This is a floow up t the previous article, because it is obviiously a developing media narrative in the campaign to ALYNCH George Zimmerman (who may or may not have committed a form of homicide, but who is not getting a fair shake). Here is the present "featured" headlinline on AT&T/Yahoo "News" (not clear from waht original source, but I am hppy to give AT&T and Yahoo full credit):
"Trayvon Martin video shows no blod or bruises on George Zimmerman"
That is not true, except in a very TECHNICAL way that LIES. This is the same video that I SAW Anderson Cooper present on CNN. Anderson Cooper even commented that the vidoe was not good enough (not being made for that purpose) to "show" "blood" and "bruises" on George Zimmerman. Now it is certainly true taht there is obviusly not a LOT of blood STILL on Zimmerman (for example, his face) at the time of the video. Washe CLEANED in any way? As usual, the media is not interested, because this is not about the facts (which wouuldhave to WAIT for a disclousure of what the POLICE found when they arived at the scene, and when they EXAMINED Zimmerman (as you see a police officer doing on the video).
Now you know that Zimmerman was not severely beaten up, because he was not sent in an ambulance to the emergency room from the scene. Nor was he brought to the emergency room by a police car. Thus, you can assume that the plice did not see any SERIOUS injuries. I had a broken nose once, with almost no obvious mark (from a distance, or which would have shown on this video). We can assume that, as stated, Zimmerm had no SEROUS injuries. He might say that he managed to shot his attacker before serious injury was inflicted. But the key point here is: Can we also assume that the police SAW physical levidence to support George Zimmerman's story--at least to some degree? I think we can ASSUME that, in the absence of real evidence on the ponit. Whey? Well, it is almost inconceivable that the state's attorney (representative of the D.A., or whatever it is called in Florida) would have said that there ws no basis to charge George Zimmerman is there was NOT A MARK ON ZIMMERMAN. Yet, that is what the LYING headline implies, and what Anderson Cooper was trying to imply (while SAYING that the video ws not GOOD ENOUGH to really see whehter there wwas any blood or damage to the back of Zimmerman's head. Further, the CITY MANAGER said theat the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE supported Zimmerman's story. There is almost no possibility that he woululd have said that unless lthere was SOME physical evidence that supported Zimmerman's story, including SOME evidence of SOME injury. Again, the media is not interested in waiting for the FACTS. They insist on SPECULATING from INADEQUATE evidence. In this case, what the police FIRST on the scene SAW, and what is in ALL of the police reports, is necessary to get the facts.
Oh. The media is STILL uninterested in whether there was an blood, or any bruises, on TRAYVON MARTIN. You have that eyewitness who says he saw ZIMMERMAN on the bottom with his head being banged against the ground. There is all of tthis talk of SCREAMING. Is it credible that there was NO evidence of any of tis on EITHER Zimmerman or Martin? I don't think so, although it may be barely possible. Would the city manager reallly have said that the "physical evidence" supported Zimmerman's story, again, if there was NOT A MARK on Zimmerman? That, too, seems extremely unllikely (although, again, barely possible0. THIS woululd have been a somewhat "fair" headline: "Police vidoe shows no serous beating suffered by Zimmermna". The actual headline is simply disgraceful, from tghe video I SAW on CNN. Zimmerman was brought into the room in handcuffs, and it is hardly like the police were treating him like some kind of honored guest. This video is MAINLY to show that thre was no COERCION on the part of the police-no MISCONDUCT on the part of the police. It is part of the LIE that this video was ever intended to be conclusive EVIDENCE fof teh injuries suffered by George Zimmerman. It simply did not have that purpose, and is INADEQUATE for that purpose. If, of course, Ximmerman did seek medical attention, after being released, that report MIGHT be relevant evidence as well.
If you are inteested int he FACTS., then you have to be willing oto WAIT for the FAC CTS. Sure, show the vidoe. But to then SPECULATE on whether the video is consistent with Zimmerman's story, especially when the police KNEW Zimmermn's story had had BETTER information on Zimmerman's "marks' of injury, may be what "modern" "journalism" does (IF they think they can get away with it) to support their agenda and "storyline". That does not make it RIGHT. It is NOT RIGHT. It is evil stuff.
As to the anti-Hispanic racism, beyond the UNFAIRNESS to an Hispanic, see tomorrow's article, planned for tomorrow morning. As a "tease", consider the fact taht the New York Times has refereed to Zimmerman as a "white Hispanic" (like, I presume, President Obama is a "white African-American). If you don't consider that RACIST, then you have no idea of what the term means. That "white Hsipanice" term has been picked up around the media, including by CNN. I read an article in the Washington Post ("positions") seeming to CRITICIZE the term (DUH!!!). But where is the mainstream media UTRAGE about the term, and raising it at all?
See the article palnned for tomorrow morning about the PICTGURES, andd what I consider the obvius RACISM of AT&T, and Yahoo "News', and The Cutline, in simply refusing to REFER to Zimmerman as Hispanic.--while constantly referring to Travon Martin as "African-American". That, o fcourse, is what led to "white Hispanic" i the first plce. As far as the mainstream media is concerned, this is BLACK versus WHITE. And they don't wan tto confuse their nice, RACIST narrrative by sticking an Hipanci in the middle of this. Therefore, they have to JUSTIFY not referring to Zimmerman as Hiispanic. Did Zimmerman being an Hispaniic have anything to do with what happened? How would I know: certainly NOT be listening to the mainstream media. Did Trayvon Martin being African-American have anything to do with what happened? I have seen NO EVIDENCE of that.
We would all be better off if we simply IGNORED race in this kind of case, and tried to get the FACTS. If the INDIVIDUAL George Zimmerman shoululd be chared with manslaughter, based on the FACTS., so be it. Trayvon Martin is entitled to INDIVIDUAL justice an NOT "racial justice". Sure, if FACTS come out that indicate that Martin did not get individual justice specificaly because of his race, then something needs to be done. But that can come later, based--again--on FACTS (rather than specualaitn designed to pit races agasint each other). Modern "journnalists" START with the conclusion, and then look for what they can SPIN as facts to support the conclusin they have reached. See Michael Crichton's novel, "Airframe", which is the best descriptiong I have seen of how modern "journalism" works. Again, this may be how they work, but it is EVIL stuff.
Get the FACTS first. Then you can determine the conclusions. There are enough facts here to indicate that the case shuld be reviewed very carefully to make sure the INDIVIDUALS are treated fairly. What worries me is that the RESULT will be a LYNCHING of George Zimmerman based on the STORYLINE. That is RACISM: if George Zimmerman is CHRGED (not to mentin convicted) JUST because he shot an unarmed young black man (while he, himself, is Hispanic). Now this would be all right IF an Hispanic would be CHARGAED for killing an HISPANIC under the same FACTS. Or if an African-American had killed an unarmed African-American under the sameFACTS. Or if a "white' person had killed an unarmed young white man under the same FACTS. We need to take RACE OUT OF IT. Instead, people like those of CNN have made this all about RACE. And I am afraid THAT is the reason George Zimmerman will be indicted: the wrong, RACIST reason.
As I have said before, I would not have done what Zimmerman did. No, AI am not talking aoubt "disobeying" what was NOT a police "command", although I probaly would not have done that either. Zimmerman put himself in a position where things could too easily go wrong. Stil, people often do that. And don't we NEED peole like Zimmerman, trying to take "pro-active" measures to "protect" their eneighborhoood? Asi I have said, our balck inner cities and GANG neighborhoods could certainly use SOMETHING. And there are occasioinal stories about BLAKC peole "taking back" their neighborhood from durg dealers and the like. This is all COMPLEX stuff, and making it all about RACE (when most people in America are willing to go BEOND RACE) is the WRONG way to react to this sort of thing.
P.S. No proofreading or sepell checking (bad eyesight). Yes, I am PREDICTING that George Zimmerman will eventually be indicted, although iI am convinced it will be for the WRONG reason (political, race based). I am open to the idea that the SHOULD be indicted, except I know I have NO way of knowing that because our media is simply uninterested in "neutral" facts. I hope that FACTGS come out that make it fairly clear whehter ZZimmerman should be indicted/convicted. I have this sneaking suspicion that it mmay be a CLOSE QEUSTIN, whch means that Zimmeraman might end up being railroaded when the case against him is very doubtful (which the mediaia would CONDEMN if it happened to a "real" (lol) Hispanic how had shot an unarmed "white" person. Then the questins woululd all be about "fairness", and whether the Hispanic was recieiving a "fair shake" 9or being railroaded by "whites'). It shows how fundamentally RACIST our media is that THEY are the ones doing the RAILROADING here BASED ON RACE.