Discussion in 'Latest Political News and Current Events' started by make speed limit 45, Sep 9, 2019.
Big Media also lied about the mueller report and the covington kids and jussie.
Ha ha, I’ll believe it when I see it.
I’m aware there was a rash of phony news reports, the typical erroneous guesswork partnered with network’s hiding evidence of the assault Zimmerman faced. But what is the hoax?
A kid wasn’t regrettably and needlessly killed? Which part didn’t actually happen?
Strange topic to consider a hoax.
You really ought to be more careful about sources.
Overall, we rate the American Thinker, Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories/pseudoscience, use of poor sources and failed fact checks.
America must never forget that pic of some 12 year old black kid the media used and claimed it was the 17 year old trayvon.
Ok, media manipulation for sure. But the young man was certainly shot and killed due to numerous indiscretions by both people involved.
Still not sure what the hoax might be.
You're not likely to get a reasonable explanation for that either.
I doubt if this documentary is worth watching.
The hoax was the media claiming trayvon was some little kid. For weeks they used that pic of a 12 year kid and said it was 17 year old trayvon.
The hoax was the accusation that it was some racist targeting by Zimmerman. I'm not saying that Zimmerman was a saint but the way they portrayed Martin is where the hoax part comes in. Remember Barry opining about "if he had a son"? Yeah, a son who is a thug that gets into fights. That's quite the son there. No mention of the truth. That's what makes it a left wing hoax.
Yep, misrepresenting the story and the facts in the case.
You're probably thinking of the 12 year old playing alone in a park with a toy gun.....who was shot and killed by cops in Cleveland. He was Tamir Rice.
He got into a fight because he was stalked and attacked by an adult man who was suspicious because he saw a Black guy in his neighborhood.
I guess , but we already know all that. They showed old and innocent pictures, they downplayed the assault on Zimmerman, even covering up the footage of his head injury, and downplayed witness testimony that exonerated Zimmerman. We knew all this by the time the trial ended.
I’m disputing there’s anything new here as some great reveal. Seems someone’s hyping it but there doesn’t seem to be any real news.
There’s not a single shred of proof that Zimmerman attacked Martin first. There’s no reliable proof- just speculation- that Zimmerman “stalked” Martin. I wouldn’t call trying to keep a suspicious person within eyeshot “stalking”. He was not menacing and was not close enough to attack anyone. Until confronted by Trayvon Martin. That’s what the trial and evidence determined.
Because minority saw another minority?
Seeing how that democrats have run Cleveland since 1989...hat would you expect.
Unless you count Zimmerman’s recorded admission that he was following Martin and that Martin attempted first to run away and then to hide, and Zimmerman’s deposition that Martin struck him only after he reached into his pocket (as if to get a weapon), and the testimony of Rachel Jeantel that Martin felt menaced and that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation.
One of those may even be true.
Following is not stalking, it's trying to keep someone within eyeshot, it's well short of a confrontation or assault.
He didn't attempt to run away and hide. There would have been no confrontation in that case.
If Martin initiated the confrontation, I frankly don't care what caused him to strike the other man first.
Jenteal only speculated that Zimmerman "initiated the confrontation" which was actually physically impossible since he lost sight of Trayvon until he was confronted by him. Her testimony was impeached, even according to liberal pundits.
UPDATE-- Jeralyn Merritt, the liberal attorney who writes the "Talk Left" blog, has weighed in on today's "train wreck" testimony by Jeantel:
She is now impeached on several areas, especially GZ's response to TM after TM confronted GZ and asked him, "What are you following me for?" I'm so glad West brought this out, see my post here. Her first answer to Crump was that GZ responded with "What are you talking about" not "What are you doing around here." (Audio clip here.) Crump, immediately realizing that this was different than what she had told Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton, stopped her and told her she had said something different to the Martins, and asked her to start over. She began again, and told it the Crump and Martin way....
After reading the transcript, she finally admitted (today) she had changed her version at the urging of Crump, but said she had just been mixed up because she rushed through Crump's interview and didn't think carefully about what she was saying.
Perhaps Trayvon felt menaced. While true he then made a "fight or flight" decision, and in retrospect, it was the wrong one.
Separate names with a comma.