Fox News for the defense of George Zimmerman again! Today, Fox News’ Gregg Jarrett worked in some sly demonization of Trayvon Martin by “just pointing out” all the potentially damaging-to-Martin information Zimmerman’s defense team could work in if the prosecution makes the unarmed teenager too likeable. Then, after cataloging Martin’s flaws, Jarrett concluded the segment by calling Martin “the alleged victim,” with obvious distaste. Apparently, on Fox News, the real victim is Zimmerman - and they don't need no stinking trial to determine guilt or innocence.
Jarrett used his "questions" to work in all the evidence the judge has ruled out. First, he asked his legal experts whether the Zimmerman prosecutors have to be “very, very careful that they do not portray in front of the jury Trayvon Martin as this angelic kid because if they do (Jarrett raised his finger for emphasis), doesn’t that open the door for the defense to introduce things like Martin’s past use of marijuana, suspension from school, fighting and so on and so forth which the judge has heretofore ruled inadmissible?”
Law professor Montré Carodine agreed that could happen, but added that it “depend(s) on how they (prosecutors) go about doing it.” She went on to say that it would have been “better to portray an accurate picture, not a perfect picture” of Martin.
That drew ready agreement from Jarrett.
The other guest agreed, calling it a “tightrope” that the prosecution has to walk. But he also added that “what we’re really interested in” is “what happened that evening.”
But Jarrett-for-the-defense was too busy finding ways to work in more demonization. Rather than pointing out how “what happened that evening” is really the only thing that matters as to Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence, Jarrett added, “Well, one thing may come into evidence, depending upon the autopsy and toxicology report and that is whether Trayvon Martin had marijuana in his system or the components of marijuana in his system. That, you know, is sort of a wild card here and depending upon how prosecutors handle that, that could also open the door to more evidence of drug use by the alleged victim.” He spoke as though putting airquotes around the term.
This is just another incidence of Fox News deliberate demonization of Trayvon Martin - at the same time that their talking heads whine about the rest of the media being biased in its reporting on the case. Shame on them.
CORRECTION: This post originally misspelled Jarrett's first name.
For the record, it doesn’t matter if Trayvon Martin was a straight A student or if he was suspended from school. It doesn’t matter if he had a tattoo. It doesn’t matter why he was staying his father. Because the facts are that he was staying with his father, at the residence in the neighborhood in question. He had every right to be there and was violating no laws when he went to the store, picked up some snacks and walked back to watch a ball game at home. This is what was relevant at the moment that George Zimmerman profiled him, stalked him, confronted him and then killed him. It is not a question of whether Zimmerman killed him – it’s a fact. It is not a question of whether Zimmerman had some kind of probable cause for his actions – he was told to back off and let the real police handle the situation. Zimmerman’s insistence on taking the law into his own hands and aggressively enforcing his ideas about neighborhood watch matters resulted in the death of a teenager. Viciously attacking the words of a mother who just lost her son in this manner will not change the fact that she lost her son, nor will it remove the offensive nature of such an attack. And attacking Trayvon Martin for having the temerity to be killed for walking home from the store is a bizarre approach, to say the least.
And on trial because the NRA would want justice for his his face scuffed that poor gun.
BTW, for Joe’s benefit: Actually Google Zimmerman’s history. Part of the outrage was that his dad literally kept bailing him out until someone wound up dead. Note the part when Zimmerman and his wife perjured themselves, and accidentally confessed to tax fraud.
The fact that neither of them are standing for their confessed fraud is a real good indication of what to expect.
Would I have been “standing my ground” if I pulled in to there driveway and chased them down, provoked them, and then shot them while they were trying to shovel the snow out of their driveway?
Common sense tells me that even if they threw the shovel at my truck while I was driving by I still would not be within my rights to just go and kill that person.
I’m quite certain a jury would find me guilty and if I called 911 and the dispatcher told me to “not” get out of the vehicle and confront them, it would be a very short deliberation before my conviction.
There ya have it folks! If you’re Black Kid and get gunned down by a White Guy consider yourself lucky that you won’t have to explain yourself in a court of law!
We at Fux will do the explainin’ for you!!
Nope, didn’t think so. But I’ve heard a couple Fox News hosts repeat it.
Trayvon Martin isn’t an “alleged victim”. He is the victim in FACT. It’s not an allegation that George Zimmerman killed him. It’s a fact.
Next, they’ll be saying Martin is “allegedly” dead . . .