those who believed race was a factor in the handling of the case. |
To some if you aren't black you are white. No matter what.
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 1032334)
ALAN DERSHOWITZ: [...] [Angela Corey], by the way, has a horrible reputation in Florida. She’s known for overcharging, she’s known for being highly political.
After reviewing more details of the Alexander case, I see that it has little to no relation with the Zimmerman case. The Thompson case is more similar, but still very significantly different. If anything, the problem may have less to do with Corey's prosecution or over-charging and more to do with serious flaws in Florida's mandatory sentencing. |
Originally Posted by FRT_Fun
(Post 1032363)
To some if you aren't black you are white. No matter what.
|
In 2011 GZ had criticized the cops for covering up the beating of a homeless black man by the white son of a police lieutenant. It led to the resignation of the Sanford police chief. He's got cojones:
Zimmerman: Sanford Police Covered Up Beating Of Black Homeless Man By White Officer | Opinion - Liberal |
There's a shitload of stuff that the media hasn't covered:
iOwnTheWorld.com » Blog Archive » Bumped – This Needs its Own Spotlight Post The cops covered up the police report by a school officer wherein he found women's jewelry in TM's stuff. And the autopsy report that showed TM's liver had signs consistent with use of "Lean", a cocktail that includes Skittles, and cough syrup which sometimes leads to psychotic behavior. The first few pages here outline how the BGI ("Black Grievance Industry") got involved and how their PR machinery started feeding the mass media (which of course laps it up because it confirms their bias), and how they got the White House involved, to lean on the FL prosecutors which didn't want to prosecute due to strong evidence it was self-defense. http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...-of-acquittal/ |
1 Attachment(s)
|
|
Originally Posted by shuiend
(Post 1032456)
I will take the Liberal Media over that Cunted ----.
THIS YEAR'S DUKE LACROSSE CASE July 10, 2013 This week, instead of attacking a Hispanic senator, Marco Rubio, I will defend a Hispanic citizen, George Zimmerman, on trial for the murder of Trayvon Martin. (Zimmerman would make a better senator.) It's becoming painfully obvious why no charges were brought against Zimmerman in this case -- until Al Sharpton got involved. All the eyewitness accounts, testimony, ballistics and forensics keep backing up Zimmerman. We should send a big, fat bill for the whole thing to Sharpton, courtesy of MSNBC. With the prosecution's witnesses making the defense's case, the inquisitors' last stand is to claim that, if the races were reversed, the black guy would have been instantly charged with murder. As explained in The New York Times: "Had Mr. Martin shot and killed Mr. Zimmerman under similar circumstances, black leaders say, the case would have barreled down a different path: Mr. Martin would have been quickly arrested by the Sanford Police Department and charged in the killing, without the benefit of the doubt." (Also, CNN could have dropped the "white" and referred to Zimmerman exclusively as "Hispanic.") The people who say this are counting on the rest of us being too polite to mention that it is nearly impossible to imagine such a case in a world where half of all murders and a majority of robberies are committed by blacks. To reverse the races with the same set of facts, first, we're going to need a gated, mixed-race community, similar to the Retreat at Twin Lakes, that has recently experienced a rash of robberies by white guys. The only way to do that is to enter "The Twilight Zone." There were at least eight burglaries in the 14 months before Zimmerman's encounter with Martin. Numerous media accounts admit that "most" of these were committed by black males. I'm waiting to hear about a single crime at Twin Lakes that was not committed by a black male. Just six months before Zimmerman's encounter with Martin, two men had broken into the home of a neighbor, Olivia Bertalan, while she was alone with her infant son. She had just enough time to call 911 before running upstairs and locking herself in a room. The burglars knew she was home, but proceeded to rob the place anyway, even trying to enter the locked room where she held her crying child. Bertalan had seen the burglars just before they broke into her house -- one at the front door and one at the back. They were young black males. They lived in the Retreat by Twin Lakes. In another case, a black teenager strode up to Zimmerman's house and, in broad daylight, stole a bicycle off the front porch. The bike was never recovered. Weeks before Zimmerman saw Martin, he witnessed another young black male peering into the window of a neighbor's house. He called the cops, but by the time they arrived, the suspect was gone. A few days later, another house was burglarized. The thieves made off with jewelry and a new laptop. Roofers working across the street had seen two black teenagers near the house at the time of the robbery. When they spotted one of the teens the next day, they called the police. This time, the roofers followed the suspect so he wouldn't get away. The cops arrived and found the stolen laptop in his backpack. This was the same black teenager Zimmerman had seen looking in a neighbor's window. The only reason it's hard to imagine the Zimmerman case with the races reversed is that it's hard to imagine a white teenager living in a mixed-race, middle-class community, mugging a black homeowner. This is not a problem of society's reactions, but of the facts. There is, however, at least one case of a black homeowner fatally shooting a white troublemaker. He was not charged with murder. In 2006, the ironically named John White was sound asleep at his nice Long Island home when his teenage son woke him to say there was a mob of white kids shouting epithets in front of the house. The family was in no imminent danger. They could have called 911 and remained safely behind locked doors. But White grabbed a loaded Beretta and headed out to the end of the driveway to confront the mob. A scuffle ensued and White ended up shooting one of the kids in the face, killing him. White was charged and convicted only of illegal weapons possession -- this was New York, after all -- and involuntary manslaughter. He was sentenced to 20 months-to-four years in prison, but after serving five months was pardoned by Gov. David Paterson. With all due compassion for the kid who was killed, the public was overwhelmingly on the father's side -- a fact still evident in Internet postings about the case. The kids were punks menacing a law-abiding homeowner. Even the prosecutor complained only that Paterson hadn't called the victim's family first. The local NAACP had campaigned aggressively on White's behalf. There were no threats to riot in case of an acquittal. The centerpiece of White's self-defense argument was his recollection of his grandfather's stories about the Ku Klux Klan. George Zimmerman's memory of young black males committing crimes at Twin Lakes is somewhat more recent. John White wasn't jumped, knocked to the ground, repeatedly punched, and his skull knocked against the ground. He wasn't even touched, though he claimed the white teen was lunging at him. Talk about no reason to "follow," there was no reason for him to leave the safety of his locked home. White's son knew the kids by name. They could have waited for the cops. So, yes, this case probably would be very different if Zimmerman and Martin's races were reversed. It is only when the victim is black that we must have a show trial, a million-dollar reward paid to the victim's parents and the threat of riots. |
Al Sharpton and the Black Grievance Industry are disgusting.
The irony is that they are making things worse, not better. |
|
Originally Posted by Opti
(Post 1032243)
Quote: Originally Posted by JasonC SBB http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...inst-nbc-news/ Zimmerman lawyer to move ‘asap’ against NBC News I do hope he makes a huge debacle about it and still gets lots of monies. |
If a news channel really wanted to make money they'd copy the news channel that dominated the viewership rates...
While making money might have been a motivating factor, it's not the end goal anymore and more and more of these outlets are going bankrupt in the process of their social engineering failures. |
At least the HuffPo and Jon Stewart are more honest, despite being leftie leanie:
Jon Stewart Blasts NBC For George Zimmerman 911 Call Edit (VIDEO) The Stewart segment is pretty funny. It starts at 1:30: The Splice Channel - The Daily Show with Jon Stewart - 04/09/12 - Video Clip | Comedy Central |
2 Attachment(s)
|
1 Attachment(s)
|
This guy makes some excellent points.
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:21 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands