Anderson Cooper, this very night: "No one wanstgs to rusg to judgment" (talking, of course, about George Zimmerman)
Naderson Cooper, you do this all of the time. Yes, I ACCUSE you of being a REPEAT LIar, who often gives this kind of "ound bite" (like "no one wanst so twist anyone's words here") to try to make people ignore that yuu have jsut DONE what you say no one should do. No, Anderson, you are one of the wort, mots blatant liears I have ever seen, and otnight is an examp,le
Yuo mad the above quoted satement right AFTER yu attempted to CONVICT George Zimmerman of homicide based totally on SPECUALTION. No, this is NOT a matter of opinion on my part. Anderson Cooper jsut lookecd staright at the camer and LIED aubt what he had jsut done. It does not get any worse than that.
What had Cooepr just done? He had played a "kpolice video" of George Zimmerman at the plice stattion (obviouslysome time AFTGER tghe shooting), and Cooper was OBVIOUSLY (not, again, a matter of opinoion) trying to make the CASE taht the vidoe did not show injuries consistent with the fight (a word lthe media jsut REFUSES to uswe--"strugggle" was Cooper's euphemism) with Trayvon Martin. Cooper himself says that the video was NOT CLEAR enough to really evluate Zimmerman's injuries, but then proceeds to SPECULATE. So much for "not rushign to judgment". Anderson Cooper, your are a LKIAR, and not jsut a graden variety liar. You are a world class liear, who REALIZES the LIE you are telling, but do so to try to Justify" unconsciioniable conduct. Cooper even had a "guest" on the opening segment with NO "qualifications" to evaluate injuries, who was asked to comment (speculate--rush to judment) on INADEQUATE information (what Cooper ADMITTED was inadequate information). This reminds me of CNN on Sunday, where CNN tried to SPECUALTE on that attempt to 'enhance" the 911 tape to allege that George Zimmerman (actually said "f---ing coons", even tought the idea is ABUSRD on its lface and not shown by waht CNN did (as CNN itself admitted, just as Anderson Cooper admitted tonight that the video was NOT sufficient to evaluate injuries, or even distinguish blood)
Doubt me? Never , ever, do that. I am agina going back to my legal career to tell lyou aboutgt something called the "best evidence" rule. It is usually used iwwith documents, but really appies to any attempted description or recording. The idea is that a "description" of a document is NOT evidence, if the doocument itself is available. Here, lyou have a police video NOT designed to show any"closeup" of lblood or injury. And Anderson Cooper admitted it was not sufficient for that purpose. But you can SEE on the video, police officers examining Zimmerman's injuries. There were, presumably, also police offices AT THE SCENE who EXAMINED Zimmerman's injuries. Thre SHJOULD have been bot a RECORD of those obvservatgions and--really--close up photographs (although Cooper was uninterested in whether such things exist, becuse he--LIAR that he is--was all about "rush to judgment' on INDEQUATE INFOROMATION (total specualation) ,.There IS evidence of the injuries, if any, that Zimmerman suffered. That evidence is the "best evidence" oof twaht those injuries were. There is no need to engage in SPECULATIVE "rush to judgment". I can't take it. The more I thinabout it, the angrier I getr. Anderson Cooper, YOU ARE A LIAR, There was evidently even an emegency room visit by Zimmerman, according to Coopeper, allthough after the fact. Cooper acted like SPECULATIN about those things is "news', insted of a "rush to judgment" with SPECUALTION. Cooper is wrong, and a LIAR. And look at the main pint here. The AUTHORITIES had access to much BETTER informatino on Zimmerman's injuries than Cooper (what about blood on the PAVEMENT (or whatever).? CNN has been RUSIHNG to judgment saying the authorities should have CHARGED Zimmerman. Yet, they had BETTER information than Cooper. How can you "criticize" and try to DESTROY this H:IPANIC man, when FACTS exist which may blow your entire SPCULATIN right out of the water? This is not "journalism". It is Anderson Cooper trying to act as a prosecuting attorny, except that almsot NO prosecuting attorney would be this INCOMPETENT (unless, maybe, you go to the Duke Rape Case).
See the comment on my bog article about the IMPORTANCE of COMPARING the injuries suffered in this incident by Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. Anderson Cooper seemed UNINTERESTED in whethre Trayvon Martin even suffred BRUISES (aside from the gunshot which killed him). The physical evidence, including the injuries to both men, is really vey important in building up a picture of what happened here. No, I can't say taht George Zimmerman is innocent. However, Anderson Cooper showed me NOTHING which indicate to me thaqt Cooper is GUIILTY (beyond a reasonable doubt)--even of manslaughter (the most likely "charge" here,, if a ccharge were to be madeL). Cooper did give an apparent "fact" ere. The media is tryin g to make much of A "lead investigator" (NOT on the record, makng this pretty much SPECUAATION) wanitng to charge Zimmerman with "mannslaughter". Cooper says the investigator was OVERRULED by the "state's attorney". This is CNN, so I don't vouch for all of this. But, again, Coooper was UNINTERESTED in the reasons the STAT'S ATTORNEY had for not wanting to make an IMMEDIATE charge (no hurry, really, unless--like CNN--you are RUSHING TO JUDGMENT). The state's attornney had BETTER information thatnn Anderson Cooper. But Anderson Cooper has the "advantage" of being DISHOENST. Thus, Cooper was essentially saying that HE couuld "evaluate" better than the state's attorney whehter this ONE "investigator" (IF the accounnt of what he wanted is correct)was right--or whether the state's attorney (with ALL of the facts available to him from the investiagtion) was right.
Ah. Cooper's guest. Talk about BIAS, and a TOTAL IDIOT. That guest was trying to "sell" the idea that Zimmerman "violated" Florida gun license laws because he needed a license to be "emplyed" as a "self-apporinted" neighborhood watchman. Say waht? Anyone who would say THAT--inherently unlilkey--is SUSPECT for the CRIME of MISREPRESENTING himself as an EXPERT. So Florida is going to say you need a LICENSE as a SECRUITY GUARD to act as merely a busybody citizen keeping a "watch" in your neighborhood. As an attorney for more than 30 years, this is NEWS TO ME. I wuld not beliefve it unless a REAL expert on Florida law--not a "hired gun" sued by CNN to "rush to judgment--were to support this strange position. Would Zimmerman really ahve been suject to arrest for carryhing a gun had the shooting NOT TAAKEN PLACE. CNN cdrtainly procuded NO reason to believe that is true. Rather--TWISTINGwhchAndreson Cooper and his guests ALWAYS do--despite the Cooper promo where he LIES about that--this guest was SPECULATING about his own novel "interpretation" of Florida law. This guest also totally MISREPRESENTED the statement of the 16 year old girl. The 17 year old girl made here statement AFTER TAHE FACAT (after who knows what coaching, as a biased "witness" in the first place). Tis guest strongly suggested that the girl was "recorded" makng the satement AT ATHE ATIME. As far as I know, that is untrue. As far as I now, and Coooper was again uninterested in explaining WHEN and HOW the 16 year old girl made her satement, there was NO 911 call from either Martin or the 16 year old girl AS THE "FOLLOWING" was taking place. Zimmerman is subject toa this disgraceful CNN manufacuure/specualtion on "f---ing coons" ONLY because Zimmerman CALLED 911 so that events would be recorrded AS THEY WERE HAPPENING. That does not appeaqr to be ture of either Martin or the 16 eyar old girl. Sure, you can come up with excuses for Marint and the girl, but it is a fACT taht it was ZIMMERMAN who called 911 BEFORE the shoooting occurred. I agree almost entirely with the comment on the importance of an OBJECTAIVE analysis of the FACTS on the pre-shooting injuries suffered by Trayvon Martin. The one area where I might disagree is the idea that Zimmerman might be guilty of 'murder". That is barely possible, but very UNLIKELY on the factgs we aahve (always realizing that the media has been UNINTERESTAED in the actual facts--MAKING THEM UP when they don't have them, as Anderson Cooper has done by trying to use this inadequate police video to bootstrap into an "analysis" of Zimmerman's injuries, based on total specuation).
No. Anderson Cooper is a blatant LIAR. I continue to have no opinino on whehter the evidence exists to charge George Zimmerman with mansluaghter, much less convict him. What Cooper did appear to do tongiht is CONVICT the media of LIBEL and SLANDER of the Samfor d police. They brought Zimmerman into the police station in handcuffs. They did not atutomatically accept his story. What did they do wrong? After all, it appears to be a CLOSE decisin, depending on FACTS we don't have, whether to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter. Why shuld the police do that without inupt from theD.A.'s office, who would have to PROSECUTE. And what is wrong with trying to make sure yoiu have actual EVIDENCE to go forward with a charge. You can always bring the mateter to a grand jury LAATER, which is what is evidently being done. Why shuold you show BIGOTRY against an HISPANIC by"rushing to judgment'?
Now you and I would regard it as a stretch to convict Anderson Cooper of RACISM against Hispanics based on his UNFAIRNESS towadrd George Zimmerman (an Hiispanic, fro appearance and as far as the facts available to me show). By CNN standdards, being UNFAIR to an HISPANIC his way raises RACE QUESOIONIS (questions which I have long raised about CNN as to a totally race based mentality) . If CNN , and Anderson Cooper, are "going after" George Zimmerman because they FAVOR the African-American over the Hispanic (for purposes of CNN's own agenda), is that not RAcCIST? Of course it is. There is a BETTER case agaisnt Anderson Cooiper on this ground thatn CNN ever had against, say, the Tea Party (as a whle)--or, for that matter, against the United Sateas of America and the Samfor d plice, which is the storyline CNN was tyring to push.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).