• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The lw media can't stop lying about about George Zimmerman

"We don't need you to do that" is pretty clear. As were Zimmerman's intentions to push for a conflict regardless.
except he didn't initiate the conflict. Martin did.That is the fact that was presented it the jury and the defense could not refute it .Anything you say to this is just woke spin, not supported by factual evidence. The case was tried fairly and without prejudice( despite the efforts of uber dirtbag Crump) . End of story.
 
except he didn't initiate the conflict. Martin did.That is the fact that was presented it the jury and the defense could not refute it .Anything you say to this is just woke spin, not supported by factual evidence. The case was tried fairly and without prejudice( despite the efforts of uber dirtbag Crump) . End of story.
He most certainly got off, and has been living an exemplary life ever since.
 
Like many other people, I was astonished to learned that the jury had had the guts to acquit Mr. Z.

Although political correctness in 2013 had not yet reached today's degree, it was still very prominent, so I assumed that whenever someone of ethnicity X was considered a victim, the alleged perp would be found guilty.

The media then indeed did everything possible to portray the victim in a favorable light, and President Obama told us that he could have had such a son.

I doubt that a defendant today in such a case could be acquitted.
If that kid had been white with connected parents Z would have been bricked up in a cell.

Good to know if there’s no one around to say different you can cap whoever you want in Florida and say they attacked you. You can chase them as far as you need to and you cannot be held accountable.
 
except he didn't initiate the conflict. Martin did.That is the fact that was presented it the jury and the defense could not refute it .Anything you say to this is just woke spin, not supported by factual evidence. The case was tried fairly and without prejudice( despite the efforts of uber dirtbag Crump) . End of story.
So how far and how long does a stranger follow you around, first in a car and then on foot before you can confront them without getting shot? And is it the same amount for say your teenage daughter?
 

Over the weekend the NY Times published an opinion video about the 10th anniversary of Travon Martin’s death. The video features interviews with Henry Louis Gates, Al Sharpton and Barack Obama. It starts off on a controversial note with Gates arguing that the modern Civil Rights movement really started after the “murder” of Martin. There was of course a trial of George Zimmerman for murder back in 2013 and he was acquitted on grounds of self defense. In any case, the video quickly shifts into telling the story of the shooting starting with the 911 call which Zimmerman placed that night. Here’s a transcript of the audio as presented by the Times: [emphasis added]

Dispatcher: Sanford Police Department, this 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. This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. He looks black.

Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?

Zimmerman: A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie. He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is. These assholes, they always get away. Shit, he’s running.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah.

Dispatcher: Okay, we don’t need you to do that.
What specific "lie" was told?
 

Over the weekend the NY Times published an opinion video about the 10th anniversary of Travon Martin’s death. The video features interviews with Henry Louis Gates, Al Sharpton and Barack Obama. It starts off on a controversial note with Gates arguing that the modern Civil Rights movement really started after the “murder” of Martin. There was of course a trial of George Zimmerman for murder back in 2013 and he was acquitted on grounds of self defense. In any case, the video quickly shifts into telling the story of the shooting starting with the 911 call which Zimmerman placed that night. Here’s a transcript of the audio as presented by the Times: [emphasis added]

Dispatcher: Sanford Police Department, this 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. This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. He looks black.

Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?

Zimmerman: A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie. He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is. These assholes, they always get away. Shit, he’s running.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah.

Dispatcher: Okay, we don’t need you to do that.
Why not go to the source for the link and the information rather than some likely partisan and or otherwise biased media for their interpretation of the original source before you give us your interpretation of their interpretation.

You do know that there is a big difference between an OPINION piece and direct journalistic pieces, right?
 

Over the weekend the NY Times published an opinion video about the 10th anniversary of Travon Martin’s death. The video features interviews with Henry Louis Gates, Al Sharpton and Barack Obama. It starts off on a controversial note with Gates arguing that the modern Civil Rights movement really started after the “murder” of Martin. There was of course a trial of George Zimmerman for murder back in 2013 and he was acquitted on grounds of self defense. In any case, the video quickly shifts into telling the story of the shooting starting with the 911 call which Zimmerman placed that night. Here’s a transcript of the audio as presented by the Times: [emphasis added]

Dispatcher: Sanford Police Department, this 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. This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. He looks black.

Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?

Zimmerman: A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie. He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is. These assholes, they always get away. Shit, he’s running.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah.

Dispatcher: Okay, we don’t need you to do that.
Since when did the New York Times become the supposed entirety of Left Wing media?
 
I'm all for journalistic integrity.

But defending George Zimmerman isn't the hill I would die on. He has proven in the years since killing Trayvon that he's a complete shit of a human being and the only reason anyone would identify with, or want to defend him is that they identify with his brand of wannabe vigilantism.
Your kind of late boarding this train, who was Zimmerman?
 

Over the weekend the NY Times published an opinion video about the 10th anniversary of Travon Martin’s death. The video features interviews with Henry Louis Gates, Al Sharpton and Barack Obama. It starts off on a controversial note with Gates arguing that the modern Civil Rights movement really started after the “murder” of Martin. There was of course a trial of George Zimmerman for murder back in 2013 and he was acquitted on grounds of self defense. In any case, the video quickly shifts into telling the story of the shooting starting with the 911 call which Zimmerman placed that night. Here’s a transcript of the audio as presented by the Times: [emphasis added]

Dispatcher: Sanford Police Department, this 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. This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. He looks black.

Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?

Zimmerman: A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie. He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is. These assholes, they always get away. Shit, he’s running.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah.

Dispatcher: Okay, we don’t need you to do that.
Link to the New York Times Transcript, as presented by them, of that 911 Call please?
 
So how far and how long does a stranger follow you around, first in a car and then on foot before you can confront them without getting shot? And is it the same amount for say your teenage daughter?
Your question is how long do you believe someone is following you before you should attack them? The answer to this question changes based on gender?

While we're playing fun games... how long should a white man wait before he attacks a black kid he believes is following him?
 
except he didn't initiate the conflict. Martin did.That is the fact that was presented it the jury and the defense could not refute it .Anything you say to this is just woke spin, not supported by factual evidence. The case was tried fairly and without prejudice( despite the efforts of uber dirtbag Crump) . End of story.
Actually he initiated the conflict. And frankly as far as physical conflict.. we have no idea whether zimmerman tried to apprehend martin.. or whether Martin initiated contact in self defense.
And the case had a lot of prejudice.
 
Journalists got fired in the past for spreading this lie. Surprised the NY Times is still lying about this. I wonder if this is part of why they stood by the revisionist "history" of the 1619 Project. The narrative is more important than the truth.

If journalist got fired for spreading lies who would be left at Fox News/OAN/Newsmax?
 
Your question is how long do you believe someone is following you before you should attack them? The answer to this question changes based on gender?

While we're playing fun games... how long should a white man wait before he attacks a black kid he believes is following him?
We only have Zs word that he was attacked. And he’s proven to be such a stalwart citizen since then…
 

Over the weekend the NY Times published an opinion video about the 10th anniversary of Travon Martin’s death. The video features interviews with Henry Louis Gates, Al Sharpton and Barack Obama. It starts off on a controversial note with Gates arguing that the modern Civil Rights movement really started after the “murder” of Martin. There was of course a trial of George Zimmerman for murder back in 2013 and he was acquitted on grounds of self defense. In any case, the video quickly shifts into telling the story of the shooting starting with the 911 call which Zimmerman placed that night. Here’s a transcript of the audio as presented by the Times: [emphasis added]

Dispatcher: Sanford Police Department, this 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. This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. He looks black.

Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?

Zimmerman: A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie. He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is. These assholes, they always get away. Shit, he’s running.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah.

Dispatcher: Okay, we don’t need you to do that.
 

Over the weekend the NY Times published an opinion video about the 10th anniversary of Travon Martin’s death. The video features interviews with Henry Louis Gates, Al Sharpton and Barack Obama. It starts off on a controversial note with Gates arguing that the modern Civil Rights movement really started after the “murder” of Martin. There was of course a trial of George Zimmerman for murder back in 2013 and he was acquitted on grounds of self defense. In any case, the video quickly shifts into telling the story of the shooting starting with the 911 call which Zimmerman placed that night. Here’s a transcript of the audio as presented by the Times: [emphasis added]

Dispatcher: Sanford Police Department, this 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. This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. He looks black.

Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?

Zimmerman: A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie. He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is. These assholes, they always get away. Shit, he’s running.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah.

Dispatcher: Okay, we don’t need you to do that.
LW media can't stop lying full stop?
 
From the OP's Hotair link:

New York Times Opinion:

Dispatcher: Sanford Police Department, this 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. This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. He looks black.

Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?

Zimmerman: A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie. He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is. These assholes, they always get away. Shit, he’s running.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?

Zimmerman: Yeah.

Dispatcher: Okay, we don’t need you to do that.

Emphasis added was mine.

In my opinion I think the additional bolding emphasis I did paints a better picture of what the OP should really be concerned with, even 10 years on.

The OP apparently doesn't understand an opinion piece is different than a straight news piece in the standards of editing. Is it necessarily fair, no. but that is what it is.

Immediately before the New York Times Opinion Piece Video played the audio of the 911 call it again identified that it was a New York Times Opinion piece.

I have always believed the killing of Trayvon Martin was a needless travesty but the jury concluded as they did based on what they heard at trial.
 
Either way, he thought a black guy looked suspicious. No one should be surprised by this.
 
Either way, he thought a black guy looked suspicious. No one should be surprised by this.
He thought he "looked suspicious".
He "looks black".
He thought he looked to "be on drugs".
He "looks black".
He thought he was an "asshole".
He "looks black".
He thought he was "up to no good".
He "looks black".
He didn't "know what his deal was".
He "looks black".
He thought he was going to "get away".
He "looks black".
He thought "he's running".
He "looks black".
 
The sad, and pathetic, irony here is the OP is using a hotair argument to justify treating someone a certain way because "he looks black."
 
Back
Top Bottom