Sean Hannity was so condescending and disrespectful to Ferguson Committeewoman Patricia Bynes tonight that if this were another era and she had a been a man, he would surely have called her “boy.” Even as Bynes tried to have an adult conversation about African American feelings about the killing of Michael Brown.
Apparently, Hannity is horrified that Bynes told MSNBC viewers that the Ferguson protests are not just about the killing of Brown but also about police brutality, racial profiling and racism. To me, this is not only uncontroversial but old news.
However, I suspect Hannity was looking for a (racial) fight. With a resentful edge in his voice, Hannity said to Bynes, “You don’t know if this case is about police brutality, do you?”
Bynes replied, “There is no way that a young man who is unarmed should have two shots in his head. That’s a little excessive. That’s what we mean when we say police brutality.”
As Bynes later clarified, she was not calling the police officer guilty but talking about a larger issue. And I might have some sympathy for Hannity’s concern that the officer be given the presumption of innocence had he not behaved so rudely to a woman who was attempting to have a civil dialogue with him.
Hannity – while trying to paint Bynes as unreasonable – obviously had no interest in hearing anything she had to say. His behavior was reminiscent of his shocking treatment of a Palestinian-American guest a few weeks ago.
Instead of responding to Bynes’ concerns, Hannity tried to demean her:
Let me educate you about the legal system in America. …In our system of justice, a person is innocent until proven guilty and there are eyewitness reports tonight that the officer suffered severe facial injuries, had an orbital eye socket fracture and was – that Michael Brown charged at him. What if that turns out to be true?
Bynes replied, “We have lots of eyewitnesses that are saying something different. That’s what the courts are for. …I didn’t say that he’s guilty. But we do have issues of police brutality in our community.”
Hannity kept up his unwarranted attacks: “You’re the judge, jury and executioner here? …How do you know in this case?”
And even worse: “Legally, let me educate you again. If he was charging at the police officer, the police officer by law, that would be defined as justifiable use of force. You’re aware of that, right, Committeewoman?”
“I am very much aware of that,” Bynes answered. “But there is no way that an unarmed man should have two shots in his head and four in his body. …I think you need the education here. …The officer does have the right to defend himself. But two shots to the head? I think he’s doing too much. …A logical person can agree to that.”
Hannity interrupted for the umpteenth time. “You don’t know. And I don’t know. But you’re making claims. You should be a better leader for the community and wait ‘til the facts come in.”
In case that isn’t bad enough, compare Hannity’s behavior with this woman to his respectful treatment of racist Mark Fuhrman the night before. Fuhrman not only didn't wait for the facts, he announced he had them on the Hannity show and went on to adjudge Michael Brown as the “aggressor.” Without a peep of complaint from Hannity.
Watch Hannity's abusive behavior below.
Well, since he is “educated” in the legal system, maybe he can help us with these issues:
1. Is it legal to “fix” the numbers on your property taxes?
2. Is it legal to use a company to hide your money and that company pays you under the table?
3. Is it legal to use influential friends in law enforcement and in government to do “favors” for you?
4. Is it legal/ethical to buy off strangers with gifts to get them to side with you?
5. Is it legal to bribe people with money for favors?
6. Should a person who operates a company, and hires people under the table be prosecuted?
7. Should news organizations fire their hosts for using illegal substance?
Scooter, the only person who can financially drain this Long Island Lolito is his wife. The only thing left would be the clothes on his back. Of course, the threat of taking the kids away and cutting you off financially, often scares these homemakers.
A college dropout/bartender/construction worker/rightwingnut radio shock jock is going to “educate” a lawmaker on the law.
Only on Fox . . .