During a discussion of the George Zimmerman trial tonight, one of Greta Van Susteren’s guests, a former homicide detective, raised an excellent question about George Zimmerman’s behavior the night he shot and killed Trayvon Martin: why did Zimmerman really get out of his car? But Van Susteren was so quick to validate Zimmerman’s explanation (that he was looking for a street address) and then move on, she never took the time to consider the implications of Zimmerman's behavior.
Former homicide detective Ted Williams said tonight on On The Record:
Zimmerman says he goes past where Trayvon was supposed to have been. He did claim, he says he’s looking for an address. Now, he’s been in that neighborhood for three years, he is a neighborhood watch person, and I would love to ask him, “Mr. Zimmerman, you’ve been in the neighborhood for three years, you’re a neighborhood watch person and you want me and a jury to believe you don’t know what street it is?”
Not only that, if Zimmerman thought a dangerous thug was on the loose, why not just give the police your best explanation and sit in the car or get out of there? Why would you get out of the car and put yourself in the kind of danger you supposedly feared - unless you’re looking for a fight?
But Van Susteren was so eager to defend Zimmerman, she didn’t spend even a moment considering the significance of Williams' question before she jumped in to make Zimmerman’s case for him. She quickly said:
I don’t know, Ted, but I tell you. We did wind around the (unintelligible). All those houses look exactly alike and it’s around and around. It is pretty confusing there. Now, I haven’t lived there for three years but the place is very confusing so I don’t know.
Was it just me, or did she sound defensive? Regardless, having dismissed the point Williams was making, she immediately moved on to another subject.
Do you like this post?
Kevin Koster commented
2013-07-02 14:47:01 -0400
· Flag
Mark, you’re absolutely right, and that thought did go through my mind.
For the record, the Whitney Houston rants that Kobylt went on (and his co-host happily laughed at on the air) included things like calling her a “crack ho”. And yes, they got spanked for that one and were forced to make an apology on the air.
So there’s a definite possibility that Kobylt is taking this approach to give himself cover from anyone labeling him as racist. I don’t think KFI wants to be politically correct at all, however. They are an openly right wing, pro-GOP radio station. Their morning news guy happily predicted a Mitt Romney victory in January 2012 while on his Sunday show. They regularly tout the various right wing memes and talking points. John and Ken are afternoon drive-time shock jocks. Their whole MO is to rile up their listeners with cheap shots at whatever politician they want to insult or embarrass, and whatever ethnic group they feel safe to attack at that moment. Normally, they are very much on the rampage about “illegal immigration” – but when the Bell fiasco happened, they suddenly switched up and interviewed multiple residents of that town who were undocumented, just so that they could throw things at the Bell supervisors who had grafted that city.
So I think Kobylt is probably doing this on his own – but you could be right that the station wants someone there to take the contrary position, given that all the other hosts are solidly cheerleading for Zimmerman here. (This includes Bill Carroll, Tim Conway Jr, and Bill Handel’s gang in the morning, not to mention the previously mentioned news guy Gary Hoffman, who made the unfortunate prediction about Romney…)
For the record, the Whitney Houston rants that Kobylt went on (and his co-host happily laughed at on the air) included things like calling her a “crack ho”. And yes, they got spanked for that one and were forced to make an apology on the air.
So there’s a definite possibility that Kobylt is taking this approach to give himself cover from anyone labeling him as racist. I don’t think KFI wants to be politically correct at all, however. They are an openly right wing, pro-GOP radio station. Their morning news guy happily predicted a Mitt Romney victory in January 2012 while on his Sunday show. They regularly tout the various right wing memes and talking points. John and Ken are afternoon drive-time shock jocks. Their whole MO is to rile up their listeners with cheap shots at whatever politician they want to insult or embarrass, and whatever ethnic group they feel safe to attack at that moment. Normally, they are very much on the rampage about “illegal immigration” – but when the Bell fiasco happened, they suddenly switched up and interviewed multiple residents of that town who were undocumented, just so that they could throw things at the Bell supervisors who had grafted that city.
So I think Kobylt is probably doing this on his own – but you could be right that the station wants someone there to take the contrary position, given that all the other hosts are solidly cheerleading for Zimmerman here. (This includes Bill Carroll, Tim Conway Jr, and Bill Handel’s gang in the morning, not to mention the previously mentioned news guy Gary Hoffman, who made the unfortunate prediction about Romney…)
Mark Jeffries commented
2013-07-02 14:28:09 -0400
· Flag
Kevin, you probably know that John and Ken got wrist-slapped by KFI and taken off the air for a week when they called Whitney Houston a “dope addict” after her death and that some of their fans will be convinced that John is being forced to say all this by his bosses because KFI wants to be politically correct. Believe it or not. And these are the people who will swear up and down that they aren’t racist, even after they make racist statements.
Kevin Koster commented
2013-07-02 13:33:47 -0400
· Flag
In a bit of an interesting sidenote, KFI in Los Angeles broadcast a show from one of their normally dependable right wing hosts – of the John and Ken show. (These are the guys who really pushed the Ramos and Compean story, among other things.)
But yesterday, on his own, John Kobylt stated a fairly thorough analysis of the Zimmerman/Martin case, and he concluded that Zimmerman had initiated the entire problem. His take was that Zimmerman had ignored the dispatcher’s instructions, gone ahead and confronted Martin and then shot him when he realized he was losing the fight. Kobylt was unconvinced by Zimmerman’s story, as too much of it either doesn’t line up with reality or is a very convenient excuse. For example, how could Trayvon Martin have jumped out of bushes that didn’t exist? Why was Zimmerman following and stalking him when he had been told not to do that? And the notion that Martin was reaching for the gun is a standard defensive alibi that you hear whenever someone is in a shooting. Kobylt went from the perspective that Trayvon Martin wasn’t committing a crime but was scared of a creepy man who was following him for no reason. Kobylt noted that Martin would have been creeped out because he wasn’t doing anything wrong and yet Zimmerman was still following him. Kobylt’s feeling was that at the age of 17, Martin would have been in “fight or flight” mode from the threat of Zimmerman, and was feeling correctly that his life was in danger.
There’s also the matter that Trayvon was 150 lbs and Zimmerman was notably heavier. In a fight, Zimmerman theoretically should have overwhelmed Martin.
This was surprising to hear from a fairly right wing radio station, but it was certainly interesting.
But yesterday, on his own, John Kobylt stated a fairly thorough analysis of the Zimmerman/Martin case, and he concluded that Zimmerman had initiated the entire problem. His take was that Zimmerman had ignored the dispatcher’s instructions, gone ahead and confronted Martin and then shot him when he realized he was losing the fight. Kobylt was unconvinced by Zimmerman’s story, as too much of it either doesn’t line up with reality or is a very convenient excuse. For example, how could Trayvon Martin have jumped out of bushes that didn’t exist? Why was Zimmerman following and stalking him when he had been told not to do that? And the notion that Martin was reaching for the gun is a standard defensive alibi that you hear whenever someone is in a shooting. Kobylt went from the perspective that Trayvon Martin wasn’t committing a crime but was scared of a creepy man who was following him for no reason. Kobylt noted that Martin would have been creeped out because he wasn’t doing anything wrong and yet Zimmerman was still following him. Kobylt’s feeling was that at the age of 17, Martin would have been in “fight or flight” mode from the threat of Zimmerman, and was feeling correctly that his life was in danger.
There’s also the matter that Trayvon was 150 lbs and Zimmerman was notably heavier. In a fight, Zimmerman theoretically should have overwhelmed Martin.
This was surprising to hear from a fairly right wing radio station, but it was certainly interesting.
Zirgar commented
2013-07-02 11:34:06 -0400
· Flag
Apologies for all the misspellings in my previous comment. sigh
Zirgar commented
2013-07-02 11:31:11 -0400
· Flag
Using Van Susteren’s “logic” in defense of George Zimmerman, imagine how confusing the area must’ve been for Trayvon Martin, who might’ve been walking around looking at the houses to make sure he was on the right street, not assured of where he was, thereby raising the supsicions of a certain George Zimmerman. So, actually her argument kind of works against Zimmerman, in that it might explain the “suspicious” actions of Martin that drew GZ toward him. Not that he was actually doing anything supsicious, I’m just trying to see how Zimmerman’s account of things works. And it clearly doesn’t.
Carol Gruber commented
2013-07-02 07:17:55 -0400
· Flag
angry and fearful pretty much describes the typical second amendment supporter.
confused? you be the judge of that
confused? you be the judge of that
mj - the same one commented
2013-07-02 04:05:32 -0400
· Flag
OK, let’s review:
Thus far Zimmerman has been
- angry (he allegedly referred to Martin as a “f*cking coon” when describing him to the dispatcher)
- fearful (he claims he feared for his life when he followed and then shot Martin)
- and now, confused (when it came to knowing what street he was on)
Dunno about you, but I don’t think somebody who’s angry, fearful, and confused should be allowed to run around carrying a gun playing vigilante . . .
.
Thus far Zimmerman has been
- angry (he allegedly referred to Martin as a “f*cking coon” when describing him to the dispatcher)
- fearful (he claims he feared for his life when he followed and then shot Martin)
- and now, confused (when it came to knowing what street he was on)
Dunno about you, but I don’t think somebody who’s angry, fearful, and confused should be allowed to run around carrying a gun playing vigilante . . .
.
Antoinette commented
2013-07-02 03:54:33 -0400
· Flag
The police dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Martin. The idiot did not listen and wanted to play cop. Now he sits in a courtroom charged with murder. If Zimmerman had listened to the dispatcher and stayed put, we wouldn’t be discussing this matter in the first place.
The Fox “News” frauds’ would have a different take on Zimmerman if he shot a neighborhood kid in the wealthy section of Long Island.
The Fox “News” frauds’ would have a different take on Zimmerman if he shot a neighborhood kid in the wealthy section of Long Island.
Janet Tuhey commented
2013-07-02 01:01:35 -0400
· Flag
Ellen & Steve, I have also wondered that. But what’s their motivation? Racism, of course.
NewsHounds
posted
about Greta Van Susteren Jumps To Defend George Zimmerman Getting Out Of The Car
on NewsHounds' Facebook page
2013-07-01 23:51:57 -0400
"Liberal" Greta Van Susteren joins the Zimmerman defense team.
Chas Holman commented
2013-07-01 23:51:02 -0400
· Flag
For the curious minded. I took the infamous 911 tape into the studio.
It OBVIOUSLY would not be court admissible (they barely allowed the real ones), but this is a unique and somewhat legitimate way at taking a look at the call in question.
I compressed it so the lows came up a bit, limited it so you can hear other low sounds without your ears bleeding when the shots ring out. I then (thanks to the wonders of digital, couldn’t do this with tape) slowed it down to just over half speed but PITCHED it back up to 100%. In other words.. you can hear the call without it hurting your ears, at a speed that is easier to digest and get a sense of. The pitch however is true to source. And there has been no EQ or altering ANY of the tonalities, although there are inherent nuanced swirly artifacts from slowing anything down that radically.
Anyway, make of it what you will.. if you want to actually HEAR (what you can) the call, I wouldn’t discount taking a listen to this version. The way I have done it is almost akin to the audio version of slowing down a video tape.
Zimmerman Martin Altercation.
http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=11548279
It OBVIOUSLY would not be court admissible (they barely allowed the real ones), but this is a unique and somewhat legitimate way at taking a look at the call in question.
I compressed it so the lows came up a bit, limited it so you can hear other low sounds without your ears bleeding when the shots ring out. I then (thanks to the wonders of digital, couldn’t do this with tape) slowed it down to just over half speed but PITCHED it back up to 100%. In other words.. you can hear the call without it hurting your ears, at a speed that is easier to digest and get a sense of. The pitch however is true to source. And there has been no EQ or altering ANY of the tonalities, although there are inherent nuanced swirly artifacts from slowing anything down that radically.
Anyway, make of it what you will.. if you want to actually HEAR (what you can) the call, I wouldn’t discount taking a listen to this version. The way I have done it is almost akin to the audio version of slowing down a video tape.
Zimmerman Martin Altercation.
http://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=11548279
