DescentBB

February 26, 2012 - George Zimmerman Shoots and Kills Trayvon Martin

Zimmerman claims self-defense. After an investigation, the police agree and decide not to press charges.



March 8, 2012 - The AP Falsely Describes Zimmerman as "White"

The story of the grieving parents of Trayvon Martin demanding Zimmerman be arrested first achieves national attention on March 8 when CBS This Morning runs a report.

Later that same day, the Associated Press throws the first log on the racial fire by inaccurately describing Zimmerman as white.



March 13, 2012 - NBC's Al Sharpton Uses MSNBC Platform to Stoke Phony Racial Narrative

Breitbart editor-in-chief Joel Pollak:

Sharpton devoted a portion of his program on MSNBC, PoliticsNation, to the Trayvon Martin case. He interviewed Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump, who reiterated the accusation that Zimmerman was “white”: “We think Trayvon Martin didn’t know who the heck this white man was who approached him before he got killed.”

Earlier that same day, Sharpton's National Action Network released a statement calling for...

...a “complete and thorough investigation” into Martin’s death. He added: “[W]e are told that racial language was used when the young man reported his suspicions to police[.]”

The story about Zimmerman's use of racial language was false.



March 13, 2012 - ABC News Reporter Claims Trayvon Shot Because "He Was Black"

About ten days before Al Sharpton and President Obama would launch the Zimmerman story into the stratosphere, Matt Gutman, an ABC News correspondent based in Miami, Florida, was already (and without a shred of evidence) laying the track for a racial narrative.

Gutman covered the case for the network, and his Twitter feed at the time was full of falsehoods, innuendo, and irresponsible speculation. In one tweet, Gutman came right out and claimed Trayvon was shot "bc [because] he was black."

Gutman would also recklessly accuse Zimmerman of "stalking" and shooting down Trayvon.



March 19, 2012 - CBS News Falsely Claims Zimmerman Is White

A small detail that the Obama administration and the media apparently missed was that the white versus black racial narrative they were preparing to invest so much into was missing just one thing: a white person.

Proof of this is that CBS News falsely claimed Zimmerman was white about a week before the story exploded.

In their venomous zeal, the media and Democrats likely assumed that someone with the last name Zimmerman had to be white. But they were wrong, as Zimmerman is Hispanic.

Never ones to back off a good narrative, rather than use this revelation to tamp down tensions or correct their reporting, the media simply made up out of whole cloth a new racial category: the "white Hispanic."



March 22, 2012 - Zimmerman Described as a "White Hispanic" by The New York Times

Just in the nick of time, before the story was engineered to explode the very next day with the Sharpton rally, The New York Times put its stamp of approval on the term "white Hispanic."



March 21, 2012 - CNN Falsely Accuses Zimmerman of Saying "F**king Coon"

Knowing full well the phony racial storm brewing around the Zimmerman case was about to have gasoline thrown on it the next day, CNN went to extraordinary lengths to claim Zimmerman had uttered the racial slur "coon" when he had not.

This has to be watched to be believed.

CNN wouldn't officially retract their defamation until April 5th, long after it was too late.



March 22, 2012 - NBC's Al Sharpton Goes to Florida

Though the police had investigated the shooting and saw no reason to charge George Zimmerman, in March of 2012, President Obama's reelection chances looked dim. He would need the crucial swing state of Florida to win another four years, and nothing brings out the Democrat vote like a good old racial bonfire.

With the help of thousands of dollars from Obama's Justice Department, it was then that Rev. Al Sharpton (anchor of MSNBC's Politics Nation) held his incendiary rally:

At the protest, Sharpton was flanked by Martin's parents. "Trayvon could have been any one of our sons," he said. "Trayvon could have been any one of us."

He continued:

"We are tired of going to jail for nothing and others going home for something. Zimmerman should have been arrested that night ... you cannot defend yourself against a pack of Skittles and iced tea. Don't talk to us like we're stupid! Don't talk to us like we're ignorant! We love our children like you love yours. Lock him up!"

Sharpton said that he would stay on the case.

"We cannot allow a legal precedent to be established in this city that tells us it is legal for a man to kill us, tell any story he wants, and walks out with the murder weapon," he said.



March 23, 2012 - President Obama Repeats Sharpton's Talking Point

The day after Sharpton held his rally and said, "Trayvon could have been any one of our sons," President Obama made huge news when he stepped before the cameras, demanded action in the Zimmerman case, and famously said, "If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon."

In just two days, a network news anchor and an American president had blasted the Zimmerman case into the nation's top story and did so based on a racial narrative without a shred of evidence to support it. Almost every other major news outlet would now commit every journalistic sin imaginable to fabricate evidence.



March 24, 2012 - Reuters Describes Zimmerman as a "White Hispanic"

To keep the white versus black narrative alive, Reuters jumps on the ridiculous "white Hispanic" bandwagon.

Many others would follow.



March 27, 2012 - NBC News Edits 911 Audio to Make Zimmerman Look Racist

On the storied Today Show, NBC News told America Zimmerman said this on the 911 call:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

When the truth is that the unedited audio actually went like this:

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.

After the fraudulent editing was discovered by the New Media (first by Breitbart News), former NBC News president Steve Capus would claim that the edit was "a mistake and not a deliberate act to misrepresent the phone call."

Eventually, several NBC producers would be fired (without being named), and Zimmerman would file a lawsuit against NBC; it remains unresolved.



March 28, 2012 - ABC News Falsely Claims Zimmerman Wasn't Injured Night of Shooting

The day after NBC News released its falsified 911 bombshell, ABC News released a phony, hyped-up story of its own. Using grainy surveillance video of Zimmerman at the police station on the night of the shooting, ABC News claimed, "A police surveillance video taken the night that Trayvon Martin was shot dead shows no blood or bruises on George Zimmerman."

Obviously, if true, this would go a long way towards proving Zimmerman was not in fear of his life the night of the shooting and had lied about being beaten up.

The only problem is that the ABC News story was not true -- not even close. The network didn't bother to enhance the video before breaking the news. Had they, Zimmerman's bloody head would have been quite apparent.

It would take four days for ABC to retract its falsehood...

Will Robinson wrote:So now the foundation of their comments now is '...he shot an unarmed kid! Something is wrong with that!!

Well, yea, something is wrong and it is the dishonest assertion that Martin was simply a shooters victim.
He was an assailant that was shot.

That's the part that is always missing from the narrative....Martin's culpability in the chain of events. A key part that the jury, thankfully, didn't ignore.

CUDA wrote:And if Zimmerman had not been armed Martin maye have beaten him to death.so what justified Martin to assault Zimmerman?

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:And if Zimmerman had not been armed Martin maye have beaten him to death.so what justified Martin to assault Zimmerman?

he merely confronted someone stalking him. That is, and I use large type for emphasis, ALL ANY OF US KNOW ABOUT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.
The only person who knew the truth wasn't talking, and was protected by the Constitution against self-incrimination. Anything such as CUDA's analysis is based on conjecture.

tunnelcat wrote:...

The kid was unarmed, which means he was not carrying a weapon. He was minding his own business. He wasn't a burglar or a criminal. ....

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:And if Zimmerman had not been armed Martin maye have beaten him to death.so what justified Martin to assault Zimmerman?

he merely confronted someone stalking him. That is, and I use large type for emphasis, ALL ANY OF US KNOW ABOUT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.
The only person who knew the truth wasn't talking, and was protected by the Constitution against self-incrimination. Anything such as CUDA's analysis is based on conjecture.

No, we heard Zimmermans account of what happened. His defense team presented it and the prosecution played video of his first person accounting of it.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:And if Zimmerman had not been armed Martin maye have beaten him to death.so what justified Martin to assault Zimmerman?

he merely confronted someone stalking him. That is, and I use large type for emphasis, ALL ANY OF US KNOW ABOUT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.
The only person who knew the truth wasn't talking, and was protected by the Constitution against self-incrimination. Anything such as CUDA's analysis is based on conjecture.

No, we heard Zimmermans account of what happened. His defense team presented it and the prosecution played video of his first person accounting of it.

and, thus, that account could be neither questioned nor rebutted.

CUDA wrote:Slick, The jury that saw the evidence disagrees with you.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:And if Zimmerman had not been armed Martin maye have beaten him to death.so what justified Martin to assault Zimmerman?

he merely confronted someone stalking him. That is, and I use large type for emphasis, ALL ANY OF US KNOW ABOUT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.
The only person who knew the truth wasn't talking, and was protected by the Constitution against self-incrimination. Anything such as CUDA's analysis is based on conjecture.

No, we heard Zimmermans account of what happened. His defense team presented it and the prosecution played video of his first person accounting of it.

and, thus, that account could be neither questioned nor rebutted.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:Slick, The jury that saw the evidence disagrees with you.

actually, no, they sort of agreed with me. The evidence is really speculative, and thus a reasonable doubt carried the day. As I said in my first post in the thread, this was a test of at what point instigation of an incident overcomes self-defense later in the incident. The jury concluded that it did not. I might disagree, but c'est la vie.

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:Slick, The jury that saw the evidence disagrees with you.

actually, no, they sort of agreed with me. The evidence is really speculative, and thus a reasonable doubt carried the day. As I said in my first post in the thread, this was a test of at what point instigation of an incident overcomes self-defense later in the incident. The jury concluded that it did not. I might disagree, but c'est la vie.

Sort of?

What was the instigation, the legal following on an individual? Or the illegal assault on an individual?

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:...

The kid was unarmed, which means he was not carrying a weapon. He was minding his own business. He wasn't a burglar or a criminal. ....

No, according to the evidence and the jury he didn't mind his own business. He assaulted an armed man who then shot him after the assault escalated to the point the assault victim feared for his life.
People who mind their own business don't beat people's head into the cement as a way to mind thir own business....

Krom wrote:TC: Saying "you would think differently if it was your child"... Sure we would think differently, but that doesn't change the facts or how a jury would rule based upon them.

Krom wrote:And slick, what difference does it make here if the only person who knows the truth speaks or not, nobody around here would listen anyway. Once again everyone has already made up their minds, the truth remains as irrelevant as ever.

Truth died with the "free" press.

CUDA wrote:He WAS minding his own business until Zimmerman went after him.


Zimmerman didn't "go after him" he followed him BIG difference

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:He WAS minding his own business until Zimmerman went after him.


Zimmerman didn't "go after him" he followed him BIG difference

no evidence to show that, at all. In fact, Zimmerman went out of his way to obscure what exactly happened, and especially where it happened.

CUDA wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:He WAS minding his own business until Zimmerman went after him.


Zimmerman didn't "go after him" he followed him BIG difference

no evidence to show that, at all. In fact, Zimmerman went out of his way to obscure what exactly happened, and especially where it happened.

evidence proved otherwise

CUDA wrote:He WAS minding his own business until Zimmerman went after him.


Zimmerman didn't "go after him" he followed him BIG difference

Krom wrote:TC: Everyone is someones kid. And that alternative to the free press you speak of, you do realize that ship sailed years ago...That "alternative" is exactly what we have today.

snoopy wrote:I wonder if Zimmerman has a legal case against the media....

They certainly cost him (or at least the people that financed his defense) a whole lot of money. I think there's a pretty clear case for arguing that had it not been for their intervention (and falsification of information) no defense would have been needed. The question is, are they protected from the consequences?

Personally, I'd love to see them pay through the nose...

CUDA wrote:Plus it brings into question the prosecution intentionaly witholding evidence from his attorneys, is there a suit there against the state. Not to mention the DOJ race baiting this case. Another suit?

flip wrote:http://www.amren.com/news/2013/07/4-tee ... leton-man/

Have any of you heard about this? It is much more cut and dried A white man is minding his own business, walking down the road. Is confronted by 4 black teens who attack him and start beating the piss out of him and then PUSH HIM INTO THE PATH OF AN ONCOMING VEHICLE! Where's the mass media outcry for this, or is it just so obvious that it cannot be used to promote disharmony?

ThunderBunny wrote:I posted this thread to point out that media bias to push an agenda is now naked and to the point of distorting and/or fabrication when facts don't fit. What is scary is that a virtual lynch mob of mainstream media came after a private citizen to make certain he was punished and made out to be something he wasn't. That most of this media is ideologically aligned with the government and willing to act as a state propaganda organ should be chilling no matter what side you're on. You'd better pray you're not in its sights one day.

ThunderBunny wrote:What is scary is that a virtual lynch mob of mainstream media came after a private citizen to make certain he was punished and made out to be something he wasn't. That most of this media is ideologically aligned with the government and willing to act as a state propaganda organ should be chilling no matter what side you're on. You'd better pray you're not in its sights one day.

Foil wrote:while protesting, is doing so peacefully.

Foil wrote:I haven't seen those reports. Link?

Foil wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:What is scary is that a virtual lynch mob of mainstream media came after a private citizen to make certain he was punished and made out to be something he wasn't. That most of this media is ideologically aligned with the government and willing to act as a state propaganda organ should be chilling no matter what side you're on. You'd better pray you're not in its sights one day.

And yet, with all that "chilling" force of government-aligned-with-media... he was acquitted and is a free man. And that "lynch mob", while protesting, is doing so peacefully.

I don't think the media-government conspiracy is the force you think it is.