Posted on 07/11/2013 8:22:44 AM PDT by Biggirl
"White Hispanics," "Creepy-Ass Crackers," "Teenage Mammies," and "Suspicious A--holes who always get away" -- that is the vernacular of the George Zimmerman trial. George Zimmerman faces life in jail as a jury considers second-degree murder charges against him for killing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. But thanks to the media he is already sentenced to life in the American public's mind as a racist.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I’m still wondering why his mother named him “17-year-old Trayvon”.
Its as if she knew...
I thought his first name was “Unarmed”?
He has other nicknames - Skittles and Child.
I knew some crackers from the Middle East...Saudi Crackers!
The trial has failed to prove Zimmerman acted with a “depraved mind” – as required for a second-degree murder conviction – or even with a racist mind. He certainly killed Martin. And the jury may decide he is guilty of second-degree murder or manslaughter. But what we heard in the courtroom fits with an FBI report that found race was not a factor in Martin’s shooting death.
From what I have seen of the trial, think the biggest thing Zimmerman is guilty of is not following the 911 operator's advice. But that is not illegal, I don't think.
I don't think the barf alert was necessary. Williams is right. More than anything else the hubbub about the trial is driven entirely by the media's agenda.
Whatever the final verdict on Zimmerman, the media is clearly guilty of playing on the most primitive racial divisions in our society to fuel racial animosity and boost ratings.
I know some Rich Crackers.
I was not sure how the reaction would be here on FR by the readers, posters, so I felt a warning had to be given who wrote the article.
Yes you are right, no winners here, period.
The dispatcher did not issue an order, but rather merely said, "We don't need you to follow him."
Why did he have a gun if he was simply part of a neighborhood watch program?
Since when does one have to justify exercising one's 2nd Amendment rights? But the answer might simply be: "So I can defend myself if attacked."
He had no basis to suspect Martin of any crime. So why does he describe Martin as “suspicious” to police?
He describes him as "suspicious" because he was acting suspiciously - furtive, hanging around, trying to hide his face in a hood, darting in and out of doorways, etc.
Why does he apparently lump Martin with people he describes as “these a--holes, they always get away.”
Because Martin was acting in precisely the same way.
Why didn’t Martin just walk away from Zimmerman?
Good question! Perhaps because Martin had been egged on by Jeantel. Perhaps because he felt that he had to assert himself in order to protect his "street credibility."
Why does this report ask such easy questions?
Regards,
PS: Forgot this, was not sure because writer is a very well known liberal.
You were wise, there is always a knee-jerk reaction to anything Juan Williams says. But if people read it, despite showing some of his typical bias, it is a surprising position for him to take.
Trayvon's behavior, timeline and past history suggest that "Unarmed Seventeen-year-old Trayvon Marton" was likely up to no good. The evidence says that USTM picked the fight with the (true) victim, and the victim had little choice but to defend himself against potential grievous harm.
Juan, you're still spreading a wrong-headed racist narrative.
If you define the "American public" as Liberals and black racists and White guilt weenies....
Juan makes any Fox show he appears on un-watchable.
Can't argue with that. Thanks must also be given to the usual suspects: the big CEOs of the Race Grievance Industry, the DOJ, and Chief Jug Ears.
Thanks Juan, for throwing us a bone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.