This is a Black Rage Ping List, (by request,) to cover the aftermath of the GZ trial and archive the incidents. Let me know. And please add "blackrage" to the keywords. Thank you.
Posted on 07/16/2013 6:36:53 PM PDT by NotYourAverageDhimmi
Everything I initially wrote about the Trayvon Martin killing was based on network news reports. And it was almost entirely wrong.
In my KOMO radio commentary of March 23, 2012, I said the following about the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman:
“Thinking of 17-year old Trayvon the way we’d think of our own kids is exactly how to view this tragedy. The man who police say shot him, George Zimmerman, is a 28-year old CrimeWatch volunteer, who apparently did just about everything a Crimewatch volunteer SHOULDN’T do, such as following the 17 year old teen when a 911 dispatcher advised him not to, confronting him when he had no business doing so, and shooting him. Mr. Zimmerman was not standing his ground against an aggressor, he WAS the aggressor. And Trayvon Martin received the death penalty for walking home in the rain wearing a hooded sweatshirt, and carrying a pack of candy.”
Everything I said was based on what the network news media had been reporting, and continued to report for months. And it was almost entirely wrong.
Eyewitness testimony and physical evidence backs up George Zimmerman’s claim that he was neither the physical aggressor, nor even “standing his ground” that night. He was confronted by an angry Martin, who knocked him down with a punch to the nose and proceeded to pummel him. (There is no evidence of a “fight,” but abundant evidence of an assault).
Trayvon Martin was shot not “walking home in the rain wearing a hooded sweatshirt,”but while straddling Zimmerman MMA style, beating him senseless, bloodying his face and punching or pounding his head against the concrete sidewalk.
The most disputed question that night — who was screaming for help before the shot was fired by Zimmerman? — has family and friends on both sides divided. But it raises another question that essentially answers itself: Who would more likely scream for help? The person being beaten, or the one doing the beating?
One of the most important, and remarkably under-publicized facts that came out at trial is that one of the detectives, while interrogating Zimmerman at the police station that night, told him that the entire incident had been caught on surveillance video. The detective was bluffing, but Zimmerman didn’t know that. His reaction: “Thank God”.
“Thank God.” How many people who do something wrong, lie about it and are told it’s on tape react that way?
Zimmerman certainly made mistakes that night; he should have stayed in his car. But they were mistakes in judgment. So weak was the criminal case against him that many were predicting his acquittal two days into the trial before the defense had even presented its case.
So why are so many people upset and angry about the verdict?
Because they still believe what I believed in that commentary a year and a half ago.
The news media, aided by activists like Al Sharpton, made this entire saga about race from the very beginning. When the racial narrative didn’t fit, the media distorted evidence, doctored audio tape or misled the public about the facts until it did. As Zimmerman’s attorney Mark O’Mara said after the verdict, the press turned Zimmerman, a man who mentored young African American school kids, into a “monster.”
Columnist John Nolte from Bigjournalism.com (the people who caught NBC editing a tape to make Zimmerman appear racist) compiled a superb timeline of the media’s race-crime narrative, supplemented with links. Some highlights:
On March 13, 2012, Al Sharpton interviewed the Martin family’s attorney Benjamin Crump, who described Zimmerman as white and claimed that it was Zimmerman who approached Trayvon Martin. The Associated Press had also erroneously described Zimmerman, a Hispanic, as white.
On March 21, 2012, CNN falsely accused Zimmerman of muttering the word “coon” when he called authorities. That was false, but not corrected by CNN for two weeks, long after it had influenced the media angle that Zimmerman was motivated by racial hostility.
On March 22, 2012, when it became clear that Zimmerman was Hispanic (Latina mom, white dad), the New York Times used a new term to describe Zimmerman: “White Hispanic.” Talk about reaching. People would rightfully take umbrage if the Times described the President of the United States as a “White African American.”
Also on March 22nd, at a Florida rally designed to build racial tension and force an arrest of Zimmerman, Al Sharpton stated “Trayvon could have been any one of our sons…” One day later, President Barack Obama echoed that line: “If I had a son," said the president. "he would look like Trayvon.” The racial narrative was set in stone.
It was reinforced by NBC four days later, when it edited Zimmerman’s call to police to make him look like a racist. Here is what NBC reported Zimmerman said:
“This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”
Here’s the actual exchange between Zimmerman and the police dispatcher:
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.”
A few days after that, ABC claimed that Zimmerman wasn’t injured the night the shooting took place, airing a blurry video of Zimmerman at the police station and stating that “a police surveillance video taken the night Trayvon Martin was shot dead shows no blood or bruises on George Zimmerman.”
As Nolte pointed out, ABC didn’t even bother to enhance the video before running with the report.
A day after that, when ABC’s report was sweeping the nation, NBC’s Chris Matthews backed up ABC’s version, even though one of his Hardball guests pointed out, with pictures, that Zimmerman’s head did show cuts and bleeding.
On April 9th, PBS anchor Gwen Ifill, again described Zimmerman as “white” and that he shot Martin after a “disputed altercation.”
Two days later, Special Prosecutor Angela Corey charged Zimmerman with Second Degree Murder.
And you wonder why so many people still despise George Zimmerman?
Liberal Harvard Law professor, Alan Dershowitz, to his credit, says that Corey’s decision to charge Zimmerman with Murder 2 was outrageous, politically motivated, based on a false affidavit and worthy of disbarment. Even when Judge Debra Nelson allowed an eleventh-hour request by prosecutors to convict Zimmerman on lesser grounds of manslaughter, the jury still cleared him.
What happened that night in Sanford Florida is a tragedy that cost one young man his life and likely ruined the life of another. But as an African-American minister told me, this trial needed to be about truth, not race. For the media, which distorted George Zimmerman’s ethnicity, his words and his injuries, it was precisely the opposite.
Just thought this would help even those Radio commenter's like say John Carlson, that here in the People's Republic of Washington, or better known as the San Fran-Freako of the North.
Nothing to see, just keep on walking by.
John Carlson you ran for governor of this State (Washington), and your supposed shock that the Government Media Complex lied, well, that explains why you lost!!!!
This is a Black Rage Ping List, (by request,) to cover the aftermath of the GZ trial and archive the incidents. Let me know. And please add "blackrage" to the keywords. Thank you.
“You say he was lying, I say he was bluffing. Poker players bluff all the time.”
They weren’t playing poker. You rationalize just like a liberal. The ends justify the means. Right Barak?
No, they lied to George Zimmerman.
The police chief lost his job because he wouldn’t join the mob.
Bully for him. He's not a liar, he simply employs liars.
These people have integrity
Integrity includes lying to people? Wow, that's a f***** up definition of integrity. Let me guess, youre a cop. Right?
Unless maybe we insist on the Fairness Doctrine being applied to ALL media, not just radio.
And he didn't fall for it because he told the truth.
"Bully for him. He's not a liar, he simply employs liars."
So the police lied on the stand? Did Zimmerman get convicted based on police lies? If he employs liars, then by your statement, they had to have lied on the stand. You can't have it both ways.
"Integrity includes lying to people? "
No, but bluffing is a valid investigative technique. I have used it too.
"Wow, that's a f***** up definition of integrity."
It is your definition it seems. It's not mine.
"Let me guess, you're a cop. Right?"
And you're a cop hater, right? There are a lot of you on Free Republic. (I'm a retired officer.)
Who knows if they did here? They lie on the stand elsewhere enough to know you can't take what they say at face value, any more than anybody else. And it's a fact they can lie to you at any time in an interrogation, but if you so much as shade the truth, it's a crime in and of itself. The officer in this case (Serino?) testified that he lied to Zimmerman. You can call it a bluff if you wish, but most people call it a lie. Told with the best of intentions, but an untruth nonetheless.
“If he employs liars, then by your statement, they had to have lied on the stand. You can’t have it both ways.”
I sure can. Just because they chose not to lie under oath this time doesn’t make them any less of liars. They’re simply selective about whom they lie to and when. That may make them clever liars, but liars still.
“I have used it, too”
It’s not shocking to me that one government paid liar would stand up for other government paid liars. In fact it’s pretty much to be expected. I do not hate cops, but I do despise liars.
No, you can't.
"It’s not shocking to me that one government paid liar would stand up for other government paid liars."
Sorry, but I was not paid to lie. And when called upon to give information to Internal Affairs that could result in the firing of a fellow officer, I told the truth. And more than one officer was fired as a result of my statements. But you just keep your stereotyping and ignorance. It fits you like a uniform.
It would be a waste of time to have some of these people on this thread as detectives. They would simply sit there and take the word of a murderer or rapist and not try to shake his story.
” At which point did the police lie? “
When they told Zimmerman they had video of the incident. That was a lie.
I contacted a woman who reported the loss of a ring worth 5,000 dollars. The last place she saw the ring was on the dresser in her bedroom. She had a party at here house, and some of the guests had to pass by the dresser in the bedroom to get to the bathroom. I asked her if she had an idea of who might have taken the ring, and she gave me a name of a woman who had been a guest, and that she had seen her hanging around the dresser. I told her I would try to run a bluff and see if the ring would be returned. If it didn't work, the case would be turned over to detectives.
I called the "suspect" and I told her that a ring had been stolen at the party. I told her that if the ring was returned, no questions asked, that no one would be arrested and no charges would be filed. I also told her that we had fingerprints. (The lie is that we didn't have ANY evidence). A couple of minutes later, the woman called the victim and said that the ring would be returned shortly. And all because I lied.
No harm, no foul, a laugh and slap on the back when you find it out? Or do you charge him with obstruction? It's your decision. I bet it matters if you personally like the liar.
This is what is pissing off the civilians...the imbalance of power. You can lie like a rug to beat the band, but a little person cannot, not even about little things. It gets worse: Contrary to what you've been implying, a cop will lie on the stand, under oath, if he needs to in order to obtain a conviction. I've known people who have worked in courts daily as support personnel, and they've seen it so you cannot deny it happens.
Rule of thumb about Judges: A Judge who used to be a defender will lean to the prosecution because he's sure the defendant is lying. A former prosecutor will lean to the defense because he knows the cop is probably lying. And you wonder why you get a lot of skepticism?
That is abroad sweeping assumption and I admit no such thing, other than you are guilty of assuming.
There were various options available to me when people lied. If they were already charged with something, and lied to me, I documented it and filed the paperwork with the case. Some situations resulted in an arrest for lying when there was no charge or pending charge. Sometimes I just laughed and ignored it.
It's unfortunate that there are cops who lie on the stand. When I lost cases, it made me a better investigator, and lying was never an option to win a case.
But since you are so jaded about the whole justice system, how would you change it to make it acceptable to you?
I'll have to ponder on that. It's a great question and deserves more than my typically flippant response. I'd like to see LEOs accorded the same treatment as any other witness, for starters. Get caught lying on the stand, go to jail. But I'll agree on one thing, I'm jaded. Look at this moment: I'm arguing with a detective over the meaning of the word, "lie."
I'm not going to get into a discussion of the utility of the stretching of truth to get a suspect to break, but rather the freaking out when the suspect also stretches the truth on the other side of the table. You can't get charged with a crime for "bluffing," as you put it, but the guy you're questioning can, and as you point out, is often charged and jailed even if there was no other crime. No wonder you laughed. Do you see any problem with that?
When you do it, it's "bluffing." When the suspect does it, it's "Obstruction of Justice." There's another word for that, "hypocritical."
So the ends justify the means then. Classic liberal thinking.
No, just typical Free Republic cop hater thinking.
And I can promise you that a LOT of really bad people are in jail because someone bluffed them and cracked their story. But since it's hypocritical, let me give you a scenario. Witnesses see a man kidnap a 5 year old girl. Their description of him isn't very good, but I get an anonymous tip that "Joe" did it. I interview "Joe" and he provides an alibi that I cannot immediately validate or disprove, and time is of the essence. If he doesn't tell me where she is, he will probably rape her and kill her and dump the body. So I tell him that there is video footage of the kidnap and he admits he kidnapped her. He leads me to her and she is still alive.
According to you purists, this is hypocritical. You would rather have a dead little girl than have a cop who bluffed to save her life. Here is how cold blooded the cop haters are because this is what they are arguing in essence: "That a woman raped and strangled with her panties is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet." Ergo: The cop who lets a little girl die is morally superior to the cop who bluffs to save her life.
I didn’t say I don’t want you doing that, I said I wasn’t going to get into that angle. I appreciated the effort you went through to make the point, but it was unnecessary. “Ticking time bomb” scenarios are always sure-fire attention-getters, but they also prove bad cases make bad law.
What’s hypocritical is charging someone for Obstruction because they lied to you in an interrogation, and they weren’t even charged with another crime, while at the same time laying claim to the right to lie yourself.
I think we both agree that lying on the stand should get jail time for whoever does it, policeman or civilian.
Jesus had something to say about lying. Perhaps you should read up on it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.