So it turns out that George Zimmerman is black.
This is what happens when you have race mongers and baiters like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the black caucus and the “liberals” in the media driving the national conversation. And I hold them responsible for this:
“During the course of the investigation, we learned that the crime was related to the victim’s race,” Reynolds said.
Conklin said Hayes told investigators that he was angry about the Martin shooting and decided to attack the victim because of his race. Reynolds would not comment if the crime had anything to do with the Martin shooting.
This has been as big a case of journalistic malpractice as the Duke lacrosse affair.
[Update a while later]
A second producer at NBC has been fired (assuming, of course, that a first one was — we still don’t have a name).
He is an Hispanic Bleack Whte man.
Tiger Woods technically has four ethnicities, but he’s officially black. So Zimmerman is officially black, too.
If Obama had a son, he would look like George Zimmerman.
One of the comments over there. Nailed it.
But the media has a standard… fake but accurate.
Except unlike the Duke lacrosse case, an unarmed teenager is dead.
What’s your point? Does that make it OK to deliberately foment a race war on false premises?
Nobody was “trying to foment a race war.” They were trying to find out why a kid was dead and his killer wasn’t being prosecuted.
The “George Zimmerman is white” started from the initial police reports, in which he was identified as a “white male.”
Nobody was “trying to foment a race war.”
Chris, do you understand what a statement like this makes you look like? Given we could provide multiple links that suggest otherwise? And no, I’m not going to provide even a single link because you are smart enough to find them yourself if you weren’t so devoted to your own premise.
You are arguing for a plan to foment race war. The burden of proof is on you. Meet it or please be quiet.
You have a burden of proof as well. It is to not look like an idiot by denying the obvious. The news includes a number of black on white crimes that refer to justice for Trayvon. You can close your eyes and pretend a direct relationship is no relationship at all, but don’t expect the rest of us to.
Al Sharpton.
QED.
By airing false and misleasing facts about the case????
Except unlike the Duke lacrosse case, a teenager that was raining blows down on a bleeding, supine man is dead.
FTFY
Nobody was “trying to foment a race war.”
No one except Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the Congressional Black Caucus, and people at NBC who doctored the tape to make Zimmerman sound racist.
No, none of those people were trying to “foment a race war.” Sharpton, Jackson and the other politicians were trying to put pressure on Florida politicians to prosecute Zimmerman. The NBC people were trying to get ratings.
Why is it “race baiting” to demand that the criminal justice system thoroughly investigate how an unarmed teenager walking home got shot?
Whether they tried to or not there have been a lot of deadly assaults on white people where the assailants claim justice for Trayvon.
Some irresponsible members of the media and ummm all of the democrat politicians and race activists that have been all over tv, radio, internet, marching in the street have intentionally been trying to call people to action and when you stir up a mob you bear some responsibility for its actions.
Since when is “marching in the street” a call for violence? I was told that when all those Tea Partiers marched in the street holding signs saying “we came unarmed – this time” that was democracy in action.
Since when is “marching in the street” a call for violence?
That’s a pretty pathetic straw man.
The New Black Panthers’ bounty for Zimmerman wasn’t a call for violence? Really?
The Zimmerman family is in hiding. There have been numerous threats against them made in public. The threats and violence have been centered around a white vs black narrative. This comes from the people who are pushing the whole racism angle.
There is a direct relationship between the rhetoric coming from the left and the actions being taken against white people out of revenge for Trayvon. This is all despite Zimmerman not being white.
No Justice No Peace
Chris Gerrib
April 26, 2012 at 10:43 am | # | Reply
Nobody was “trying to foment a race war.” They were trying to find out why a kid was dead and his killer wasn’t being prosecuted.
Chris Gerrib
April 26, 2012 at 4:33 pm | #
You are arguing for a plan to foment race war. The burden of proof is on you. Meet it or please be quiet.
A race ware is not a actual war but a common figure of speech use to refer to inciting hostiles between ethnic or racial groups.
The parents of Trayvon Martin were not trying to find out why their kid was dead and his killer was not being prosecuted, they were informed by the county prosecutor that there was insufficient evident to charge Zimmerman. They understandable disagreed with this decision and made efforts to enlist public support to get Zimmerman prosecuted. Various groups, individual and news organizations have since spread rumors, misinformation, deliberately falsified evident (See NBC) to get that prosecution started.
Public demonstration have since been calling for “No Justice, No Peace”
Since as of yet there has not been any justice executed on George Zimmerman in the form of a trial and conviction, the phrase “No Peace” can be reasonable be interpreted to mean let there be “War” or “Violence” until there is justice.
http://www.hlntv.com/video/2012/04/02/trayvon-martin-rallies-chaka-kahn
Since justice has been delayed or denied, as seen by Al Sharpton’s group and others, there have been several instances where violence has been carried out in the name of justice for Trayvon Martin.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/0426/Trayvon-Martin-case-sparks-of-racial-violence-appear
Personally I think Zimmerman should have been charges when this first happened so guilt or innocence could have been determined and the matter could have been brought to a resolution. To me that is what a trial should be for. Although in this day and age trials are rarely used to actually determine guilt or innocence, but instead are only brought about when the prosecution believes it can get a conviction or as a means to coerce a plea to a lesser charge. But that is a separate issue.
I suspect you will not accept this as full filling a burden of proof that some individuals like Al Sharpton and groups like the New Black Panthers are “trying to foment a race war”.
But given Sharpton’s and the Black Panther’s past history, I do believe this.
I will not be quite.
Personally I think Zimmerman should have been charges when this first happened so guilt or innocence could have been determined and the matter could have been brought to a resolution. To me that is what a trial should be for. Although in this day and age trials are rarely used to actually determine guilt or innocence, but instead are only brought about when the prosecution believes it can get a conviction or as a means to coerce a plea to a lesser charge. But that is a separate issue.
Agreed. The reason Zimmerman wasn’t charged earlier is lack of sufficient evidence to convinct beyond a reasonable doubt. I’m fairly sure nothing’s changed other than the political pressure to try the case anyway. What this means is that the Florida taxpayers will pay to prosecute Zimmerman in a trial that the Florida representation has a reasonable chance of losing. It’s not my money, so I don’t care.
I do care about the other crimes being commited as “justice for Treyvon”. Apparently Gerrib doesn’t care about innocent people thousands of miles from the scene of the crime. He’s shown such disinterest in the past too.
I care about other crimes. My question is, how does demonstrating for justice in one case justify or cause these other crimes?
If the choice is “be quiet and take your lumps” vs. “speak up and risk some knucklehead using you as an excuse” then I vote to speak up.
According to the city (sorry don’t have the link) it would have been illegal to have charged Zimmerman at the time. The police in this case were following the law.
Now there will be a trial. Because the law doesn’t matter much to some people.
After reading your comment several times to try and make sense of it, your two statements appear to be contradicting each other.
My question is, how does demonstrating for justice in one case justify or cause these other crimes?
You were shown how “Demonstrating for Justice” as you call it has resulted in other crimes being committed in the name of Trayvon Martin. As suspected, you ignored the evidence presented. Undoubtedly you didn’t feel it was relevant or sufficient.
In any event, there is no justification for those other crimes committed in Trayvon Martin’s name, so that part of your question doesn’t appear to be answerable or make a great deal of sense.
If the choice is “be quiet and take your lumps” vs. “speak up and risk some knucklehead using you as an excuse” then I vote to speak up.
Your second statement appears to contradict your first statement in that you were asking how “Demonstrating for Justice” results in violence yet in your second statement it appears to be a tacit acknowledgement that “some knucklehead” could actually take the demonstrations for “No Justice No Peace” to heart and behave violently.
You then follow up by saying even if you knew violence would result you would not “be quiet and take your lumps” but would continue to ““speak up and risk some knucklehead using you as an excuse”
There could be other methods of obtaining justice without resorts to calls for violence (No Peace). But they do not have the same emotional appeal. Or going back to the original subject of the post, that would not support the Narrative that a white/hispanic/black man kill a black teenager for no reason other than he was black.
I find the fact that you say you will not be quiet, (which is manifestly self-evident) ironic in that you are the same person that said
“ You are arguing for a plan to foment race war. The burden of proof is on you. Meet it or please be quiet.”
I will not be quiet
I dislike fools.
I know this because I get angry at myself when I behave like a fool. Which is more often then I like.
But I suspect I am being foolish now by bothering to reply.
But I will concede that I did enjoy it.
Thanks for the use of the hall.
I’ll try this again. Holding demonstrations does not excuse, cause or allow for random people administering beatings on other people. The people holding the demonstrations did not call for violence.
If you, MattB or Leland, think that holding demonstrations does excuse, cause or allow for random violence, how exactly do you propose people exert pressure on their elected officials?
All Americans have the right to “peaceably assemble to petition for redress of grievances.” That’s what was done in the Martin case, nothing more.
The people holding the demonstrations did not call for violence.
If you don’t count their chants of “No justice, no peace.”
All Americans have the right to “peaceably assemble to petition for redress of grievances.”
And if you don’t count the New Black Panthers circulating a “Wanted Dead or Alive” poster. I can only imagine Gerrib’s reaction if Sarah Palin put out a “Wanted Dead or Alive” poster on a Congresswoman.
The “New Black Panthers” are a collection of half-wit posers. They are not affiliated with or endorsed by any of the people you listed in your initial response. They are listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. If you expect me to defend them, then I will expect you to defend the KKK.
Now, back to the question. Since when is “marching in the street” a call for violence?
Now, back to the question. Since when is “marching in the street” a call for violence?
I’ll tell you as soon as you tell me when you’re going to stop beating your wife.
Not married.
But you’ve answered my question. When the people marching in the streets agree with you, then that’s perfectly okay. When they don’t agree with you, it’s a call for violence or otherwise objectionable and must be stopped.
What nonsense. You apparently don’t understand the concept of a complex question. I didn’t answer it for the same reason you didn’t answer mine. No one claimed that marching in the street, per se, was a call for violence. That is your straw man, and we don’t put up with that here.
Then show me where Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson called for a “race war.”
They called for justice for Martin. Since when is justice for a murder victim a call for a race war?
Calling for ‘justice’ may or may not be a call for a race war. It depends on context. The context is the selection (or not selecting) of cases. It may not be obvious to you that a race war is being declared (that’s a cognitive issue) but it is clear to others.
Why did the Holder JustUs Department drop the voter intimidation charges against the NBPP? It was a slam-dunk case. Why didn’t Holder jump down their throats with both feet over the bounty poster, explaining that such things are not acceptable in a civilized society?
Sounds like tacit, or not so tacit, approval to me.
Nobody was “trying to foment a race war.” They were trying to find out why a kid was dead and his killer wasn’t being prosecuted.
DoJ isn’t nobody. And there’s only one reason they had to investigate a homicide like this, and it has nothing to do with why Zimmerman wasn’t being prosecuted. It’s amazing how many myths Gerrib wants to believe in this case. Personally, I expect him to apologize to all of us for trying to convince us that the ABC video showed that Zimmerman was lying.
1) We still do not know the extent (if any) of Zimmerman’s injuries.
2) We do not know who started the fight that resulted in his injuries, if any.
If any? You can look at the pictures of the back of his head.
But you are right there is a lot we don’t know which emphasizes the danger of convicting Zimmerman in the media and framing this mess as white racist on young black man violence.
“if any”? Your eyes lying to you? You’re the one that
claimedclaims Palin was responsible for the shooting in Arizona because she asked people to donate money to Giffords opponent. Now you still want us to believe that Zimmerman wasn’t injured? The police report claims he was injured. Paramedics claim to have given him treatment. Photographs taken at the scene show injuries. You may no nothing, but we know you have a problem with honesty.no = know… But then a typo is minor compared to considering a guy guilty because you are unwilling to even look at the evidence that supports his claim.
Who’s head is that? Who took the photo? When was it taken? Isn’t your source the same “lamestream media” that was trying to foment a race war?
More importantly, how did Zimmerman get injured? Who started the fight?
Zimmerman’s head taken by an eyewitness at the scene. The photo was vetted by the investigators. The source is the photographer, and how it gets out is irrelevant once other people at the scene have attested to the photo’s origins and depiction. The problem you have Gerrib is that ABC’s previous video quality was terrible, as any body that has done photo analysis knew, and what was claimed by the media wasn’t supported by eyewitnesses testimony.
More importantly there are at least 4 eyewitnesses to Zimmerman’s injuries at the scene (2 officers, 1 paramedic, and the photographer… I’m sure there are more to attest to the injuries). At question is; why you, Gerrib, are so willing to argue that Zimmerman isn’t injured despite this evidence?
As for what happens to Zimmerman, if he goes to prison then that’s -1 Democrat voter and community activist in central Florida.
Per the police report, Zimmerman was treated in the back of a squad car, and 35 minutes later, he’s strolling through police headquarters. This suggests a certain lack of severity of his injuries.
It also suggests injuries. So you just provided evidence that contradicts your previous statements. If you were testifying, you just perjured yourself.
I drove off a mountain and my head was a bloody mess. Two big police officers tried to wrestle my wooden cane away from me a couldn’t. No I wasn’t thinking clearly. Afterward I went to the hospital and was treated.
Strolling through police headquarters just means he wasn’t dead.
Zimmerman should have stayed in hiding. Nobody woudl have spotted him – because everybody thought he looked like the outdated photo that the media circulated. He could have worked as Al Sharpton’s gardener without being recognized.
/sarc