THE STORY BEGINS: Fake facts never die!

FRIDAY, JULY 26, 2013

Part 5—The history of Professor Cobb's fake fact: The Zimmerman verdict was rendered on Saturday evening, July 13.

Two nights later, America’s most discerning citizens gathered before their TV machines. They watched the PBS NewsHour, their country’s most erudite news program.

Not for them the screeching and yelling found on those cable news channels! But uh-oh! Those discerning citizens were soon told this by one of their nation’s professors:
WOODRUFF (7/15/13): Well, to you, Jelani Cobb, on that point about whether race was clearly a part of this trial. We know the judge said at the outset that the attorneys were not to use the term racial profiling.

COBB: Right. If I can just respond to Carol Swain’s previous point about this being racialized, as opposed to race actually being an integral element of it from the beginning. One, there is the case of Marissa Alexander, which some people may be familiar with, who was in a situation where—a domestic violence situation, she fired a warning shot and has been sentenced to 20 years, despite the fact that she deployed a stand your ground defense.

And so—also, had this been two white men or two black men, it’s doubtful that it would have required 44 days before someone was actually investigated or there were charges brought. And, so, no we can’t escape—and finally, the fact of the matter is, Mr. Zimmerman had called the police 46 times in the previous six years, only for African-Americans, only for African-American men.

And so if we just look at who he thought was suspicious, and if this was a kind of arbitrary element of calling, since 20 percent of that population of that subdivision is African-American, what his problem seemed to be was with the presence of African-Americans there, not with the presence of crime, or the incapacity to differentiate between African-Americans and crime.
First, the professor cited another case, without quite explaining the connection to the Zimmerman matter. He then engaged in a bit of speculation about what would have happened if.

Finally, the august professor got to “the fact of the matter.” When he did, he recited a fact which is blatantly false.

NewsHour viewers had no way of knowing. But they had been grossly misinformed about this case again.

(Later in the segment, the professor also said this: “The fact of the matter is, whatever the conflict was, it was precipitated by Mr. Zimmerman. The police—the dispatcher told him not to get out of his vehicle. He proceeded to get out of his vehicle.” That statement, while highly familiar, was also false.)

In the passage we have highlighted, Professor Cobb was reciting one of the many fake facts which came to the American public as they tried to assess this high-profile case. Because no, Mr. and Mrs. America and all the ships at sea—despite what you have routinely been told, Zimmerman didn’t make 46 phone calls to police “only for African-Americans, only for African-American men.”

What did Zimmerman call about? On March 22 of last year, a police department account of those 46 calls was made public. On March 22, 2012, that full list was published here, by The Daily Beast.

As far as we know, that is the best existing record of what those 46 phone calls concerned. And despite what people like Cobb have told you, those 46 phone calls weren’t made “only for African-Americans, only for African-American men.”

The professor's fact is pleasing. But the fact is false.

What did those 46 phone calls concern? Some of those phone calls were made about whites and/or Hispanics. Some of those phone calls were made about stray dogs. Some of those calls were about garage doors which were standing open, an invitation to burglars.

Several of the 46 calls reported fire alarms or motion alarms which had gone off. Several calls concerned potholes.

From the data as released, there is no way to know exactly how many of the calls concerned black males. Some of the calls concerned behavior by people whose race or ethnicity isn’t recorded.

But in those data as they exist, exactly seven of the 46 calls are known to have involved black people. That includes the two calls Zimmerman made concerning Trayvon Martin on the fateful evening when this story began.

Before that night, only five of the calls can be said to involve black people, at least according to that public record. Three calls can be said to involve white people. One call can be said to involve Hispanics.

Quite a few of the 46 calls involved no people at all.

(Two of the five previous calls involving black people occurred in the fall of 2011. They seem to have led to the arrest of Emmanuel Burgess, who had staged several burglaries and a home invasion in the neighborhood. For Jeralyn Merritt's account of those calls, click here.)

How in the world did Professor Cobb get that fake fact in his head? What led him to repeat the fake fact on our most upstanding news show?

Why did no one on the program speak up to correct his fake fact? Why were so many upstanding citizens misinformed again?

You're asking excellent questions! They take us back to the one false fact the New York Times deigned to correct from its initial, heinous news report about the killing of Trayvon Martin.

That first news report, by Lizette Alvarez, was genuinely heinous. Instantly, she stated a false fact—two shots were fired that fateful night. She then quoted Natalie Jackson, a Martin family lawyer, telling a lurid, false tale.

The false claim that two shots were fired wasn’t the only factual error in that first New York Times report. But it was the only error for which the Times ever issued a formal correction.

Incredibly, the Times never corrected the bogus claim that two shots can be heard on the 911 tapes. Eventually, though, the magisterial Gotham newspaper managed somehow to write this:
THE NEW YORK TIMES (4/6/12): Corrections

An article on March 17 about appeals for a Department of Justice investigation into the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman misstated the time period in which Mr. Zimmerman made 46 calls to 911. The calls were made over the course of about eight years, not over 14 months. The error was repeated in a front-page article on March 21 about Florida's self-defense law known as Stand Your Ground.
In that initial March 17 report, Alvarez reported that the 46 calls were made over a 14-month period. By March 22, it was clear that this time span was wrong. Exhibiting its standard “complacencies of the peignoir,” the Times lazily corrected this one mistake a bit more than two weeks later.

The 46 phone calls had been cited in that first news report. They were still part of the story on The NewsHour last week, except the claim had now been changed, from one fake fact to another!

Initially, the 46 calls were said to have been made over a 14-month period. On cable, this was used to show the world that Zimmerman was a crime-obsessed nut.

Eventually, it became clear that this first fake fact was wrong. But as we’ve told you, in our culture, fake facts never die!

And so, it came to pass. On April 10, 2012, the first version of this fake fact began to morph into the second.

On that evening, Martin attorney Benjamin Crump appeared on MSNBC and Fox. During the 6 PM hour, he made a new claim as he spoke with Al Sharpton:
SHARPTON (4/10/12): Let me ask you, Mr. Crump, what does this do to what we have heard about Mr. Zimmerman’s side of story from his father and his lawyers? Here’s a guy that told different sides of the story, who all of a sudden just quits talking to his lawyers, starts calling prosecutors, starts calling TV hosts. I mean, does that speak a lot to how his story may or may not have a lot of credibility? I mean, wouldn’t the prosecutor have to look at the value of his word now?

CRUMP: I think Reverend Sharpton, you are absolutely right. They should look at everything. They should look at all of the 911 calls he made before Trayvon Martin’s call, over 46 calls. And about 75 percent of them were dealing with African-American males as being suspicious. Then you take this unpredictable irrational conduct into play, and you want to look at all of that when you look at the totality of the evidence.
As best we can tell, this is the moment when the first fake fact about those phone calls began morphing into the second.

Previously, the fake fact concerned the alleged 14-month time span. Now, attorney Crump advanced a new claim about the 46 calls; he said that 75 percent of the calls dealt with African-American males. This new alleged fact was used to suggest that Zimmerman was a bit of a race man.

Two hours later, Crump went on The O’Reilly Factor. He spoke with guest host Laura Ingraham:
INGRAHAM (4/10/12): Given what you've heard about his own background, his own life story, do you think that this man is a racist?

CRUMP: I don't know if he's a racist or not. But I do believe he racially profiled Trayvon Martin that night. For him, saying he was suspicious and for him getting out of that car, it just doesn't add up. But you also have to look at all the other calls he made. He made 46 calls to 911, and over 75 percent of those calls were about young African-Americans.
Is there any possibility that this new claim was accurate? Could there be some data source which establishes this claim as an actual fact?

Given the number of the 46 calls which concerned pot holes, fire alarms, stray dogs and white folk, that seems highly unlikely. Using Nexis, we find no news org which ever reported any such fact. That includes the major Florida papers which followed this case most closely.

At any rate, Zimmerman was arrested and charged with murder just one day after Crump's remarks. People stopped discussing the 46 calls as the case dropped out of sight.

We can’t tell you how we got from there to the new fake fact, the one the professor offered on the July 15 NewsHour. But that claim was plainly bogus.

Even Crump had only claimed that 75 percent of the calls concerned blacks. By the time our nation’s finest citizens watched our most respectable news show, that figure had managed to creep all the way to 100 percent!

And OOG! The professor had said the same thing on CNN just a few hours earlier! In that case, host Jake Tapper looked on as Professor Cobb debated another guest:
COBB (7/15/13): The other point that we should bear in mind, David [Webb], is that Mr. Zimmerman made 46 phone calls to the police in the preceding six years only to African-Americans, only to African-Americans. He had called the police on no one else. And prior to this, when he did the initial interview in the precinct house, they asked him, why did he pursue against the advice of the police? He said because, "They always get away."

Who gets away? A person who is going home with snacks?

WEBB: He didn't say “blacks” always get away. He said “they” and the—

COBB: However, the only people who were suspicious were African-Americans.
Ironic! The professor was using a new fake fact to hunt down his own chosen victim!

Professor Cobb was hardly alone in stating the new fake fact. That same day, one of the Martin family attorneys stated the fake fact on Hardball.

Jasmine Rand spoke with Hardball’s perpetually hapless host. She explained why the federal government needs to stage a new criminal trial alleging civil rights violations:
MATTHEWS (7/15/13): Well, what would be the story you would tell a federal jury? What story would you say? What would be your scenario of what happened?

RAND: I think that George Zimmerman placed 46 calls throughout a short period of time reporting black men as suspicious in the neighborhood. He got out of that car saying these "F’ing A-holes always get away."

MATTHEWS: Yes.

RAND: He followed Trayvon Martin with a loaded gun and that loaded gun, when he pulled the trigger, the thing that pulled the trigger was his hate in his heart for African-American people.
Rand returned to the initial false claim about the “short time period.” But she also used the new fake fact!

Zimmerman made 46 calls about black men! This proved he had hate in his heart!

Innocent people believe these fake facts, especially when they hear them repeated again and again on TV programs they trust. That said, people watching MSNBC had plenty of chances in recent weeks to hear this newest fake fact. On June 24, it made its debut on the Chris Hayes show as the Zimmerman trial was starting.

One of Hayes’ guests, Maya Wiley, stated the new fake fact to The Puppy. As his channel's scripting required, he had of course been blown away by the prosecution’s greatness:
HAYES (6/24/13): That’s what I thought was so brilliant and effective of the prosecution’s opening line, opening with that line, the reminder of the line from the tapes, infamously, about the judgment that emanated in that moment, in that one moment by George Zimmerman—

WILEY: As a racialized judgment. It wasn’t just the “blanking punks” and— George Zimmerman is a man who called the Sanford Police Department 46 times to say there was some scary black person in the neighborhood. So there’s also—

HAYES: The question here, I think, also is it goes to how the jury is going to process all this. And there is, in jury selection, we know, tremendous racial effects in how, in jury composition, in how juries process this. Particularly because our criminal law justice system is intensely racialized and this case has been from the moment an intensely racialized case.
The Puppy worried about the jury's racial consciousness. As he did, one of his guests stated a blatantly false and “racialized” fake fact.

In the course of the trial, Wiley stated this fake fact on three different MSNBC programs. As a courtesy, we will assume that she even thought it was accurate.

Cobb may have thought it was accurate too! Since when do professors fact-check? At any rate, on July 13, Wiley victimized Melissa Harris-Perry with the inaccurate claim:
WILEY (7/13/13): There are two elements to this. One is stereotypes, which we’re talking about, right? The stereotype of the black kid with a hoodie means he must be dangerous, he must be a criminal. Oh, and I don’t know him and he does not live here, right? The stranger phenomenon.

But the second is that we don’t—we are generally afraid of bad things happening. Because what the science shows—and George Zimmerman has actually expressed this, both of these elements, when he has described what happened. He was generally afraid of crime, and we know he called the police 46 times over a period of six years, always reporting a black man in his neighborhood.
We’re sorry, but that isn’t true, despite what your lizard says.

One day later, Steve Kornacki just sat there and took it. This instance was especially gross because of the presence of Marc Morial, a highly respected senior figure, the current president of the National Urban League.

We’ll drop a bit of the crosstalk. Don’t confuse a possible civil lawsuit (for monetary damages) with a possible federal civil rights prosecution:
KORNACKI (7/14/13): In the case of, you know, George Zimmerman, it strikes me this did not get a lot of play in the trial, but I know the prosecutors introduced as part of the evidence five previous 911 calls that he had made.

WILEY: 46! 46 calls in a six-year period from George Zimmerman claiming a scary black person.

KORNACKI: This is right. And it was—only five were admitted as evidence in the trial.

MORIAL: We’ve seen—

WILEY: But my point is, for brain science—46 calls! I’m not talking about the evidence. I’m talking about George Zimmerman’s implicit bias. 46 calls is a lot of evidence on a social science level.

MORIAL: Oh, sure.

SEEMA IYER: But those calls can be used as, you know, a foundation for the DOJ suit and the other—

KORNACKI: The other thing is, I was asking Ben Crump about this earlier, but the civil—the rules of evidence, if this goes to a civil trial, are more expansive, right? So—

MORIAL: The standard of proof, which is different, which is the significant thing. Not only the rules of evidence, but the standard of proof in a criminal case is obviously much—all elements of the crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case, it’s by preponderance of the evidence. It’s a very different proceeding. And the thing you mentioned, the 911 calls, certainly in a civil case, and I think with an intensive competent investigation by the Department of Justice, I feel that George Zimmerman can be brought up on federal criminal civil rights charges and potentially hate crimes charges.
“I’m not talking about the evidence,” Wiley wonderfully said.

Wiley stated the new fake fact. Before long, Morial was declaring that those 46 calls, all of them about scary black people, could drive federal criminal civil rights charges and potentially hate crimes charges!

Does that include the calls about pot holes? Wiley’s fact was blatantly false, but it was doing big damage.

Morial is a very senior figure, and he’s highly respected. One night later, a ranking professor misinformed Woodruff’s viewers—and things got worse after that!

On July 18, Michel Martin interviewed a highly respected figure on NPR, a highly respected news org. She spoke with John Silvanus Wilson Jr., the new president of Morehouse College.

In our experience, Martin is more inclined than most to correct or challenge errors of fact. In this case, President Wilson’s misstatement managed to walk on by:
MARTIN (7/18/13): Martin Luther King Jr. being an alumnus of Morehouse College. This trial, this whole episode, there are those who would argue that race was not a part of it, but clearly very many other people do believe that race is a part of it, particularly the image of young black men. And because you are in the business of serving and educating, I just wonder if you have some thoughts about that. I mean, clearly there are people who believe that if Trayvon Martin had presented himself in a different way, that this would not have happened. If he had reacted in a different way, this would not have happened. Do you have thoughts about that?

WILSON: He was minding his business. Trayvon was minding his business, headed home. An assumption was made that he was trouble, all right? It is very clear, because Zimmerman had apparently called the police some 46 times, and every single time he was calling about a young African-American male that he saw. It is very clear that race has something to do with this.

I think it's almost absurd to suggest that race had nothing to do with it. It is inconceivable, almost, that he would have called about a young white male, or even a young Hispanic male, walking with Skittles and iced tea, walking home. He would not have made the same assumption about being up to no good. So that assumption is pretty key here, and race had everything to do with that assumption.
Oof. Dr. King’s sacred name was invoked. Then we got our newest fake fact, along with our serving of Skittles.

God bless the children and God bless the adults exposed to relentless false facts! As we've told you for so many years, we live in a culture which runs on fake facts.

We have written about this remarkable matter for many years now. And one fact is plain above all:

Absolutely nobody cares! Paul Krugman won’t complain about this. Kevin Drum won't talk about this; neither will E. J. Dionne. And when our best and our brightest won’t mention this problem, this problem will fester and spread.

George Bush reached the White House thanks to twenty straight months of fake facts delivered by the Whole Group. Even now, the liberal world’s smartest players just keep playing along.

Bill Press is a man we once regarded as a favorite because he didn’t play it that way. Bill’s latest column says this:
PRESS (7/22/13): Zimmerman may not have been guilty of second-degree murder, but he was clearly guilty of manslaughter…The night of Feb. 26, he was told to stay in his car, but he didn’t. He chased Martin down and confronted him, leading to a fight—which, apparently, Zimmerman ended up losing. But that doesn’t necessitate or justify murder.

And why did Zimmerman pursue Martin? Not just because he was young. Not just because he was wearing a hoodie. But because he was young, wearing a hoodie—and he was black. According to police records, before confronting Martin, he’d made at least 46 calls to 911, reporting "suspicious" black males.
Press knows Zimmerman was guilty of manslaughter thanks to a string of fake facts!

We’re sorry, but there are no such “police records.” Nor was there any sign in Zimmerman’s phone call that night that he gave a good goddamn about the hoodie Martin was wearing.

That iconic claim was made up, invented out of this air.

Nor is it true that Zimmerman was told to stay in his car. Bill Press has his facts down cold—and by that, we mean his fake facts.

Tomorrow: Ruminations on the culture and cult of the fake fact

165 comments:

  1. Yeah...this is one of the most damning things I've read all month. Depressing on a number of levels...but not surprising...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. where's deadrat when we really need him...

      ...to explain why none of this deluge of misinformation could possibly have been a significant contributing factor in people's anger over this case?

      Delete
    2. I don't know black Marcus, but it's good to see you're still deriving pleasure lighting strawmen on fire with the name thing.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, keep pretending that's what I said. 'Cause other people's anger is just so amusing. I'm sure they'll lighten up and join in the yuks once they realize they've just been misinformed. George Zimmerman is fat, Trayvon Martin was high on Skittles, and black studies programs are bunk. This stuff practically writes itself! It'll be good laughs all around when they know what we know.

      What's taking them so long, anyway?

      Delete
    4. You know you've got nothing when you can only disagree with DavidinCal.

      Delete
    5. You know you've got less than nothing when you claim my comments are nothing more than disagreements with DAinCA.

      Delete
    6. "when they know what we know."

      "What's taking them so long, anyway?"

      Seriously, deadrat?

      Delete
    7. Note to self: sarcasm is lost on ignoramuses.

      Delete
    8. "pretending that's what I said" IT IS WHAT YOU SAID.

      And you've been a whiny self-defensive prat since.

      "Sarcasm is lost on ignoramuses?" Could as easily have been said about your 3:44 reply. But I don't actually think you're an ignoramus -- you're just too much of a chickenshit to admit what you argues was daft. That's worse.

      Delete
    9. To remind you: you said claiming anger could be largely due to being misinformed was condescending.

      Then you had the nerve to pretend the assertion was a slur against blacks, "particularly," making that up out of whole cloth.

      In other words, you have no sense of humor, you mischaracterize an argument if you're in the wrong, then you admit none of it.

      Delete
    10. Ignoraumuses @ 8:35 and 8:50,

      If you want to tell people why they feel the way they do, that's fine with me. So is telling them how easily misled they are by demagogues. Ditto for insisting that they hold their pitifully-misinformed dialogs for the MLK holiday. But do me a favor and stop pretending that it's not condescending to do so, and spare me your bluster when called on it. And while you're at it, you could also stop claiming that I've accused you or anyone else of making slurs against black people.

      We've now had the minority Zimmerman juror, Maddy, weigh in on her feelings. And she thinks Zimmerman got away with murder and she seems pretty upset about it. But ya know something? You're right. Fuck her and the horse she rode in on. What could she know about the trial or about how she feels about it that we don't know better? It's not even January, so why the hell is she even talking about this?

      Oh, yeah. Re-read my 1:35A comment.

      Delete
    11. deadrat: "I have objected to the condescending attitude that characterizes a community as particularly susceptible to demagogues or that communal anger and distrust is "largely ginned up." Is it so difficult to think that members of the black community might come to their beliefs in the same way as normal, flesh-colored people? By making their own judgments based on their own experiences, however limited, and through their own filters, however faulty? That they're not any more susceptible or more easily goaded because you disagree with them?"

      Of course, that was a lie. You implied I had said the black community was "particularly susceptible," something that never happened, you fucking liar.

      Now you're pretending I'm telling people "why they feel the way they do."

      More of your pathetic fucking lying.

      I said "anger could be largely due to being misinformed." And it could. Obviously. For ANYONE.

      If I think I know facts about something that seems outrageous, I could be very angry about it. That's true of anyone.

      That you think this is controversial or condescending is beginning to seem like just a front, because it makes no sense whatsoever and you have to keep lying and misrepresenting to maintain it.

      As for juror Maddy, what any one person's opinion and feelings has to do with this is also quite mysterious. Where did I say that anyone is WRONG to be upset about anything? Does the fact that believing false "facts" can obviously strongly influence opinions somehow imply that any particular feeling or opinion is wrong? No, of course. But what else is the point of dragging this in as if it rebutted my point?

      Why you're dragging MLK Day into it is another fucking mystery.

      But you go right ahead. On this issue you are hopeless. You end it however you like.

      Delete
    12. Ignoramus @ 3:17P

      Oh, I'm sorry. I think I see part of the problem. You think this is all about you. Well, let me clear that right up. My position on condescension has to do with a number of comments, including those from people who actually have the courtesy to use a nym. The demagogue comment was, I believe, from M Carpenter. MLK day was from someone who decried Obama's comments as inappropriate for the day of an acquittal.

      Now obviously I misunderstood you. In my defense, I was misled for the insults, the accusations, the mind reading, and the SCREAMING. You were just making a neutral but universal sociological point, firmly grounded in how you feel when you know the facts. My bad. I look forward to your extended remarks in the next issue of The American Journal of the Glaringly Obvious.

      But I can go right ahead? End it however I like? Thank you, Captain Condescension, for your kind permission.

      Delete
    13. Now that he admits it (but without admitting his many misrepresentations), it's "glaringly obvious."

      The rest of us knew that, "ignoramus."

      Delete
  2. Have you corrected your error of yesterday pertaining to the 911 callers and the one shot issue?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The only error was in your mind.

      Delete
  3. William Jelani Cobb is an Associate Professor of History and Director of the Institute for African American Studies at University of Connecticut in Storrs, CT. His photo shows him to be a black man. He blogs for the New Yorker, a magazine that used to have a reputation for exceptional fact-checking. These connections make it painful for me to criticize Dr. Cobb. My wife and I donate to U. Conn in memory of a dear cousin of hers who worked there. And, my wife has subscribed to the New Yorker for many years.

    But, my God! The man has a Ph.D. in history. He's supposed to be a trained expert at researching what did and did not happen, even when facts aren't easy to discern. His dreadful performance sharpens some of my prejudices, namely

    1. The once accurate New Yorker can no longer be trusted, as least not in political reporting.

    2. Black studies and women's studies programs are mostly bunk. They are not academic subject. They're all about myth-making and political activism

    3. The subject of History, as now practiced at colleges and universities, has had much of its academic content replaced by myth-making.

    4. Non-sciences in general, as now practiced at colleges and universities, have had much of their academic content replaced by myth-making.

    Evidence of point #4 is the treatment of the notorious Group of 88 at Duke University. These 88 demagogues terrorized the campus, demonizing the falsely accused lacrosse players and wrongly attacking the campus institutions that supposedly caused the lacrosse players to supposedly behave the way they supposedly did. The Group of 88 jumped to conclusions that were contrary to fact. Eventually, the lacrosse players were officially declared innocent by the State Attorney General, not just not guilty, but innocent!. The Group of 88 cost Duke U. a fortune in liability settlements.

    What happened to the 88 lying agitators when their perfidy was apparent? Nothing bad. None were punished. Some received promotions or were recruited to better jobs elsewhere.

    IMHO the reason they were so well treated is that they were following the approved narrative. And, that narrative remained approved even after it had been officially declared to be false.

    In fact, I vaguely recall that a historian who had gotten the narrative right was considered persona non grata by a Group of 88 member who had risen to a position of academic power. His narrative was true in the real world, but it was false in academic circles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems like there's big money now in being a victim.

      Such as this current mayor of San Diego thing. The guy used to make passes at women-- most of whom he knew well-- and now he's accused of "sexually harassing" them. Even if it only happened once.

      Delete
    2. The lacrosse players did invite a stripper (or strippers) to their party, not exactly choirboys, and a bit asking for trouble

      Delete
    3. For what it's worth, Cobb's statements about the 46 calls targeting black men have not appeared in the New Yorker

      Delete
  4. You wonder how much momentum for gun regulation that existed after Newtown was lost by the race hustling lynch mob exploiting this simple case of self defense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clearly NBC/WSJ pollsters should have asked a question on gun control like they did on race relations so the experts in race hustling lynch mobbery could have some data. I bet the
      absence of such information is part of the cover-up.

      Say didn't Newtown happen almost a whole year after the Martin homicide, and almost half a year after the race hustler's had Zimmerman strung up, er I mean charged with an offesnse.

      Delete
    2. The lynching started when Zimmerman defended himself and is ongoing, so no.

      Delete
    3. Lynching and shooting kill people. Last I looked the Mr. Zimmerman is alive and Mr. Martin is dead.

      Delete
    4. Well, that's your problem right there. You're looking at evidence. There's a claim that Trayvon Martin's killing is just like Emmett Till's murder. The only way to maintain a balance of truth in the universe is to claim that George Zimmerman is the victim of of a lynching.

      See how that works?

      No?

      Try hitting yourself in the head with a ball-peen hammer a few times.

      Better now?

      Delete
  5. This Zimmerman call is hilarious:

    19. Aug. 21, 2009 – 6:57 p.m.
    Type: TEL
    Subject: Conflict
    Report: “Landlord is trying to take [Zimmerman’s] money for rent … and home in foreclosure”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At least he never called to complain about the lack of queso on his quarter pounder with cheese.

      You wonder if, in his fixation with how whacko the press (at least Bill Press is real press) has been with this phoney phact oe'r phoning, Mr. Bob Somerby has noticed that Mr. Zimmerman has, to put it mildly, a fixation with wrong doing by others.

      Delete
    2. Unless you've had a home in foreclosure and live in a degenerating neighborhood becoming worse because of thuggery. With the two conditions possibly related. Then he's just rational.

      Delete
    3. Um. If the place you rent is in foreclosure it's often a good idea to pay rent to the bank instead of the landlord.

      http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39404
      http://www.kleinfirm.com/homepage-content/home/a-florida-tenants-guide-to-foreclosure.html

      You seem to have a weird thought process where you up and assume he just like was tattling to the po-po about how his landlord was in foreclosure...instead of, you know, trying to protect himself given that foreclosure usually wipes out your lease, the landlord often walks away with the security deposit and last month's rent, etc.

      Delete
  6. Great work on this topic.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I especially like this one.


    13. Nov. 25, 2007 – 12:40 a.m.
    Type: TEL
    Subject: Disturbance
    Report: “Ex roommate is letting people that [Zimmerman] don’t like in the” house

    I think one thing we can all agree on, this guy is quite a colossal dick.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous of 1:41 PM? Oh my, yes!

      We all agree, Anonymous of 1:41 PM is a colossal dick.

      Delete
    2. I would rate him "borderline wanker at times". You just dilute colossal dick when you throw it around carelessly.

      Delete
    3. Agreed Anon. at 2:33. The right to call your local law enforcement constabulary over
      unwanted friends of roommates is a right second only to the Second itself.

      That is why we must prove the punk who didn't go into his Daddy's lady's crib must have been a thug to call a law abiding stalker a creepy cracker for following him around in a car and on foot in the dark and rain. We all know it was the pothead himself who was suspicious for being out in the rain.

      Delete
    4. 2:42, "We all know" that you're addicted to making shit up.

      Making up that people who mock your idiocy therefore have some sort of absurd ranking of rights? Yup.

      Making up that people who realize you're a fool must then regard Martin as a thug? Mm-hmm.

      Yes, you have a need to make shit up. Fine.

      But what could help you break this habit?

      Delete
    5. It's almost 1am, it's not a great neighborhood, and people he doesn't know/like are being let into his home. This makes him a wanker?

      Delete
    6. Well, Marcus, if he had been properly equipped with a Second Amendment self protection device at this time in his life, he would have had no need to burden local law enforcement with his personal problems. He could have defended his own damn castle against unwanted intrusion by ex-roomie and friends all by his own self. With all the legal protection a free American gun owner ever needs.

      Delete
    7. What's wrong with that? You think people should be permitted to come into your home against your wishes?

      Delete
    8. I would be calling about the ex-roommate being back at all. What's the ex-roommate doing coming back? Dude, you moved out, go home.

      Delete
  8. If the pattern of behavior indicated by the Zimmerman calls suggests anything, it's that Zimmerman far preferred to let the proper authorities intervene in conflict situations rather than take the law into his own hands. Also, that he was a 'helper' who actively tried to make his neighborhood cleaner, safer, more comfortable.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you are looking for patterns it reveals the opposite. It shows him increasingly interested in suspicious black males. And his comments in the final 911 call and in his interview with Detective Serino after the homicide display a frustration with the results he had obtained by calling authorities. Which might explain why, for the first time, he felt the need to follow the suspect on his own, even in the dark and rain. Of course this time the suspect was young, skinny, and for once, alone. And, of course this time George was armed. But that's just speculation, which is a tad lower on the accuracy totem pole than is character analysis of someone based on phone call history. Other might'ds might seem the same pattern and say he is addicted to calling authorities at a rate most might find a bit aberrant if they had not wedded themself to the myth of Zimmerman the victim.

      Delete
    2. Allegedly, there had been rash of burglaries in his neighborhood committed by young black men. Not saying his frequent calling is 100% justified, but not necessarily crazy or indicative of racism either.

      Delete
    3. "If you are looking for patterns it reveals the opposite. It shows him increasingly interested in suspicious black males."

      This could surely have nothing to do with the fact virtually all of the burglars were black males.

      "Other might'ds might seem the same pattern and say he is addicted to calling authorities at a rate most might find a bit aberrant if they had not wedded themself to the myth of Zimmerman the victim."

      He made 46 calls over a period of about 7 1/2 years. That's about 6 calls per year. That is nothing.

      Delete
  9. Two points should be added to Anonymous's posts ab out the Zimmerman calls.

    1. The link is apparently http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/22/george-zimmerman-s-history-of-911-calls-a-complete-log.html

    2. What's posted is not what Zimmerman said. It's the very brief summary that the person at the other end wrote down. E.g., from the post above we can't tell how serious the reported disturbance was.

    ReplyDelete
  10. FINALLY....something has supplanted Campaign 2000. The analysts never thought they'd see the day!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it would be much better for this little blog to stop picking on poor PBS, FOX, MSNBC, and NYT as they however go on and continue to "cover" this story with misinformation.

      My god, don't you understand that the comment box will allow you to select something other than "Confused?" By this point "Douchebag" would be much more apropos for you.

      Delete
    2. Nice retort, Bob. Only you know The Truth. One can only come to it through you.

      Anyway, Zimmrrman was acquitted. Dont be such a sore winner.

      Delete
    3. Right!

      The case is over, so let the misstatements continue!

      Not to let them is being a sore winner.

      Clue hammer: Somerby didn't win -- he lost. He wasn't on trial, but he's been trying to correct a world of misstatement. It hasn't been worked.

      Pretending Somerby's efforts have been about the verdict and not the coverage, Sad Confused wants Somerby to give it up and let the liars alone. Whatta crybaby.

      Delete
  11. George Zimmerman rescue story:

    Apparently he heard about an accident about a mile from his place
    on a police scanner and went out there. He basically took someone's hand as they got out of the vehicle, and that was it. Nobody was hurt.

    Sounds to me like Zimmerman's attorney is trying to play PR guy.

    The family was going to go on ABC television, but backed out.

    Funny how Zimmerman was supposed to be SO out of shape when he was working out 3 times a week for 3 hours a session ... but you add 120 pounds and take away the exercise and suddenly he's "Superman".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 2:02 PM -- Does the word "apparently" mean that you're making this up? If you have actual facts, I'd be interested in knowing them.

      Delete
    2. Good lord they're off the deep end. I'm embarrassed for you, 2:02

      Delete
    3. What's important is keeping up the MINUTE OF HATE (for however many minutes/days/months) against Zimmerman, no matter how often the MINUTE OF HATE is exposed as being based on a pack of lies.

      There will always be a new reason for those who've decided to join the MINUTE OF HATE to continue it. They can forgive any lie, any "mistake," if it was all for the good cause of hating the chosen goat, Zimmerman.

      The MINUTE OF HATE is definitely giving some needed meaning to the lives of some very sad little people.

      Delete
    4. You know, it is possible to believe Zimmerman should pay for his actions without meaning that you hate him. Dude fucked up.

      Delete
    5. "pay for his actions"

      Pay for self-defense? Pay for *what* actions, exactly, 4:04?

      Delete
    6. Anon 9:11, the jury didn't find that Z killed M in self-defense; they found that the State didn't prove the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a major distinction. Unless you were there an eye witness, you might say that from what you've heard, it appears likely he killed in self defense, but you can't validly say that the killing was in fact in self-defense

      Delete
    7. AC /MA -- I didn't say it was a jury finding, so you're the distraction... Again, pay for *what* actions exactly?

      Delete
    8. Pay for being a reckless chickenshit dumbfuck who had no business following this kid around with a loaded weapon. Neighborhood watch are taught, make the call and wait for the police. The reason being it's dangerous. He knew that but he followed anyway. We know what was in his state of mind. He didn't want to let the "fucking punk" get away. Even if you take everything he said at face value, he is totally unfit to be out there on neighborhood watch. Why didn't he identify himself when Martin passed by his car? He wuz scared.

      Singleton: Um, I still, I still don’t understand, when he walked up to your car, why didn’t you say anything to him?
      Zimmerman: I guess fear. I didn’t want to confront him. He seemed…
      Singleton: You were afraid of him?
      Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.


      When Martin asks him why he is following, what is his explanation.

      Singleton: Did you at that time, ever say to him, I’m Neighborhood Watch?
      Zimmerman: No.
      Singleton: Did it not occur to you?
      Zimmerman: I was, no, I was, said I don’t have a problem. And I started backing away from him.
      Singleton: But you kinda did have a problem. That’s why you were following him, right? You had a concern with him.
      Zimmerman: I was scared.
      Serino: But did you, did you…
      Singleton: You were scared to tell him you had a concern? That you were Neighborhood Watch? You were afraid to tell him that?
      Zimmerman: Ah, yes, ma’am.
      Singleton: I’m not trying to put on the spot but these are the questions people are going to ask us, so we’re gonna have to give them an answer.
      Zimmerman: No, I understand. I…was scared…

      He wuz afwaid. Well then dumbfuck, wait for the professionals.

      Scared little wanna be hero, walking around with a loaded gun, too frightened to even identify himself or talk to a stranger at 7 oclock in the evening.

      His actions caused this tragedy. You want to be Kojak with your concealed 9mm. Well than you have some responsibility for the consequences of your actions.


      Is that clear enough? And no, I'm not buying his self-defense explanation. You may want to swallow that crock of horseshit, but I don't have to.

      Delete
    9. "Is that clear enough?"

      No.

      And it's not clear that you have anything but a desire to make new law that would effectively end the right to self-defense.

      Because if all you have is "walking around with a loaded gun" should be something people "have to pay for" -- you've got nothing.

      Delete
    10. "Pay for being a reckless chickenshit dumbfuck who had no business following this kid around with a loaded weapon."

      I guess he payed well enough by that innocent little skinny 5'11 year old who decided to call his friend on the phone- not the police, not going to any of the houses on all sides for help, or go to his own damn house- who decided to double back and attack him.

      I agree he likely should have removed as a neighborhood watch captain, but sorry, I don't think little baby Trayvon was all too threatened by an overweight hispanic pushing 30 and 4 inches shorter than him. He quickly outran him and the whole thing went on for 4 minutes.

      "Is that clear enough? And no, I'm not buying his self-defense explanation. You may want to swallow that crock of horseshit, but I don't have to."

      Good, and you can believe all the other media lies, like the one perfectly outlined and destroy on this page that led you to your zealous commitment to sweet little Tray Tray, asshole.

      Delete



  12. It appears that there's more ... or, rather, less ... to this story than was first reported.

    'Officer Patrick Rehder phone records show he tipped off George Zimmerman + source says Zimmerman "has a police scanner to listen in to any nasty accidents near him in need of a super hero".. Accident was real. The rest was staged!'

    Further, it doesn't appear that the family was short of rescuers before George appeared on the scene. Why were their names not mentioned?

    'There were plenty of people driving by who witnessed the accident, and stopped to help the family out of the vehicle, BEFORE Zimmerman showed up, according to the 911 calls, but no ‘thank you’ press conference mentioning anyone else by name specifically was scheduled by the family.'

    Things that make you go "hmmmmm".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hmmm some passersby helped us out of our car.

      hmmm,now media trucks are camped out in our front yard because one of them was George Zimmerman, the object of the media's obsession today.

      hmmm, let's release a statement so they will go away.

      hmmm, let's not because the lynch mob is batshit insane and might kill us.

      Delete
    2. "Apparently"..."It appears"...

      How about some links?

      Delete
    3. He didn't say it was a fact. You don't need a link when it is only something which makes you go hmmm. Besides, last time I followed a link from these Trayvon X - Geroge Z threads I learned how to make Purple Drank and I've been hallucinating my MMA throwdown moves against imaginary Black White Peruvian
      crackers ever since.

      rick

      Delete
    4. Zimmerman showed up AFTER he was called by a SCSO member according to a report at News Ball.com, Zimmerman then got out of his car with a fire extinguisher, and apparently left without doing anything especially heroic. You can hear the course of events here in the 911 calls; many people who were there as the accident happened stopped to get people out, and the fire and smoke problem from the calls, appeared some time after they were out of the car. As you can hear from the calls, people were out before there was a smoke or fire problem; Zimmerman did not appear to risk his life to pull anyone out of a burning car, as was claimed. :

      http://youtu.be/qD35RgOoy34

      Delete
    5. In fairness it did made me go hmm.

      "hmmm, how does someone lose their grip on reality like that?"

      Delete
    6. "hmmm, how does someone lose their grip on reality like that?"

      Exactly. The source of the claims that he was tipped off and had a police scanner are from a shady, anonymous blog called Newsball- who openly offer rewards for the jurors, and who excuse any harm that comes their way on the "butterfly effect". They also claim they somehow forgot to save the evidence provided by their source. And their source hasn't come forward ever since then. Just look at their comments and other remarks in the comments section of that post- they're sick, dishonest people who can't be trusted.

      The other is from a blog entry on http://ivn.us, which almost entirely sources Newsball, but claims things not even THEY claimed, such as that Zimmerman was NEVER there, with NO evidence (oh, and a comment from the officer on the scene from April of this year). Nor does the 911 audio tape claim any of that.

      But over 40k people "liked" that IVN.us post, which had virtually no evidence. It's not only maddening how this was allowed to proliferate, but so few have done anything to stand against it. Literally people buying hook line and sinker the baseless accusations of some sick assholes on an anonymous blog and some charlatan on another who cites them and claims even more extreme things with no evidence. It's remarkable how people can look at the pictures of that family and think they're in on this and afraid of being exposed, not that they're afraid of repercussions- well, not really, Trayvonites ignoring the sick, mob justice mentality among so many of their supporters is nothing new.

      And I just love the whole "OH SO ZIMMERMAN WAS ABLE TO HELP A FAMILY OUT OF A VEHICHLE BUT COULDN'T BEAT 17 YEAR OLD"- I'm sorry, but being able to help some people out of a vehicle- 2 of whom were small children, and someone else was on the scene helped- is different form pushing someone 4 inches taller off you in a fight. Not to mention the claims it was a burning car wreck were purely media reports.

      Delete
  13. Paranoia is colorblind.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Pssh, Zimmerman only called about those potholes because he saw them as dark spots on the street.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Brilliant work on the case, Bob.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "But in those data as they exist, exactly seven of the 46 calls are known to have involved black people."

    "People" That's cute Bob.

    Are you including the 7-9 year old black child that Zimmerman reported acting suspiciously?

    36. April 22, 2011 – 7:09 p.m.
    Type: TEL
    Subject: Suspicious activity
    Report: Juvenile black male “apprx 7–9” years old, four feet tall “skinny build short blk hair” last seen wearing a blue t-shirt and blue shorts

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon @ 2:48

      Don't blame Zimmerman for the dispatcher calling the call "suspicious activity." This is the call where he saw the child playing unupervised by a busy street.

      Of course super-hero-car-wreck rescuer George did not stop himself to protect the child himself on this occasion. If George had done so and some packing passerby had spotted his 9MM in the waistband they might have mistaken the chubby, swarthy good samaritan for a kidnapper, introduced him to Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson, then claimed to be standing their ground and preventing what was obviously a felony abduction of a black child by a White Hispanic.

      Delete
    2. You do realize you don't know what the suspicious activity that Zimmerman reported was, right? And regardless, how does that change Bob's point?

      Delete
    3. Ah, nevermind, I see Dave in Cal (of all people!) completely debunked this in the next comment.

      Delete
    4. "Don't blame Zimmerman for the dispatcher calling the call "suspicious activity." This is the call where he saw the child playing unupervised by a busy street."

      Yes, that's exactly why he called- he was concerned over being unattended and worried for his safety. But that's been passed around as "HE DID IT FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN BEING AN EVIL PARANOID". Do you deny that?

      But what the fuck do you try doing? Even knowing the fact of the matter, you try to pin it on him still for not helping, and think he would have somehow acted overzelously and gone out with a gun. Fucking amazing- I thought the lie he profiled a little black boy was one of the most disgusting lies about him, but even you assholes still find a way to twist that to make him look bad. Incredible.

      Delete
  17. The New Republic printed a full correction of their Zimmerman reporting:

    This article has been corrected. Zimmerman called various law enforcement officials 46 times, not just 911, as originally stated. He made the calls over an eight-year period, not over the course of 15 months, as originally stated. The original sentence also cited a call Zimmerman made about a seven-year-old boy; the clause has been removed as it implied that Zimmerman was reporting suspicious activity. It appears that Zimmerman made the call out of concern. We regret the errors.

    Note that AnonymousJuly 26, 2013 at 2:48 PM made one of the errors that the New Republic just corrected

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. Still learning a lot about this case, and each new piece of information corrects wrong and negative information I thought I knew about Zimmerman.

      Delete
    2. "We regret the errors."

      My dollar says that Anonymous of 2:48 PM does not regret the errors.

      Rather, he or she revels in them.

      Delete
  18. I'm offended by the use of "lizard" as a pejorative, as in "lizard brain." May I point out, sir, that lizards do not organize lynch mobs, literal or figurative, and do not make up facts about other lizards, in order to gin up hate. There is no lizard equivalent of Sean Hannity or Al Sharpton.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sean Hannity and Al Sharpton: Snakes in the grass.

      Delete
  19. There's a nice list of the summaries of Z's calls to the police, all translated into normal English, at http://www.thefacultylounge.org/2013/07/what-do-zimmermans-calls-to-police-show-about-his-view-of-black-men-.html

    Just scroll down.

    ReplyDelete
  20. It's ironic that many commentors here -across many posts- vehemently decry the demonizing of Zimmerman then turn right around and demonize Martin.
    It would be amusing except that Martin is dead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Martin was a violent criminal who caused his own death, and caused another person to live with killing him, to stand trial, and to be put through 16 months of stress and curfews over a pending trial. They aren't equally deserving of demonization so far as the incident they both were involved in goes.

      Delete
    2. Well Anon 3:38 it didn't take long for Anon @4:10 to prove your point.

      I am sure some people legitimately think Zimmerman has been victimized by the egregious errors that come when the media covers anything in this country.

      Others, however, are taking Zimmerman's side just because of who took Martin's side and the ideology represented in their line of attack on either the police or Zimmerman.

      For the former it is necessary to demonstrate Zimmerman's lack of guilt in the charges. For both it is necessary to establish his innocence. For the latter, it is necessary to prove both Trayvon and those seeking justice for him were/are guilty and had/have it coming.

      The charge that Martin was a violent criminal
      is exactly the charge that police levied against Zimmerman when, earlier in his youth he came to the rescue of a friend he thought was being attacked by an unknown assailant when in fact the friend was in fact being arrested by an undercover cop. Except in the latter case we know both sides of the story because nobody was killed.

      Delete
    3. You're right - neither should be demonized.

      Delete
    4. Anon. @4:10P,
      QED.
      "Martin was a violent criminal...".
      What violent crime (or any other crime) had he previously been charged with?

      Delete
    5. He caused his own death before he was charged of the crimes he committed that night or finished committing.

      Delete
    6. The fact that he had no charges on the record for fighting and stealing was a function of bureaucratic reclassification for the purpose of presenting favorable crime statistics.

      http://www.amren.com/news/2013/07/how-a-miami-school-crime-cover-up-policy-led-to-trayvon-martins-death/

      Delete
    7. Anon. @ 5:12P,
      I read the story you linked to. It mentions graffiti, possession of stolen property, possession of burglary tools and having trace amounts of pot. No mention of fighting in the story. Why the need to embellish?
      I guess to show him not only as a criminal but as a violent criminal.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous @ 5:12P,

      It's not that I'd put bureaucratic finagling past public school officials, but I'd rather wait to hear from a source other than American Renaissance. Call me crazy, but I like my information not filtered through sites run by white supremacists who think that black people are genetically less intelligent than white people. As always, YMMV.

      Delete
    9. There are numerous texts on his cell phone and facebook about fighting and other illegal activity such as purchase or sale of guns

      Delete
    10. Zimmerman's brother indicates the information will become available in the event of a civil suit

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/26/george-zimmerman-civil-lawsuit_n_3659826.html?ref=topbar

      Delete
  21. "The charge that Martin was a violent criminal
    is exactly the charge that police levied against Zimmerman when, earlier in his youth he came to the rescue of a friend he thought was being attacked by an unknown assailant when in fact the friend was in fact being arrested by an undercover cop."

    Not even close. Martin is the equivalent to the "unknown assailant" in your example. He wasn't defending anyone including himself, since he had 4 minutes to find something else to do. Try again.

    One person, not two, behaved like a violent thug in the Zimmerman incident and committed brutal crimes for which he would have likely been convicted had he lived.

    Nobody knows how Trayvon Martin would have turned out but at the time of his death he was a violent thug as evidenced by his behavior that night, and he as well as whoever encouraged him in this direction are to blame.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...and he as well as whoever encouraged him in this direction are to blame".
      I could be wrong but, it sounds like the demonizing of Martin's parents will begin in 3,2,1...

      Delete
    2. Anonymous @ 4:52P,

      One of the reasons that Zimmerman was charged is that he killed the only other eyewitness to their fight, leaving his self-interested story as the only one available. That never meant that he was lying, of course. Your testimony that Martin, a violent thug, brutally attacked Zimmerman without the slightest basis for a claim of self-defense would have been invaluable to the defense and might have derailed the indictment altogether.

      One an only wonder why you chose not to do the right thing and alert the defense instead of posting your commentary here.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous @ 5:16P,

      The "Reverend" Bill Keller has already been there. Forgive me for not giving the link to the video of the interview.

      Delete
    4. The defense didn't need it. They had a clock that ran for four long minutes in the middle of their closing.

      Delete
    5. "One person, not two, behaved like a violent thug in the Zimmerman incident and committed brutal crimes for which he would have likely been convicted had he lived."

      Nah. You have no earthly idea who made the first move, and either did the jury. They had only George Zimmerman's (self interested) statements, and he stood on his right not to testify (which he may do, of course) so he was never cross examined.
      The fact is you don't know that Martin struck Zimmerman unprovoked. The only living person who knows that is George Zimmerman.
      I think Zimmerman is lying about the sequence and nature of the events, based on the interviews with police, his media appearance, his injuries, and the complete lack of physical evidence on Martin's hands.
      He has a bit of a history of claiming he was "attacked first" when he's involved in altercations. He's used it now three times.

      Delete
    6. Nothing else explains the 4 minutes quite as plausibly as an unprovoked attack by a pissed off, unafraid Martin.

      Delete
    7. Anon 9:01, you weren't there, I assume, so you don't know what happened. It doesn't appear that you are familiar with the concept of "objectivity."

      Delete
    8. Anon 9:01 has mentioned the "4 minutes" I would guess quite literally over a dozen times now in the last couple of weeks. It's almost like he has a slight obsession with it -- a little bit of a neurotic tic. He obviously thinks it's a trump card, thinks it vanquishes all liberal foes, thinks it solves the case beyond all question. He thinks that if Martin either doubled back or stopped short of his house, then that is 100% undeniable proof that Martin is guilty of assault with zero provocation. But of course that fact, by itself, is proof of nothing . . . except that Martin either doubled back or stopped short. Period. It doesn't prove Martin made the first move in the physical altercation. Nor does it rule out the possibility that Martin, morally outraged (as Anonymous 9:01 would undoubtedly be if an unfamiliar black man in an unmarked car followed him around at night, then got out to pursue him on foot, never identifying himself or explaining himself), originally doubled back to merely VERBALLY confront his pursuer, ask him what the fuck his problem was (as Anonymous 9:01 would WANT to ask his hypothetical black pursuer, but wouldn't have the balls to do since he's probably not as young, athletic, and confident with his fighting skills as Martin was), but when his pursuer, upon being verbally confronted, began searching for something on his person (as Zimmerman states he did in his video reenactment), Martin thought he might be searching for a weapon and therefore went on the attack. Or maybe the reason Martin doubled back was because he was curious to see what the guy was doing, how far he would continue his pursuit; if some stranger had followed you at night, wouldn't you be curious to see what the person did after he could no longer see you? Maybe Martin was worried the man might see which home he went into and could then make trouble not only for Martin but his little brother as well. By itself, the fact that Martin had plenty of time to get to his home and avoid a confrontation, does not prove assault with zero provocation. So you can keep mentioning it, but it's not the trump card you apparently think it is. (Although to be honest, it would seem to rule out any presumption that Martin was terrified and was just trying to get away from his pursuer; and it at least opens up the POSSIBILITY that he doubled back to attack Zimmerman. But in no way does it PROVE that, or even make that the most plausible possibility.)

      Delete
    9. And by the way. You guys who go on and on about the poor decision making of Martin because he apparently doubled back instead of going home . . . you are the same hypocritical ones who defend Zimmerman's "right" to follow Martin and go wherever he pleases in his neighborhood, whenever anyone tries to bring up Zimmerman's possible poor decision making. Just as Zimmerman technically had the "right" to do what he did (only in a technical legal sense, and not according to many people's concept of "right"), Martin had the right to do what he did (short of his POSSIBLY unprovoked attack). He had no obligation to just run straight home. Once again, you guys are quick to defend the rights (and possible poor judgment) of the "white" guy but not those of the black guy.

      Delete
    10. Martin has a right to double back but his defenders don't have a right to continue to claim that he was a "frightened teen trying to walk home from the store." Without being laughed at.

      Delete
    11. " but when his pursuer, upon being verbally confronted, began searching for something on his person (as Zimmerman states he did in his video reenactment),"

      You write a very long comment about not believing Zimmerman's story described what happened, but you pick the one detail you like and run with it as proof of your tale that is completely unsupported by facts or logic.

      Delete
    12. "...don't have a right to continue to claim that he was a 'frightened teen trying to walk home from the store.'"

      Martin was quite obviously a "teen trying to walk home from the store." Was he frightened? It's more likely than not that he WAS frightened, just not very much -- or at least not so much that his fear overwhelmed his sense of moral outrage. Common sense would dictate that he more likely than not felt at least some measure of fear at various points during the incident. Plus, HE DID RUN AWAY at one point -- but then apparently had a change of heart. Martin was (justifiably) outraged by what most likely appeared to him to be a stranger's predatory behavior directed at him (as most of us would be). But that doesn't mean he didn't also feel some measure of fear. It is not contradictory to say that he was outraged but also fearful to some degree.

      "You write a very long comment about not believing Zimmerman's story" -- actually, my comment assumes Z's story is true for the most part. The only part of his story it does not take for granted is the start of the physical confrontation -- and even then, in one of the possible scenarios I describe, I assume what Zimmerman says in his reenactment is true -- namely, that M walked up to him, asked him if he had a problem, Z started searching for his phone, and M then attacked him. Generally, where there is no reason to doubt a HIGHLY interested party's version of events, I see no reason to doubt it. But at those points in the story where such a party would be extremely motivated to embellish and all we have to go on is that party's word, then I think it's wise to take their claims with a grain of salt. Zimmerman would have no real reason to lie about searching for his phone when Martin verbally confronts him. In fact, he would have good reason NOT to include that detail in his story, since his reaching for his phone could have been interpreted by Martin as reaching for a weapon and could be seen as justification for Martin's attack. So I think it's much more likely than not that he searched for his phone as he claims in the video.


      Delete
    13. "You write a very long comment about not believing Zimmerman's story..., but you pick the one detail you like and run with it as proof of your tale"

      And you apparently want to believe every word a HIGHLY interested party says, EXCEPT for the one detail you DISlike because it tends to DISprove your tale that Martin's attack had absolutely no provocation/justification.

      Delete
    14. "but when his pursuer, upon being verbally confronted, began searching for something on his person (as Zimmerman states he did in his video reenactment), Martin thought he might be searching for a weapon and therefore went on the attack. Or maybe the reason Martin doubled back was because he was curious to see what the guy was doing, how far he would continue his pursuit; if some stranger had followed you at night, wouldn't you be curious to see what the person did after he could no longer see you?"

      Yeah, but I wouldn't go up and confront them out in the open. Are you for real?

      "Maybe Martin was worried the man might see which home he went into and could then make trouble not only for Martin but his little brother as well."

      I sincerely doubt he was, since he could have done something like, oh, I don't know, call his house or the police. But he didn't, he called Rachel Jeantel multiple times. And it's not like he had to go to his house for safety- he could have gone up to someone else's. Granted, they wouldn't necessarily be open to that, but there's also the simple fact Trayvon, being younger, skinnier, and taller could have easily outrun Zimmerman. He didn't have to even go to any houses for safety. He could have just gone a long enough distance and called the police. But he didn't.

      " you are the same hypocritical ones who defend Zimmerman's "right" to follow Martin and go wherever he pleases in his neighborhood, whenever anyone tries to bring up Zimmerman's possible poor decision making. Just as Zimmerman technically had the "right" to do what he did (only in a technical legal sense, and not according to many people's concept of "right"), Martin had the right to do what he did (short of his POSSIBLY unprovoked attack). He had no obligation to just run straight home. Once again, you guys are quick to defend the rights (and possible poor judgment) of the "white" guy but not those of the black guy."

      I'm not one of those people; both were in the wrong for what they did even beyond whoever directly initiated the physical altercation. But I love how you keep weaseling in racial accusations.

      "But at those points in the story where such a party would be extremely motivated to embellish and all we have to go on is that party's word, then I think it's wise to take their claims with a grain of salt."

      Yes, and Trayvon Martin's parents and Al Sharpton and Benjamin Crump and Jesse Jackson and others wouldn't at all have a motivation to embellish things to make Trayvon seem more innocent, especially when they made the fantasy of "trayvon was hunted and chased down, fearful for his life" to be a central part of their story from the outset. You're absolutely right Trayvon doubling back doesn't flat out prove he was the aggressor at all, but it's still worth noting your slip ups and your motives- for all your emphasis (with mewling racism accusations) that anyone would be outraged over being followed, you don't seem to really consider how reckless and aberrant it is for someone to back and confront who was following them, except with the feeble excuse "he was worried he might found out where he lived and might hurt his little brother" even though he didn't exhibit much worry at all when he called Rachel Jeantel instead of the police or his house, or just, you know, didn't go to his house and went somewhere else. And oh yes, yes I know, Zimmerman was very reckless himself, since he was technically endangering himself the entire time from a basic standpoint, but you're doing a lot to downplay that Trayvon's behavior was anything short of reckless himself.

      Delete
    15. I should have said "go and confront them out in the open unarmed" in my first sentence.

      Delete
    16. And watching his reenactment where he claims he looked down to reach for the cellphone, that's all he said- he looked down to reach for it.

      Delete
    17. I'll admit you bring up a good point about what he did could be interpreted as going for a weapon, but at the same time, you're very exempting of how irrational Trayvon actually was- he was being followed by someone who, according to virtually all evidence, including Rachel Jeantel, the timeframe and their simple physical differences, wasn't running after him. There was a sizable span of time where they didn't see eachother, and Zimmerman didn't go especially far down the T-section to Trayvon's house. Trayvon, instead of calling his house, the police, going to someone else's house or just running as far away as possible called up his friend twice and went back. He went back to confront someone who he perceived as stalking him UNARMED without calling the police or his house. While Zimmerman could have easily made a motion indicating a weapon, I don't think that really factored into Trayvon's reason for attacking him, and if he would have really cared if Zimmerman announced himself. He wasn't exhibiting any sane judgement by confronting someone unarmed like he did. So I honestly don't think Zimmerman was legally guilt of anything even then even if he made some kind of motion. While Zimmerman was extremely overzealous and reckless, so was Trayvon. If Zimmerman ended up dead or both somehow survived, but Trayvon with horrible injuries, how do you think Trayvon's defense would look?

      Delete
    18. I thought about it, and I think Zimmerman could have been just as justified in wanting to go for a weapon. He didn't know what Trayvon was going to do and had just as much reason to fear him at that point, I'd say; and going by that Singleton interview someone posted here, he became fearful when he saw Trayvon, which is why he didn't bother to announce him. It would have been illegal for him to point a gun at Trayvon, but he'd be just as much in the right to, say, go for his pocket (or in his jacket) for a gun and announce he had one, or even partially reveal it.

      Delete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think this is really the worst fake fact (other than the "warning" gunshot), even more than the "he was ordered to stay in his vehicle".

    It's so obviously bogus and disproved too. If there were 46 calls profiling black men, why did the prosecution only use 6 in trial? It's really the only "proof" that Zimmerman acted out of racial malice, which is the necessary premise to turn Zimmerman into a criminal.

    This highly cited Washington Post article makes the same 'error', and as far as I can tell was never corrected either.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Nor was there any sign in Zimmerman’s phone call that night that he gave a good goddamn about the hoodie Martin was wearing."

    Well, the hoodie is mentioned in the Daily Beast description of phone call #45.

    Verbatim from the Daily Beast: Report: Black male “late teens lsw dark gray hoodie jeans or sweatpants walking around area” … “subj now running towards back entrance of complex”

    Perhaps Zimmerman didn't care whether Martin was wearing a hoodie, but he must have conveyed the term hoodie to the 911 responder.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps the 911 operator asked for a description of the clothing?

      Delete
    2. We know that Z mentioned M's race only after the responder asked him what the suspicious person's race was (and Z wasn't totally sure.) Did Z mention the hoodie only after the responder asked how the suspicious person was dressed?

      BTW I don't think Z was talking to a 911 responder at that point. I think the 911 responder was for emergencies.

      Delete
    3. Not to be too picky but it wasn't a 911 call or emergency number that he called.

      It was a non-emergency police #.

      Delete
    4. David in Cal writes:

      >>>>>Did Z mention the hoodie only after the responder asked how the suspicious person was dressed?<<<<<

      Huh? Was this intended as some sort of verbal jujutsu move that never got completed?

      Surely David and most everyone else who's been arguing about the shooting in these threads knows their way to one of the many webpages where you can find the audio and a transcript of that endlessly referred to "non-emergency" call and, by now, knows what was actually said during it.

      For anyone who still needs a link to all that, click on the "Zimmerman's call" tab here.

      *************
      Dispatcher: Sanford police department, line is being recorded. This is Sean.

      Zimmerman: Hey, we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there's a real suspicious guy. It's Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. 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: This guy, is he white, black or Hispanic?

      Zimmerman: He looks black.

      Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?

      Zimmerman: Yeah, a dark hoodie, like a gray hoodie. And either jeans or sweatpants and white tennis shoes....
      *************

      Delete
    5. CMike - what the hell are you trying to say? The original poster tried to make it seem like Zimmerman was profiling TM based on a suspicious hoodie, while myself, DinC, and others pointed out that the hoodie was only mentioned based on the dispatcher's prodding.

      Delete
    6. Marcus, you said in the form of a question, though we're not playing Jeopardy :

      >>>>>Perhaps the 911 operator asked for a description of the clothing?<<<<<

      DinC may have been pointing something out but he too did it in the form of a question:

      >>>>>Did Z mention the hoodie only after the responder asked how the suspicious person was dressed?<<<<<

      In the future you might want to make your point in this matter by saying, with a period at the end:

      >>>>>It was the 911 operator who asked for a description of the clothing, not George Zimmerman who volunteered that information.<<<<<

      Or better yet:

      >>>>>From the transcript we know it was the dispatcher who asked, and I quote, "Did you see what he was wearing?"



      Delete
  25. Bob Somerby is chasing DiMaggio’s streak!

    FRIDAY, JULY 26, 2013

    In 1941, Joe DiMaggio hit safely in 56 consecutive games.

    Bob Somerby is chasing him down. Today, The Daily Howler's Ahab-like checker of facts extended his own current streak.

    Somerby went 1-for-1; 1 blog post, 1 factcheck against liberals. This extends his hitting streak against liberals.

    Long ago, Somerby took his hacks against both major parties. Now, he’s being platooned. He only goes to the plate against the nation’s lefties.

    The wages of his refusal to fight!

    Each night, on The Only-Honest-Blogger-Left-In-The-World Channel, the non-millionaire Somerby keeps forgetting to fight.

    When one team refuses to fight, the other team wins. It wins against Obamacare; it wins in its peddling of pseudo-scandals like the IRS "scandal"; it wins against immigration reform; will it win in 2014? Stay tune!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somerby is after truth, and for me that is wonderful.

      Delete
    2. Please. You make it seem like ANY truth is equally as worthy of pursuing as any other, for any length of time, no matter the larger picture. What if all Somerby ever did were go "after truth" about his neighbors' sex lives? Would you still think that was "wonderful"?...because after all he would still be "after truth." Just because someone is "after truth" doesn't automatically mean it's the best use of their time and skill -- it depends on a zillion other factors.

      Delete
    3. Mike L writes:

      >>>>>...Long ago, Somerby took his hacks against both major parties. Now, he’s being platooned. He only goes to the plate against the nation’s lefties.

      The wages of his refusal to fight!

      Each night, on The Only-Honest-Blogger-Left-In-The-World Channel, the non-millionaire Somerby keeps forgetting to fight.

      When one team refuses to fight, the other team wins. It wins against Obamacare; it wins in its peddling of pseudo-scandals like the IRS "scandal"; it wins against immigration reform; will it win in 2014? Stay tune!
      <<<<<

      Maybe Somberby has come to understand that the problem with our politics is not how radical the right has become but what frauds the members of the liberal establishment in this country are.

      Obamacare is Romneycare is the Heritage Foundation's private healthcare insurance rip-off scam rescue act and which is the exact same program that McCain/Palin would have put in place on the exact same schedule had they been elected. The difference is that a lot of today's champions of Obamacare would now be playing a version of the current Michelle Bachman role by, instead of panicking about our loss of freedom, would be out there saying how desperately we need a public option or Medicare for All instead of shoveling more money to the 1% through McCaincare.

      Delete
    4. There were many horrific problems with the health insurance situation in the U.S. when Obama took office. Regardless of the fact that some of the core concepts of Obamacare came from the Right, it addresses many of those problems, and does so in a way that benefits the 99% and "hurts" the 1%: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/opinion/krugman-republican-health-care-panic.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB

      The Democrats knew Single Payer was a nonstarter, so they went for something that had a chance of passing and was better than the status quo. Even then, the prospects of Obamacare passing were so bleak the administration was about to give up on it, but people who are considered "true liberals" (including Pelosi and Paul Krugman) kept the pressure on and the administration was persuaded to keep fighting. And if you read that Krugman column I linked to, you can see who the winners and losers are. It's not perfect, but it should be a vast improvement. You can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

      Delete
    5. So I guess Chief Justice John Roberts switched sides on Obamacare at the end there because he wanted to stick it to the 1% as is his wont, not because Justice Kennedy created a crisis for the moneyed interests in the matter by siding with the big business wing of the Court.

      Oh, and I've read pretty much everything Krugman has written on health care for years now and had all ready read the column you link to here. Care to try some Chris Hedges?:

      >>>>>10:59 Question from Peter From Ontario
      Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:59:15 GMT

      Comment: Hi Chris, thanks for your inspiration. Could you outline concretely how we might go about turning things around?

      11:01 Chris Hedges
      Wed, 21 Jul 2010 19:01:44 GMT

      Comment: (To Peter) We have to stop believing that we can effect change through established political or social organizations or electoral politics, and I think that still remains a huge hurdle for us people who in the end, through accommodation of fear and very clever advertising, are herded like sheep into a dysfunctional system, which is how so many people who should have known better voted for Obama.

      The environmental crisis that we’re about to face will be even more catastrophic than the economic, and we have to, on a personal level, reconsider how we relate to the society at large and to the ecosystem. We have both personal and social decisions to make. At this point most people are not willing to make those choices or take those steps.
      <<<<<

      Delete
    6. I disagree with your premise and wholeheartedly agree with 7:14 Anonymous, but this still deserves credit as a very well-done parody (which other commenters don't seem to have picked up on).

      Delete
  26. When you have a blogroll you want to complete every day, these 15-page pieces, one after another after another, even if they are on a very legitimate topic, are becoming hard to digest. It's time for a compilation and succinct description of all the fake facts, who (by name) appears to have started them, who repeated them, and who failed to challenge them. There must be other matters deserving of such deconstruction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These pieces are essential. They document just how far the media have gone. Merely coloring truth has been replaced with telling outright lies for months, including doctoring of phone calls in order to tell a favorite lie. You wouldn't believe it if you didn't have sources like TDH presenting it in all its grotesqueness.

      Delete
    2. Yes, but how many such pieces are needed to demonstrate the fact that the media was horrible in this case? Somerby has probably posted somewhere close to 100 pieces I would guess on the Zimmerman/Martin ordeal (including some very lengthy ones). We get it. At some point, if the media continues its misstatements about the subject, he should maybe just post something very brief with links back to his original posts, and then tackle some other important topics.

      Delete
    3. Shorter Mike L:

      Even if there's new material, new distortions daily -- just move on little blogger -- let the big boys lie and mislead.

      Delete
    4. Implicit Anonymous 6:17:

      Somerby should spend the rest of his life on one story, as long as there's someone somewhere in the media coming up with new distortions about it.

      Delete
  27. "Report: Zimmerman reports “trash in roadwy”"

    Who calls 911 to report trash in the roadway? Unless it's large trash on a freeway? This is a rinky dink little gated neighborhood.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I doubt he called 911. He called a non-emergency number.

      Zimmermann's call that evening wasn't to 911. It was a police dispatch number not an emergency number.

      Delete
    2. Debris in the middle of the road can be very dangerous. And why is it you idiots still aren't understanding that these weren't all 911 calls?

      Delete
  28. I am white....I live in a neighborhood that is 50% black...I have called police or 911 no more than 3 times in the last 10-15 years. If I called police about a "pothole" or "trash in the roadway" I would have to wait for them to stop laughing before I could continue.

    The one time I had a noise complaint, about loud radio playing in a parking lot outside my window late at night, I waited for the police to come. They drove by. Circled by...slowed down...did not even stop.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you an active member of your neighborhood watch? Do you have acquantances on the force that you can mention these things to, without having to call 911?

      Delete
  29. Good lord Bob, you write thousands of diversionary words that ignore that Z refused to tell dispatch that TM was not acting suspicious but was actually talking constantly on the phone, or that Z refused to tell TM why he was stalking him when asked, or that it was when then Z grabbing for something in the area of his gun that TM was startled into fighting for his life.

    But the media was mean to Gore and we would all be better off if GWB had lost.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "talking on the phone" issue has been addressed before. Trayvon was wearing an ear bud and talking into a microphone.

      As to the confrontation: There is no evidence either way as to what occurred. Z says he was jumped, other evidence shows that TM asked why he was being followed. But it's all unclear.

      And the Z grabbing for his gun? Where did that come from? Nobody knows what happened during the struggle other than that evidence appears to show that TM was on top of Z.

      You're making statements of fact when it's all conjecture.

      Delete
    2. Wow Lacywood - your comment is straight from bizarro-world. Why would Zimmerman tell dispatch that TM was not acting suspicious when he thought he WAS acting suspicious? "Refused to tell TM why he was stalking him" - I don't even know what that means.

      Really Lacywood, you seem to know a lot more about what went on that night than anyone else on the planet save for Zimmerman. It's almost like you were personally there witnessing the entire thing.

      Delete
  30. The problem has been the focus on irrelevant arguments – some of which are actually unsupported by the evidence.

    1. ‘GZ racially profiled TM’ There is no evidence of this.

    2. ‘GZ disobeyed an order by the police’ * The civilian dispatcher, Sean Noffke, testified that he did not give GZ an order and, in fact, he, like his fellow dispatchers, are trained not make comments that sound like commands. * Noffke also testified under cross that, as a result of his asking GZ which way TM was going, GZ could have reasonably interpreted this as being asked to follow Martin. * It is also not a crime in Florida to disregard a comment made by a civilian dispatcher.

    3. ‘GZ got out of his car’ Not a crime on public property and not negligent either.

    4. ‘GZ followed TM’ Again, anyone can follow anyone on a public street unless the followee has obtained a restraining order against the follower and even there, the RS only places time, place, and manner restrictions on the person enjoined.

    5. ‘GZ wasn’t really injured’ * Under Florida’s self-defense laws, one doesn’t have to be injured AT ALL to use deadly force * No one is required to refrain from defending himself while another is engaged in or attempting to commit a felony.

    6. ‘TM is dead through no fault of his own’ * If you believe that TM assaulted GZ, then he IS dead as a result of his own actions.

    7. ‘GZ could have left’ * Under Florida law, there is not a duty to withdraw rather than use deadly force * TM was straddling GZ so how the latter was supposed to leave the scene is unanswered.

    8. ‘GZ was armed and TM wasn’t’ * One’s fists can be considered weapons and can result in severe bodily harm or death. * GZ was legally carrying a weapon * There is no requirement under the law that the same weapon be used by the assailant * A homeowner can kill an intruder whether or not he has been threatened * Those that attack cannot feign surprise if they are met with superior firepower.

    9. ‘Stand Your Ground!’ * SYG is NOT at issue in this trial. * The defense is a classic self-defense case.

    10. ‘Black men NEVER get to use SYG!’ * Wrong http://tinyurl.com/nboht35

    11. ‘GZ is a man and TM was a boy!’ * As if ‘boys’ don’t commit murder, rape, and assault everyday in this country.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I started reading the dailyhowler in 2,000 during the presidential campaign and kept visiting the site for the next couple of years. I gave up because although several of the "journalists" critiqued wrote Bob to complain none have changed their ways.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "several of the 'journalists' critiqued wrote Bob to complain" -- what do you mean? They emailed Bob personally and asked him to stop criticizing them? Which journalists did that?

      Delete
  32. George Zimmerman has truly driven the liberal world completely insane. I can't think of any other explanation for the left's complete abandonment of logic and reason when it comes to this matter. It reminds me somewhat of the mania that took hold of most of the country in the run-up to the war in Iraq. I remember it seemed to me at the time that i was the only sane individual around, while everyone around me insisted that we had rock solid evidence of Saddam's WMDs and that I was the fool for doubting the unquestionable truth. Will the left endure a similar hard landing like the neoconservatives did after the Iraq mania subsided?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While I vehemently disagree with it and am depressed by it, I can somewhat understand how it happened. There have been so many instances of real racially-tinged tragic shootings (the oakland bart cop, etc), that when the media ran away with this story using complete fabrications ginned up by the prosecution, well it was easy pickings for liberal outrage that was well-intended but ultimately completely wrong-headed.

      Delete
    2. The outrage wasn't well-intended, it was either useful or pleasurable, since it continued after the facts emerged and the outraged worked as hard as they could to lie about them, or in the case of the attack itself, disappear them completely.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous @ 12:56,

      How about your own outrage? Pleasurable? Continued when you couldn't possibly have any facts about intentions?

      It's fair to say that the outrage was ill-founded, which is to say ignorant, and given the ease with which facts could be obtained, maybe even willfully ignorant. But outrage isn't particularly conducive to careful investigation or logical deduction, and once you've decided you can read minds, you're blogging with the stupid.

      Delete
    4. There is one side of this case that represents justified outrage based in truth and one side that represents manufactured and indulgent outrage based in lies. The two sides are not equivalent in their foundations for outrage, either factually or morally.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous @ 3:51P,

      Our outrage is always based in truth; theirs, not so much. In fact theirs is inauthentic, indulgent, and mendacious.

      This is narrative, and you know what TDH thinks of narrative. Now, narrative isn't always wrong. I assume that the two of us share TDH's outrage at the performance of journalists whose reporting is at least totally incompetent, negligent, and willfully ignorant. And we can detail the factual basis for this judgment.

      I think it's a bad idea, however, to guess the reasons for others' anger and then make moral judgments on our guesswork.

      Delete
  33. Real facts: Zimmerman wrongly assumed an innocent kid was committing a crime, stalked him with a loaded gun, then killed him within tens of yards of the house he was staying at. He followed him against neighborhood watch policy and in defiance of the police. Assuming the most favorable interpretation to Zimmerman of what transpired in the seconds before he killed Martin (Martin jumped out of non-existent bushes and attacked Zimmerman), Zimmerman still acted recklessly at best and provoked the confrontation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Place: Bizarro World. Residents: anonymous 9:24am.

      You don't know what Zimmerman assumed, and you don't know how suspicious TM was acting. Zimmerman did not "stalk" anyone. If TM was so close to his house, why didn't he go there? He did not follow him in defiance of the police.

      Please do better.

      Delete
    2. You've lied all over this thread.

      There's no assuming what Zimmerman said: Because he was recorded saying it.

      You're lying. Why are you lying?

      Delete
    3. Please name one lie I have said. Repeating "you're lying" over and over doesn't make it true.

      "There's no assuming what Zimmerman said" - no one said there was. We know what he said, it's even reprinted earlier in these comment threads. Anon DOES make an assumption about what ZIMMERMAN ASSUMED. That is mind-reading by definition. He was reporting activity he found suspicious. He was not calling in a crime being committed in the act.

      Delete
    4. "If TM was so close to his house, why didn't he go there?"

      because he was killed by a vigilante bent on keeping these effing punks from getting away.

      "Please name one lie I have said."

      you said "he did not follow him in defiance of the police". Crissa is right, you lie.

      Delete
    5. Where's the evidence that Z followed M "in defiance of police" -- certainly nothing admitted at trial.

      That makes you the liar, 7:07.

      Delete
  34. AnonymousJuly 27, 2013 at 9:24 AM: Real facts...

    Why did 9:24 use the words "real facts" to describe beliefs that are not real and not facts? Motivated reasoning is the process whereby someone adopts a narrative or belief and holds fast to it. The belief may come from spin, from outright falsehoods, from his ignorance of the facts or from prejudices. However he gets to his personal belief, it becomes real and factual to him -- more so than the actual evidence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since you appear to be a Zimmerman supporter it's understandable you're off on a tangent rather than disputing with actual evidence the facts I stated. Zimmerman acted recklessly and negligently and a kid walking back from the store with only some candy in his pocket paid the ultimate price. But don't let that get in the way of defending the indefensible.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous @ 6:59A,

      A jury decided that he didn't act with culpable negligence, or at least that there was reasonable doubt that he did. What acts do you think Zimmerman took that were recklessly negligent and how sure are you that he did?

      Delete
  35. Wouldn't change anything - I did see the correction.

    Who calls the police that often, anyhow? Self-aggrandizing, self-important, and dangerous persons, that's who.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Who calls the police that often? Neighborhood Watch volunteers. Calling the police is their job.

      Crissa -- It seems to me that Z's frequent calls to police show a pattern of not taking the law into his own hands and not trying to deal with situations himself. However, once someone is convinced that Z is guilty, then any action at all is apt to be interpreted as additional evidence of his guilt.

      Delete
    2. An active member of the neighborhood watch calling a non-emergency number once every other month does not sound out of bounds to me.

      Delete
    3. Considering there were over 400 calls from that neighborhood the previous year, the only surprising thing is a neighborhood watchman only made a dozen of them.

      Delete
  36. Welcome to Groundhog Day.

    ReplyDelete
  37. It's pretty remarkable how this post that completely rips apart so many media lies, a central one in fact, attracted so many Traytards. Well, not really- there's just no convincing these cultists. But it's still funny looking over the kinds drawn in- mr. rabid "reckless chickenshit dumbfuck", 2 car crash truthers, someone who even when confronted with the fact Zimmerman called out of concern for a little black boy's safety tried to pin it on him by asking why he didn't go out to help (and implied even if he did it would be a disaster), people who conveniently overlooked the fact he's mainly called non-emergency numbers... loonies of all types. Nothing will ever fucking convince these dregs.

    ReplyDelete