While Sean Hannity was probably partying with George Zimmerman after he was acquitted last night, Geraldo Rivera was on the streets, showboating over the verdict and pretending to be sympathetic to both sides. But even a blind man could have easily spotted Rivera’s true colors. Because he didn’t just cheer the verdict and do a little race baiting, he used the verdict to attack President Obama and suggest his “racial politics” were to blame for bringing the supposedly bogus charges against poor, persecuted Zimmerman.
In the first place, President Obama has nothing to do with the case. He was asked in 2012, during the time that people were clamoring for Zimmerman’s arrest about the case. As Politico reported:
When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids,” Obama said in the Rose Garden. “I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this. And that everybody pull together.”
“My main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama said. “All of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves.”
“Obviously, this is a tragedy. I can only imagine what these parents are going through,” Obama said. “All of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how something like this has happened.”
Somehow, this was some kind of secret message from Obama that pushed prosecutors in Florida to persecute Zimmerman. Or maybe Fox News just has a rule that whenever a racial subject is in the news, they have to find a way to use it against Obama, no matter how far the stretch. Whatever the reason, Rivera made President Obama a recurring theme in the discussions about the verdict.
Rivera said, “The president on down, I believe they crossed the line.”
Guest Jeanine Pirro, a former judge and current Fox News host, agreed. “There’s no question that the president crossed the line when he said, you know, ‘Trayvon could be my son.’ Because what that did was it basically geared everything up toward now we’ve got to prosecute. …You don’t inject politics into justice.”
What she really meant is that other people shouldn’t inject politics into justice. Because injecting politics into justice was exactly what she and Rivera were doing.
“Should this have become a race case? Should the president of the United States have become involved?” Rivera later “asked” another guest, Juan Williams.
Then, after playing an excerpt of Obama’s 2012 comments, Rivera answered his own question:
Juan, that’s an awfully extraordinary intervention by the chief executive of the land in a tragic occurrence here. If the President of the United States began intervening in every criminal case where an injustice was seen or perceived, then he would become the chief prosecutor of the land. It is impossible for a person as smart as you… to believe that there is no connection between what the president of the United States said that afternoon and the charges lodged against the neighborhood watchman or neighborhood vigilante, whatever you want to call him, which every legal observer virtually in the nation said this is unsupportable by the facts, certainly by the law.
…We want justice, we want racial harmony but I don’t think the cause of racial harmony is enhanced by pandering…
Right. If only Obama, et al. could enhance racial harmony the way Rivera does: by suggesting Trayvon Martin should have been shot and killed sooner, or blaming his hoodie for his death or saying it was “reasonable” for Zimmerman to have racially profiled him as a criminal. I don’t know how there can be any racial tension left in America after all Rivera's “enhancements.”
Do you like this post?
Aria Prescott commented
2013-07-15 18:05:58 -0400
· Flag
If you have any FACTS that would support that, there’s some prosecutors in Florida that you really hung out to dry.
The 9/11 call.
Zimmerman’s statement.
The Sanford Police Statement.
Zimmerman telling Hannity that he got out of the car to go after Martin.
Zimmerman telling Hannity that God wanted him to kill Trayvon Martin.
Oops, I’m sorry… All that was made up, even the parts that aired exclusively on Fox News. Because Fox News told me so.
The 9/11 call.
Zimmerman’s statement.
The Sanford Police Statement.
Zimmerman telling Hannity that he got out of the car to go after Martin.
Zimmerman telling Hannity that God wanted him to kill Trayvon Martin.
Oops, I’m sorry… All that was made up, even the parts that aired exclusively on Fox News. Because Fox News told me so.
Kevin Koster commented
2013-07-15 04:05:26 -0400
· Flag
“Alan Davey” appears to be the same person who fled another discussion on this site when he couldn’t back up his statements. Which is likely the same person who tried to blow up several other articles with nasty and mean-spirited comments both about the case and other posters.
But assuming this is the same “Alan” who ran into trouble on the “Who Needs a Jury” article, I would ask him to provide the humble apologies he still needs to offer for his conduct in the earlier discussion. He made nasty personal comments in my direction, regarding my litigation background, and I would hope that he would be prepared to own up to his earlier mistakes. This goes beyond his citation of non-existent witnesses and his cherry-picking of testimony to only hear the parts that lined up with his preconceptions.
It’s interesting that “Alan” brings up the jewelry matter from Trayvon’s school record. He forgets that nobody has ever claimed the jewelry and that there is no evidence that Trayvon actually did anything with those items other than hold onto them for another student, as he said he was doing. If this had been a neighborhood burglary, wouldn’t you think that someone would have claimed their property from the police? But let’s look past that, as the local police already have.
“Alan”, you may feel that the advice I have tried to offer you here and in the earlier article is not needed, but the fact is that you continue to make the same mistakes and misstatements that you did before. We’re trying to help you to learn something here. Please take some time to work on these issues and you may find it will be helpful for you. Obstinance continues to be a problem for you – a little humility would help solve that problem. Please look into it.
Your account of your unfortunate behavior in the prior article leaves out the part where I had to regularly correct your constant repetitions of the same talking points from right wing media. I posed specific questions to you there and here, and you were unable to answer them. In the prior article, you resorted to personal insults. In the current article, you’ve simply ignored the questions. Frankly, the best approach for you now would be to offer the humble and heartfelt apology called for by your prior insults. After that, you could attend to the tone you’ve been projecting. And perhaps after that point, you might be able to engage in these discussions without resorting to your previous behaviors. I seem to recall that when you were being corrected for your conduct in the past, you said you intended to end the conversation and leave. But then you couldn’t resist making further posts and thus digging yourself in deeper. Is there a reason that you continue to do this without offering the apologies you know you’ll need to eventually proffer?
Your attempt to dismiss George Zimmerman’s stalking of Trayvon Martin is strange. Zimmerman has admitted to following Martin, and we have witness testimony that Martin thought he had lost Zimmerman only for Zimmerman to find him again. We have multiple witness testimony to an argument that moved down the sidewalk until it degenerated into a fistfight – something that directly contradicts Zimmerman’s claim that Martin jumped out of the bushes and ambushed him. (Particularly since there were no bushes that Martin could have been hiding in) So where do you find “disinformation” in my factual recounting of Zimmerman’s behavior towards Trayvon Martin? We’re still waiting for ONE example and you have not been able to provide it. You have provided further insults, for which I think additional apologies from you are in order.
If you’re saying you’ve never posted here before, I have to wonder about that. We’ve had other posters trying the same approach as yours, in articles on this same subject. I find it curious that you take the identical opinion, tone and phrasing as some other people who no longer post on this site. Coincidence?
But assuming this is the same “Alan” who ran into trouble on the “Who Needs a Jury” article, I would ask him to provide the humble apologies he still needs to offer for his conduct in the earlier discussion. He made nasty personal comments in my direction, regarding my litigation background, and I would hope that he would be prepared to own up to his earlier mistakes. This goes beyond his citation of non-existent witnesses and his cherry-picking of testimony to only hear the parts that lined up with his preconceptions.
It’s interesting that “Alan” brings up the jewelry matter from Trayvon’s school record. He forgets that nobody has ever claimed the jewelry and that there is no evidence that Trayvon actually did anything with those items other than hold onto them for another student, as he said he was doing. If this had been a neighborhood burglary, wouldn’t you think that someone would have claimed their property from the police? But let’s look past that, as the local police already have.
“Alan”, you may feel that the advice I have tried to offer you here and in the earlier article is not needed, but the fact is that you continue to make the same mistakes and misstatements that you did before. We’re trying to help you to learn something here. Please take some time to work on these issues and you may find it will be helpful for you. Obstinance continues to be a problem for you – a little humility would help solve that problem. Please look into it.
Your account of your unfortunate behavior in the prior article leaves out the part where I had to regularly correct your constant repetitions of the same talking points from right wing media. I posed specific questions to you there and here, and you were unable to answer them. In the prior article, you resorted to personal insults. In the current article, you’ve simply ignored the questions. Frankly, the best approach for you now would be to offer the humble and heartfelt apology called for by your prior insults. After that, you could attend to the tone you’ve been projecting. And perhaps after that point, you might be able to engage in these discussions without resorting to your previous behaviors. I seem to recall that when you were being corrected for your conduct in the past, you said you intended to end the conversation and leave. But then you couldn’t resist making further posts and thus digging yourself in deeper. Is there a reason that you continue to do this without offering the apologies you know you’ll need to eventually proffer?
Your attempt to dismiss George Zimmerman’s stalking of Trayvon Martin is strange. Zimmerman has admitted to following Martin, and we have witness testimony that Martin thought he had lost Zimmerman only for Zimmerman to find him again. We have multiple witness testimony to an argument that moved down the sidewalk until it degenerated into a fistfight – something that directly contradicts Zimmerman’s claim that Martin jumped out of the bushes and ambushed him. (Particularly since there were no bushes that Martin could have been hiding in) So where do you find “disinformation” in my factual recounting of Zimmerman’s behavior towards Trayvon Martin? We’re still waiting for ONE example and you have not been able to provide it. You have provided further insults, for which I think additional apologies from you are in order.
If you’re saying you’ve never posted here before, I have to wonder about that. We’ve had other posters trying the same approach as yours, in articles on this same subject. I find it curious that you take the identical opinion, tone and phrasing as some other people who no longer post on this site. Coincidence?
Bemused commented
2013-07-15 01:53:41 -0400
· Flag
Alan Davey gives me the creeps. Period.
Anybody who thinks its funny to mock the truth makes me sick to my stomach. But I guess that’s a RWinger’s idea of satire. Glad I’m not one.
I grew up in Central Florida when segregation was still law, and feel pretty confident in predicting an epidemic of righteous throwbacks to the days when the KKK marched openly in the streets.
Some people down there never accepted the idea that whites (especially “po’ white trash”) were NOT top dog on God’s ladder.
Anybody who thinks its funny to mock the truth makes me sick to my stomach. But I guess that’s a RWinger’s idea of satire. Glad I’m not one.
I grew up in Central Florida when segregation was still law, and feel pretty confident in predicting an epidemic of righteous throwbacks to the days when the KKK marched openly in the streets.
Some people down there never accepted the idea that whites (especially “po’ white trash”) were NOT top dog on God’s ladder.
Joseph West commented
2013-07-15 01:11:32 -0400
· Flag
A comment for James Buchanan’s information: Regarding Zimmerman’s ethnicity, it might come as a shock to you but, in the USA, a Hispanic person can be considered white IF HE SO CHOOSES. You might want to check government documents based on the census. There are lines that say “White” or “White, Non-Hispanic.” Now, why would they use that second form? Obviously, there must be some Hispanics who might “pass” for White. (In fact, look at Martin Sheen, Jessica Alba, Ricky Martin or Christina Aguilera. Ethnically, they’re all Hispanic but, if you didn’t know who any of them were, you’d probably have a hard time labelling any as Hispanic. Incidentally, Charlie Sheen—who’s part-Mexican through his father—is going to be in the upcoming film, “Machete Kills,” under his birth name “Carlos Estevez.”)
Now, getting back to the government forms, the Census forms that we got in 2010 have a question for Hispanic identification (your options were “No, not of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin,” and four choices for “Yes”—“Mexican, Mexican Am, or Chicano”; “Puerto Rican”; “Cuban”; and “Another Hispanic” at which you entered the specific nationality such as Dominican, Colombian, Salvadoran, Argentine, etc). Presumably, Zimmerman answered “Yes” and checked the appropriate box. BUT…..he’s actually under no obligation to self-identify as Hispanic in most other situations (university enrollment, credit applications, job applications, etc) unless he wants to get certain benefits that come from identifying as a minority. But, I really have NOT heard anything where he’s pulled the “Hispanic” card during this whole incident.
Now, getting back to the government forms, the Census forms that we got in 2010 have a question for Hispanic identification (your options were “No, not of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin,” and four choices for “Yes”—“Mexican, Mexican Am, or Chicano”; “Puerto Rican”; “Cuban”; and “Another Hispanic” at which you entered the specific nationality such as Dominican, Colombian, Salvadoran, Argentine, etc). Presumably, Zimmerman answered “Yes” and checked the appropriate box. BUT…..he’s actually under no obligation to self-identify as Hispanic in most other situations (university enrollment, credit applications, job applications, etc) unless he wants to get certain benefits that come from identifying as a minority. But, I really have NOT heard anything where he’s pulled the “Hispanic” card during this whole incident.
Alan Davey commented
2013-07-15 00:10:40 -0400
· Flag
That’s interesting that George saw Trayvon robbing a house. Perhaps that is linked to the stolen jewelry that Trayvon was caught with months before his death?
Kevin Koster – I can assure you that your unsolicited advice is not needed. You might want to think about how little I need you to think for me. I believe in this concept called individuality.
Under a previous article titled something like “Who needs a jury for Zimmerman when he has Fox News?” I spent several posts dismantling every rambling, illogical theory you presented. You clearly learned nothing from our conversations.
You’ve repeatedly passed off this notion of Zimmerman “stalking” Trayvon and then initiating an attack. If you have any FACTS that would support that, there’s some prosecutors in Florida that you really hung out to dry. Trayvon having zero injuries besides skinned knuckles and the single gunshot wound certainly doesn’t support that. There’s the one piece of disinformation you requested, although I could certainly provide more if your lack of self awareness continues.
I’ve never posted on this site under any other name. Perhaps some other person capable of rational thought stumbled across this site at some point in time?
Kevin Koster – I can assure you that your unsolicited advice is not needed. You might want to think about how little I need you to think for me. I believe in this concept called individuality.
Under a previous article titled something like “Who needs a jury for Zimmerman when he has Fox News?” I spent several posts dismantling every rambling, illogical theory you presented. You clearly learned nothing from our conversations.
You’ve repeatedly passed off this notion of Zimmerman “stalking” Trayvon and then initiating an attack. If you have any FACTS that would support that, there’s some prosecutors in Florida that you really hung out to dry. Trayvon having zero injuries besides skinned knuckles and the single gunshot wound certainly doesn’t support that. There’s the one piece of disinformation you requested, although I could certainly provide more if your lack of self awareness continues.
I’ve never posted on this site under any other name. Perhaps some other person capable of rational thought stumbled across this site at some point in time?
Aria Prescott commented
2013-07-14 23:21:24 -0400
· Flag
*Which is why I utilized MSNBC as my only source for information regarding this trial…"
What a coincidence, because I got all my information from Fox News and this is what I got:
George Zimmerman was innocently driving home from working in a homeless shelter and saving kittens, when he saw Trayvon Martin robbing a house. We know Martin was robbing a house, because he’s a black teen that was wearing a hoodie. We all know that black teens in hoodies are criminals. So Zimmerman called the police, and waited innocently in his car, until he was seen, and the thug pulled him out of his car, dragging him to a secluded area, where he began beating poor, innocent George to death.
Thank God George had a gun on him… At least until black people found out, because Obama’s a racist, and he want’s the country to be divided.
Oh, wait- That was Hannity’s interview. You know, the one they showed in court instead of having Zimmerman testify.
What a coincidence, because I got all my information from Fox News and this is what I got:
George Zimmerman was innocently driving home from working in a homeless shelter and saving kittens, when he saw Trayvon Martin robbing a house. We know Martin was robbing a house, because he’s a black teen that was wearing a hoodie. We all know that black teens in hoodies are criminals. So Zimmerman called the police, and waited innocently in his car, until he was seen, and the thug pulled him out of his car, dragging him to a secluded area, where he began beating poor, innocent George to death.
Thank God George had a gun on him… At least until black people found out, because Obama’s a racist, and he want’s the country to be divided.
Oh, wait- That was Hannity’s interview. You know, the one they showed in court instead of having Zimmerman testify.
Kevin Koster commented
2013-07-14 23:15:33 -0400
· Flag
“Alan Davey”, you might want to think about your posts here – maybe a little reflection will help before preserving comments of the kind you’ve been making. And I’m using quotations around your name as I’m fairly sure you’ve been posting here before under other names. I post here only under my own name. Can you say the same?
You seem to be projecting in your avoidance of the very serious issues I raised. You have yet to answer a single point that I made in correcting your earlier attacks. You have yet to answer a single question that I posed to you. I can only assume that you are unable to answer these issues and that you simply intend to make nasty comments to people here rather than discuss the matter at hand. If you’re going to accuse me of “fan(ning) the flames of disinformation”, please cite one single example where I said something that was disinformation. ONE example. I’ll give you a hint. I have never practiced in that kind of idea. But there are plenty of people on the right wing of this discussion who certainly have.
I find it interesting that the right wing meme about the current state of affairs is to suddenly run back to Chicago and frantically wave crime statistics from that city. What in the world does this have to do with a jury verdict in Sanford, Florida? Does the right wing have nothing to talk about other than trying to attack President Obama with the latest crime statistics from his hometown? Or perhaps you did not hear the President address the issue of gun violence, which is a big part of the 72 shootings you’re hiding behind while you avoid addressing the real concerns I’ve presented to you.
Your final paragraph is filled with almost incoherent rage and very little reason. You conveniently neglect to mention the hatred toward Trayvon Martin evidenced by many in the right wing media, and the race hatred evidenced by all those who played the “They’re gonna riot!!” meme – such as Rush Limbaugh’s despicable offering on Friday. But your last line is quite accurate, if only in description of your own submissions: Lies do beget lies. I wish you would heed your own warning there.
And again, for the record, have you no shame sir? At long last, have you no decency? How do you sleep at night?
You seem to be projecting in your avoidance of the very serious issues I raised. You have yet to answer a single point that I made in correcting your earlier attacks. You have yet to answer a single question that I posed to you. I can only assume that you are unable to answer these issues and that you simply intend to make nasty comments to people here rather than discuss the matter at hand. If you’re going to accuse me of “fan(ning) the flames of disinformation”, please cite one single example where I said something that was disinformation. ONE example. I’ll give you a hint. I have never practiced in that kind of idea. But there are plenty of people on the right wing of this discussion who certainly have.
I find it interesting that the right wing meme about the current state of affairs is to suddenly run back to Chicago and frantically wave crime statistics from that city. What in the world does this have to do with a jury verdict in Sanford, Florida? Does the right wing have nothing to talk about other than trying to attack President Obama with the latest crime statistics from his hometown? Or perhaps you did not hear the President address the issue of gun violence, which is a big part of the 72 shootings you’re hiding behind while you avoid addressing the real concerns I’ve presented to you.
Your final paragraph is filled with almost incoherent rage and very little reason. You conveniently neglect to mention the hatred toward Trayvon Martin evidenced by many in the right wing media, and the race hatred evidenced by all those who played the “They’re gonna riot!!” meme – such as Rush Limbaugh’s despicable offering on Friday. But your last line is quite accurate, if only in description of your own submissions: Lies do beget lies. I wish you would heed your own warning there.
And again, for the record, have you no shame sir? At long last, have you no decency? How do you sleep at night?
doors17 commented
2013-07-14 22:38:38 -0400
· Flag
What would you like the President to say and most importantly do to end the insanity that happens in Chicago and the entire nation with the daily death toll from these shooting?
Any attempt would just be meet with a roadblock from the NRA and Republican Congress as what happen after Newtown.
Any attempt would just be meet with a roadblock from the NRA and Republican Congress as what happen after Newtown.
Alan Davey commented
2013-07-14 22:10:00 -0400
· Flag
“Kevin Koster”, I can’t believe you would stoop so low in order to avoid addressing the facts. I’m not sure what lead you to believe that I took a satirical tone, I’m only trying to bring information to light.
What do you care if Zimmerman’s life is ruined? You, as well as all of the readers who frequent this site, did nothing but fan the flames of disinformation.
Did you bother to question why Obama released yet another statement regarding Trayvon, but made no mention of the 72 shootings that occurred in Chicago over the 4th of July weekend? Why is that? Could it be that addressing black on black crime does nothing to advance his agenda?
The saddest part about all of this is that young black adolescents all over the country are being told by their parents that “white” men will try to hunt them down for no reason. A large part of that is the media’s fault. Instead of admitting that they bought Benjamin Crump’s lies regarding the events that took place, they now must create this concept of racial oppression against African Americans. Lies beget lies, plain and simple.
What do you care if Zimmerman’s life is ruined? You, as well as all of the readers who frequent this site, did nothing but fan the flames of disinformation.
Did you bother to question why Obama released yet another statement regarding Trayvon, but made no mention of the 72 shootings that occurred in Chicago over the 4th of July weekend? Why is that? Could it be that addressing black on black crime does nothing to advance his agenda?
The saddest part about all of this is that young black adolescents all over the country are being told by their parents that “white” men will try to hunt them down for no reason. A large part of that is the media’s fault. Instead of admitting that they bought Benjamin Crump’s lies regarding the events that took place, they now must create this concept of racial oppression against African Americans. Lies beget lies, plain and simple.
Kevin Koster commented
2013-07-14 21:49:07 -0400
· Flag
“Alan Davey”, your post is truly alarming.
Frankly, do you think that it’s appropriate to make nasty jokes about a situation where one man was killed and the other man’s life has been ruined? Do you think this is appropriate behavior for you or for anyone else?
I repeat my earlier question to you, and it’s a serious one. Have you name shame, sir? At long last, have you no sense of decency?
Frankly, do you think that it’s appropriate to make nasty jokes about a situation where one man was killed and the other man’s life has been ruined? Do you think this is appropriate behavior for you or for anyone else?
I repeat my earlier question to you, and it’s a serious one. Have you name shame, sir? At long last, have you no sense of decency?
Alan Davey commented
2013-07-14 21:43:38 -0400
· Flag
I am always trying to achieve a higher level of enlightenment, Kevin Koster. Which is why I utilized MSNBC as my only source for information regarding this trial. After finding out the true facts, I was astounded at the deception of “Faux News”.
From what I can gather, here is what actually occurred:
9-year old Trayvon Martin was returning home from bible study. He came across some Girl Scouts who were trying to nurse a litter of sick golden retriever puppies back to health.
At the same time, George Zimmerman was returning home from a Klansmen rally, and spotted Trayvon. While screaming “heil hitler” at the top of his lungs, Zimmerman unloaded on Trayvon and the Girl Scouts with his twin roof-mounted machine guns. Zimmerman exhausted all of his ammunition before he could neutralize Trayvon. He got out of his truck, and unholstered dual desert eagle pistols, both chambered in .50 action express. With extreme precision he hit Trayvon with 11 shots, all while Trayvon was trying to retreat to safety.
Does that sound about right? Feel free to correct me if I left anything out.
From what I can gather, here is what actually occurred:
9-year old Trayvon Martin was returning home from bible study. He came across some Girl Scouts who were trying to nurse a litter of sick golden retriever puppies back to health.
At the same time, George Zimmerman was returning home from a Klansmen rally, and spotted Trayvon. While screaming “heil hitler” at the top of his lungs, Zimmerman unloaded on Trayvon and the Girl Scouts with his twin roof-mounted machine guns. Zimmerman exhausted all of his ammunition before he could neutralize Trayvon. He got out of his truck, and unholstered dual desert eagle pistols, both chambered in .50 action express. With extreme precision he hit Trayvon with 11 shots, all while Trayvon was trying to retreat to safety.
Does that sound about right? Feel free to correct me if I left anything out.
Sandman2 commented
2013-07-14 21:18:49 -0400
· Flag
Geraldo is just pandering in order to get Zimmerman to come on his show and do an interview.
I think my previous post is where Geraldo could start his questioning:
Sandman2 commented 2013-07-12 12:38:46 -0400 · Flag
Off topic, but, didn’t Zimmerman have a cell phone? Don’t most cell phone’s have a camera or video feature? Did his camera have that capability and if so, why didn’t he take pictures of this criminal behavior as it was occurring so as to protect himself from false accusations and might also help to identify any suspected criminals. Did Sanford Police check his cell phone or ask if he recorded any of the incident? Did Zimmerman delete any pictures or video as relates to killing an innocent kid?
I can’t believe a “cop wanna-be” wouldn’t be video taping the people he considered perps while “on duty” at his neighborhood watch.
The Sanford Police botched this from the get-go when they took Zimmerman at his word and treated him as the “victim” rather than the dead kid lying on ground.
Sandman2 commented 2013-07-12 12:38:46 -0400 · Flag
Off topic, but, didn’t Zimmerman have a cell phone? Don’t most cell phone’s have a camera or video feature? Did his camera have that capability and if so, why didn’t he take pictures of this criminal behavior as it was occurring so as to protect himself from false accusations and might also help to identify any suspected criminals. Did Sanford Police check his cell phone or ask if he recorded any of the incident? Did Zimmerman delete any pictures or video as relates to killing an innocent kid?
I can’t believe a “cop wanna-be” wouldn’t be video taping the people he considered perps while “on duty” at his neighborhood watch.
The Sanford Police botched this from the get-go when they took Zimmerman at his word and treated him as the “victim” rather than the dead kid lying on ground.
Read more at http://www.newshounds.us/hannity_race_baits_over_sharpton_s_calls_for_peaceful_reactions_to_zimmerman_verdict_07122013#IUIKxo04Ic1YOr7X.99
I think my previous post is where Geraldo could start his questioning:
Sandman2 commented 2013-07-12 12:38:46 -0400 · Flag
Off topic, but, didn’t Zimmerman have a cell phone? Don’t most cell phone’s have a camera or video feature? Did his camera have that capability and if so, why didn’t he take pictures of this criminal behavior as it was occurring so as to protect himself from false accusations and might also help to identify any suspected criminals. Did Sanford Police check his cell phone or ask if he recorded any of the incident? Did Zimmerman delete any pictures or video as relates to killing an innocent kid?
I can’t believe a “cop wanna-be” wouldn’t be video taping the people he considered perps while “on duty” at his neighborhood watch.
The Sanford Police botched this from the get-go when they took Zimmerman at his word and treated him as the “victim” rather than the dead kid lying on ground.
Sandman2 commented 2013-07-12 12:38:46 -0400 · Flag
Off topic, but, didn’t Zimmerman have a cell phone? Don’t most cell phone’s have a camera or video feature? Did his camera have that capability and if so, why didn’t he take pictures of this criminal behavior as it was occurring so as to protect himself from false accusations and might also help to identify any suspected criminals. Did Sanford Police check his cell phone or ask if he recorded any of the incident? Did Zimmerman delete any pictures or video as relates to killing an innocent kid?
I can’t believe a “cop wanna-be” wouldn’t be video taping the people he considered perps while “on duty” at his neighborhood watch.
The Sanford Police botched this from the get-go when they took Zimmerman at his word and treated him as the “victim” rather than the dead kid lying on ground.
Read more at http://www.newshounds.us/hannity_race_baits_over_sharpton_s_calls_for_peaceful_reactions_to_zimmerman_verdict_07122013#IUIKxo04Ic1YOr7X.99
Kevin Koster commented
2013-07-14 21:06:43 -0400
· Flag
Frankly “Alan Davey”, I have to wonder whether you should redirect that pity in a different direction.
If there was any false narrative being displayed here, it was the right wing spin that tried to attack Trayvon Martin after death as a vicious punk who deserved to be shot. And beyond that, it was the right wing spin that tried to drum up a panic about the idea that “They’re gonna riot!!”. Both of these memes were quite offensive and I do hope that some of the people perpetrating them will do the right thing and apologize in public for their behavior.
Not sure why you think anyone was required to “prove their innocence”. The fact is that George Zimmerman made multiple false and contradictory statements, and he never explained them. He had an opportunity to do so in court, but he chose to remain silent instead. He has the right to do so, but that means he’s telling the jury that he doesn’t want to speak, even though he wants them to believe that he’s telling them the truth.
I’m not sure why you think it’s “completely out of line” for the President to offer words of condolence or comfort to the nation or to a family that just lost their son. And your assertion that the President may not mention the victim in a nationally-discussed case is frankly out of line in and of itself. Who are you to tell President Obama whether he may offer condolences to a grieving family? Have you no shame, sir?
As for the work of the jury, I think we all agree that the jury did the best they could with the information that was presented, including having to weed through a lot of emotional sidestreets and smokescreens thrown up by Zimmerman’s defense team. I’d be careful about saying how the jury was able to view the totality of evidence, given that even the defense noted that they were not able to bring everything in that they wanted.
The jurors have indeed reached a verdict. This particular trial is indeed over. But that doesn’t change the facts of the case. And I find it interesting that the people celebrating this verdict were doing exactly the opposite when another jury found O.J. Simpson innocent. I don’t remember those people saying that that jury’s verdict ended the matter. But maybe such judgments only apply when certain people agree with the verdict, right?
If there was any false narrative being displayed here, it was the right wing spin that tried to attack Trayvon Martin after death as a vicious punk who deserved to be shot. And beyond that, it was the right wing spin that tried to drum up a panic about the idea that “They’re gonna riot!!”. Both of these memes were quite offensive and I do hope that some of the people perpetrating them will do the right thing and apologize in public for their behavior.
Not sure why you think anyone was required to “prove their innocence”. The fact is that George Zimmerman made multiple false and contradictory statements, and he never explained them. He had an opportunity to do so in court, but he chose to remain silent instead. He has the right to do so, but that means he’s telling the jury that he doesn’t want to speak, even though he wants them to believe that he’s telling them the truth.
I’m not sure why you think it’s “completely out of line” for the President to offer words of condolence or comfort to the nation or to a family that just lost their son. And your assertion that the President may not mention the victim in a nationally-discussed case is frankly out of line in and of itself. Who are you to tell President Obama whether he may offer condolences to a grieving family? Have you no shame, sir?
As for the work of the jury, I think we all agree that the jury did the best they could with the information that was presented, including having to weed through a lot of emotional sidestreets and smokescreens thrown up by Zimmerman’s defense team. I’d be careful about saying how the jury was able to view the totality of evidence, given that even the defense noted that they were not able to bring everything in that they wanted.
The jurors have indeed reached a verdict. This particular trial is indeed over. But that doesn’t change the facts of the case. And I find it interesting that the people celebrating this verdict were doing exactly the opposite when another jury found O.J. Simpson innocent. I don’t remember those people saying that that jury’s verdict ended the matter. But maybe such judgments only apply when certain people agree with the verdict, right?
Alan Davey commented
2013-07-14 20:18:29 -0400
· Flag
I feel sorry for most of you that sit here and defend the false narrative that was initially spread by the MSM. Under no circumstances should someone be required to prove their innocence. It is also completely out of line for the POTUS to mention Trayvon while the investigation was still ongoing. The six jurors were able to objectively view the facts, as well as the totality of evidence. The jurors reached a verdict, and now it’s over.
mj - the same one commented
2013-07-14 16:58:17 -0400
· Flag
“Because he didn’t just cheer the verdict and do a little race baiting, he used the verdict to attack President Obama and suggest his “racial politics” were to blame for bringing the supposedly bogus charges against poor, persecuted Zimmerman.”
OK, lemme see if I’ve got this straight . . .
According to Gerry Riviera:
- Zimmerman being charged and going to trial is Obama’s fault
- had Zimmerman been convicted, it would have been Obama’s fault
- and now that he’s been acquitted, its STILL Obama’s fault
Whatever happened to that “personal responsibility” the rightwingnuts keep talking about?
.
OK, lemme see if I’ve got this straight . . .
According to Gerry Riviera:
- Zimmerman being charged and going to trial is Obama’s fault
- had Zimmerman been convicted, it would have been Obama’s fault
- and now that he’s been acquitted, its STILL Obama’s fault
Whatever happened to that “personal responsibility” the rightwingnuts keep talking about?
.
Kevin Koster commented
2013-07-14 16:04:35 -0400
· Flag
Sorry for the typo at the end of my third paragraph.
That should read “Would Zimmerman have acted similarly if Martin was a different ethnicity? By his own admission he would not have.” My point was that Zimmerman admitted he was suspicious of young black men in hoodies, and his attorneys actually tried to justify that suspicion – hence justifying his profiling behavior.
That should read “Would Zimmerman have acted similarly if Martin was a different ethnicity? By his own admission he would not have.” My point was that Zimmerman admitted he was suspicious of young black men in hoodies, and his attorneys actually tried to justify that suspicion – hence justifying his profiling behavior.
Kevin Koster commented
2013-07-14 16:01:26 -0400
· Flag
James, I’m going to try to address your points here and I’ll do so respectfully.
You’re correct that ZImmerman is of mixed ethnicity, and frankly I don’t think that anyone actually involved on the ground level of this case sees it as a “white on black” matter. I also don’t think that anyone actually involved on the ground level thinks that George Zimmerman has “an evil soul”. I certainly don’t. I think his behavior was reprehensible and reckless but not necessarily “evil”.
As far as race goes, we need to keep in mind that George Zimmerman admitted to racially profiling Trayvon Martin, and that his defense attorneys even raised the racial profiling as a justification for him. Since there had been break-ins in the community, and since some could be shown to have been committed by young black men, Zimmerman assumed if he saw a young black man in a hoodie, that this must have been a criminal. And that’s where the race element gets played out here. Would Zimmerman have acted similarly if Martin was a different ethnicity? By his own admission, he would have.
We must further understand that George Zimmerman’s actions on the night in question led directly to his killing of Martin, and that he took those actions in disobedience of police instructions. After profiling Martin, Zimmerman then followed and stalked him, confronted him, fought him, and then killed him. By his own admission, Zimmerman never identified himself as Neighborhood Watch to Martin, or even to the neighbors who saw or heard bits of the fight. He didn’t in fact take any rational steps until after he had already killed Martin.
Beyond this, we have the problem that Zimmerman made multiple untrue statements, all designed to set up the narrative of “This punk attacked me and went for my gun and I had to defend myself.” But the facts show that several parts of Zimmerman’s story can’t be true. Zimmerman had a chance to explain himself in court, but chose instead to hide.
The jury in this case was left only with ZImmerman’s version of events, since he had killed the only eyewitness who could give a different version from start to finish. The other witness testimony was spotty, although it was enough to cast serious doubt on much of Zimmerman’s account. But there was nobody who could give a on-the-ground play-by-play of what happened here for the jury, so all they had at hand was Zimmerman’s alibi. It’s understandable that within a narrow stricture of what they were able to find, these 6 jurors could not get past the various smokescreens and distractions raised by Zimmerman’s attorneys.
This isn’t the first time we’ve had a jury verdict that did not reflect the actual facts of the case at hand. Right wing pundits have long cited the O.J. trial as another one. I could cite the Twilight Zone case in the 1980s, where the evidence clearly showed wanton disregard for the lives of the actor and children killed, but where the prosecution was simply outspent and outshined in court by the best attorneys money could buy.
We can look to the aftermaths of those earlier trials and verdicts for a preview of what may come here. O.J. was sued in civil court, and lost there. As a result of how much damage that civil suit did to him, and as a result of his desperation, he launched into other criminal behavior which led to the prison sentence he will likely serve for the rest of his life. In the case of the Twilight Zone, the defendants may have walked out of the courtroom without handcuffs, but their careers and lives were drastically affected afterward. John Landis went from being a popular and powerful director to a virtual pariah. (And the lesser known names who were involved had their careers ruined a lot sooner.)
What future does George Zimmerman face? He’ll have to live with the fact that he not only killed Trayvon Martin but that he also told multiple untruths in trying to evade his responsibility for that killing. He certainly won’t be able to pursue the career in law enforcement and judicial work he had hoped to do. I wouldn’t be surprised if he left Florida and moved as far away as he could. Like O.J., he’ll have to carry the stigma of his actions for decades. It’s a sad state of affairs, but it’s the consequence of the choices he made in profiling and stalking Martin, and the action he took of killing him.
You’re correct that ZImmerman is of mixed ethnicity, and frankly I don’t think that anyone actually involved on the ground level of this case sees it as a “white on black” matter. I also don’t think that anyone actually involved on the ground level thinks that George Zimmerman has “an evil soul”. I certainly don’t. I think his behavior was reprehensible and reckless but not necessarily “evil”.
As far as race goes, we need to keep in mind that George Zimmerman admitted to racially profiling Trayvon Martin, and that his defense attorneys even raised the racial profiling as a justification for him. Since there had been break-ins in the community, and since some could be shown to have been committed by young black men, Zimmerman assumed if he saw a young black man in a hoodie, that this must have been a criminal. And that’s where the race element gets played out here. Would Zimmerman have acted similarly if Martin was a different ethnicity? By his own admission, he would have.
We must further understand that George Zimmerman’s actions on the night in question led directly to his killing of Martin, and that he took those actions in disobedience of police instructions. After profiling Martin, Zimmerman then followed and stalked him, confronted him, fought him, and then killed him. By his own admission, Zimmerman never identified himself as Neighborhood Watch to Martin, or even to the neighbors who saw or heard bits of the fight. He didn’t in fact take any rational steps until after he had already killed Martin.
Beyond this, we have the problem that Zimmerman made multiple untrue statements, all designed to set up the narrative of “This punk attacked me and went for my gun and I had to defend myself.” But the facts show that several parts of Zimmerman’s story can’t be true. Zimmerman had a chance to explain himself in court, but chose instead to hide.
The jury in this case was left only with ZImmerman’s version of events, since he had killed the only eyewitness who could give a different version from start to finish. The other witness testimony was spotty, although it was enough to cast serious doubt on much of Zimmerman’s account. But there was nobody who could give a on-the-ground play-by-play of what happened here for the jury, so all they had at hand was Zimmerman’s alibi. It’s understandable that within a narrow stricture of what they were able to find, these 6 jurors could not get past the various smokescreens and distractions raised by Zimmerman’s attorneys.
This isn’t the first time we’ve had a jury verdict that did not reflect the actual facts of the case at hand. Right wing pundits have long cited the O.J. trial as another one. I could cite the Twilight Zone case in the 1980s, where the evidence clearly showed wanton disregard for the lives of the actor and children killed, but where the prosecution was simply outspent and outshined in court by the best attorneys money could buy.
We can look to the aftermaths of those earlier trials and verdicts for a preview of what may come here. O.J. was sued in civil court, and lost there. As a result of how much damage that civil suit did to him, and as a result of his desperation, he launched into other criminal behavior which led to the prison sentence he will likely serve for the rest of his life. In the case of the Twilight Zone, the defendants may have walked out of the courtroom without handcuffs, but their careers and lives were drastically affected afterward. John Landis went from being a popular and powerful director to a virtual pariah. (And the lesser known names who were involved had their careers ruined a lot sooner.)
What future does George Zimmerman face? He’ll have to live with the fact that he not only killed Trayvon Martin but that he also told multiple untruths in trying to evade his responsibility for that killing. He certainly won’t be able to pursue the career in law enforcement and judicial work he had hoped to do. I wouldn’t be surprised if he left Florida and moved as far away as he could. Like O.J., he’ll have to carry the stigma of his actions for decades. It’s a sad state of affairs, but it’s the consequence of the choices he made in profiling and stalking Martin, and the action he took of killing him.
doors17 commented
2013-07-14 15:39:28 -0400
· Flag
Just curious James Buchanan, and anyone else who feel the jury made the correct verdict, but what exactly do you think that Trevor Martin did wrong that caused Zimmerman to confront him?
Aria Prescott commented
2013-07-14 15:27:34 -0400
· Flag
OK, James… let’s take race, age, all the bias factors out of this, deal with just the facts. Not even what went on during the trial, just the night itself as well as the immediate reaction.
1) A man sees another man walking down the street and follows him, well out of his watch juristiction.
2) He calls the police, and is told to stay in his car. He responds by basically telling them he has other plans.
3) He grabs a gun, gets out anyways, and approaches the person he’s been following.
4) A fight breaks out.
5) When the armed man starts losing, he pulls out the gun and kills the other guy.
In just that, we have premeditated vigilante justice, disobeying a direct order from a police officer, brawling, and I’m sorry, but even if shooting him was justified, shooting someone because your mouth wrote a check your ass can’t cash is cowardly- At best.
“Our country is in a sad state because of people who look to the media for an unbiased account of any event, then draw their conclusions without actually hearing all the relevant evidence.”
Well, at least we agree that Fox News viewers are a big share of the problem.
1) A man sees another man walking down the street and follows him, well out of his watch juristiction.
2) He calls the police, and is told to stay in his car. He responds by basically telling them he has other plans.
3) He grabs a gun, gets out anyways, and approaches the person he’s been following.
4) A fight breaks out.
5) When the armed man starts losing, he pulls out the gun and kills the other guy.
In just that, we have premeditated vigilante justice, disobeying a direct order from a police officer, brawling, and I’m sorry, but even if shooting him was justified, shooting someone because your mouth wrote a check your ass can’t cash is cowardly- At best.
“Our country is in a sad state because of people who look to the media for an unbiased account of any event, then draw their conclusions without actually hearing all the relevant evidence.”
Well, at least we agree that Fox News viewers are a big share of the problem.
John Poole commented
2013-07-14 12:29:13 -0400
· Flag
I wasn’t there and neither were the jury or any real eyewitness. So, I understand the verdict but can’t believe Zimmerman’s lawyers just said he would have never been charged if he was black … black guy (in the south) with a gun following a white kid in his neighborhood because he thinks he is criminal then scuff;e ensues and white kid shot dead … yea right, the black guy is not getting charged.
Joseph West commented
2013-07-14 12:17:49 -0400
· Flag
@ truman: I understand that, not too long ago in Florida, there was a case of a black woman who shot a white man, and she used the “stand your ground law” as her justification. Guess what the outcome was in THAT case?
Kortez Tk commented
2013-07-14 10:16:23 -0400
· Flag
Geraldo Rivera was once, apparently, a decent man, back in his NYC Eyewitness News Days. He has long sold out, given away his soul, clutched at the money, become a liar, a provoker, someone who does everything he can to create idiots among the American populace, so he must never have been a decent person. I hope President Obama feels foolish for not taking a stronger stance now. The RW pundits have succeeded in profiling Trayvon Martin and separating the event, so that instead of it starting at the beginning, when Trayvon, armed with Skittles and iced tea, walking on the sidewalk was profiled by George Zimmerman and pursued, it started when Zimmerman provoked Trayvon beyond all endurance and the physical melee began.
That is not truthful, honest, or justice, but it’s Amerika, where if you’re black you might as well hide out because someone will literally be gunning for you.
That is not truthful, honest, or justice, but it’s Amerika, where if you’re black you might as well hide out because someone will literally be gunning for you.
truman commented
2013-07-14 09:17:00 -0400
· Flag
A white adult male vigilante stalked and shot to death an unarmed black teenager. The local cracker police department and good-old-boy prosecutors looked the other way. A special prosecutor had to be brought in to attempt to bring justice.
I don’t know what the six jurors heard or thought they heard in the courtroom. They may think that they did the right thing given Florida’s lax stand-your-ground law. In the end, I think they have set race relations way back. OJ Simpson, Rodney King and George Zimmerman. Grist for the Fux Noise mill of 24/7 racial hatred. Shame on Whorealdo for feeding that hatred and smearing our President in the process.
I don’t know what the six jurors heard or thought they heard in the courtroom. They may think that they did the right thing given Florida’s lax stand-your-ground law. In the end, I think they have set race relations way back. OJ Simpson, Rodney King and George Zimmerman. Grist for the Fux Noise mill of 24/7 racial hatred. Shame on Whorealdo for feeding that hatred and smearing our President in the process.
NewsHounds
posted
about Geraldo Rivera Uses George Zimmerman Verdict To Racially Smear President Obama
on NewsHounds' Facebook page
2013-07-14 09:00:10 -0400
Because the whole tragedy is really President Obama's fault.
