Archive for the ‘George Zimmerman’ Category

George Zimmerman sues Trayvon Martin’s family for $100m | US …

George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch volunteer cleared of murdering an unarmed black teenager in one of Floridas most high-profile criminal cases, launched a $100m lawsuit on Wednesday against the dead boys family, their lawyer and prosecutors.

Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin, 17, following a nighttime altercation between the two at his gated community in Sanford in February 2012. He was acquitted of second-degree murder in a closely watched trial that triggered a national debate over racial injustice, civil rights and gun violence.

In a 36-page lawsuit circulated by his lawyers, Zimmerman claims his reputation was destroyed by the malicious prosecution and alleges that the states attorney, Angela Corey, and her team of prosecutors relied on a witness who falsely claimed to be Martins girlfriend to testify against him.

He further alleges that Benjamin Crump, the civil rights attorney who has represented Martins parents, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, since their sons death, defames him in Crumps recent book Open Season: Legalized Genocide of Colored People.

Evidence presented during Zimmermans trial included a recording of a call to the Sanford police department in which Zimmerman, now 36, said he was following Trayvon, who was on his way back to his fathers girlfriends house with Skittles and a soft drink he had just bought at a nearby gas station. OK, we dont need you to do that, a dispatcher told Zimmerman.

According to the lawsuit filed by the Boca Raton-based attorney Larry Klayman, founder of the conservative legal activist group Judicial Watch, his client now lives in constant fear of attack and often receives death threats when he appears in public. It adds that he suffers from depression and PTSD.

The allegations about a fake witness center on a teenager called Rachel Jeantel, whom the lawsuit claims gave testimony as Martins girlfriend as an imposter for her half-sister Brittany Diamond Eugene, Martins real girlfriend at the time.

Jeantel told jurors she was on the phone with Martin, who claimed he was being pursued by a creepy-ass cracker as he walked home. The testimony about Zimmerman, who is of Hispanic heritage, added further controversy to an already racially charged trial.

The lawsuit claims the conspiracy to have Jeantel testify in her sisters place was hatched when prosecutors could not persuade Eugene to make a statement incriminating Zimmerman.

Crump, who owns a law firm in Tallahassee, rejected Zimmermans claims. I have every confidence that this unfounded and reckless lawsuit will be revealed for what it is, another failed attempt to defend the indefensible and a shameless attempt to profit off the lives and grief of others, he said in a statement.

This plaintiff continues to display a callous disregard for everyone but himself. He would have us believe that he is the victim of a deep conspiracy despite the complete lack of any credible evidence to support his outlandish claims.

A representative for Fulton, who is running for a seat on the Miami-Dade county commission next year, did not immediately return a request for comment, and attempts to reach the Trayvon Martin Foundation, the anti-gun advocacy group set up by Fulton and Martin, were also unsuccessful.

Zimmerman, meanwhile, has been immersed in several controversies since his acquittal. In 2016 he attempted to profit by selling the gun he used to kill Trayvon, branding the weapon an American firearm icon and promising the proceeds would help fight the activities of Black Lives Matter.

One year earlier, a violent road rage incident resulted in a Florida man, Matthew Apperson, being sentenced to 20 years in prison for attempted murder after shooting at Zimmerman.

Read more:
George Zimmerman sues Trayvon Martin's family for $100m | US ...

Nolte: Fake Medias Tired Anti-Trump Playbook Is Boring Me to Death – Breitbart

You know what I have? The greatest job in the world. Seriously. Get this: Every morning I face a day where Im overpaid to express my opinion on a few things. And Im usually done by noon. That leaves the whole rest of the day for TV and cookies.

Thats it. Thats my job. And I appreciate it. After 17 years of making a living as a bill collector, how could I not. Oh, and on Fridays, they pay me to go to the movies. Oh, and I have weekends off. No joke.

Can you imagine having a job such as mine and still complaining about it

Well, here I go

You people are boring me.

And by people I mean just barely people the establishment media people who spread all this fake news about us deplorables.

The boredom is killing me.

Killing.

Me.

Earlier this week, I was complaining about my job to our esteemed editor-in-chief Alex Marlow, and I was pretty certain he would fire my ungrateful ass. After all, unlike me, he works for a living.But instead he said, Yeah, if my job was to cover the media Id be bored to tears. Its been the same playbook for going on five years, the same lying-rapist-racist playbook. Its boring. Theyre totally out of ideas. You should write about that.

Yep.

Every day, its the same shit from the media. Every day for five years, were all a bunch of lying-rapist-racists. Trump is a lying rapist-racist. Brett Kavanaugh. The police. Catholic high school kids. George Zimmerman. Gun lovers. Deplorables. Its just lying-rapist-racist over and over and over again.

And because the media have no other ideas, because they keep saying the same thing, I end up saying the same thing over and over and over again, and its boring.

My wife once told me that Im only happy in my work if Im surrounded. Shes right. Winning is no fun. Who wants to win? Who wants to stand at the top of the mountain. Its the climb that matters, the battle

So thats the other thing Weve beaten the media.

Ive been in this InterWebDotNets fight for 16 years now, and weve won.

I dont mean the media have surrendered or suddenly become respectable professionals with integrity. Lol. But we have beaten the media as about as well as the media will ever be beaten: theyve been forced out of the closet as left-wing activists. Theyre almost always on defense responding to the political right. They have no real power to manipulate public opinion anymore. Bottom line: The media have been reduced to left-wing talk radio. And thats a win. So were no longer surrounded. Thats no fun. And they keep firing off the same cannonballs of liar-rapist-racist.

God, Im bored.

And Im not the only one whos bored with the media. Look at Americas reaction to impeachment a collective shrug. The president has been impeached, is on trial, and no one is watching because its all so boring, yet another sequel to the medias Russia Collusion, Kavanaugh, Ferguson, Trayvon, the KKKovington KKKids, ZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz hoaxes.

You might think: maybe thats the strategy maybe the medias strategy is to wear us down through repetition. Wear us down to where we stop fighting against liar-rapist-racist, and then they win.

Nope.

Theyre out of ideas.

You see, the other thing, the other area in which weve beaten the media, is that The People see completely through them. I dont mean people like myself who do this professionally. I mean people-people. Everyday people. No one needs me pointing out Jake Tapper is a bigot and liar anymore. No one needs me pointing out that Chris Cuomo is an unbalanced moron. No one needs me pointing out Rachel Maddow is a crazed conspiracy theorist, CNN is a Hate Network, and Chuck Todd is having a meltdown.

The People get it.

A major part of Andrew Breitbarts vision was to turn everyday people into activists. To teach and train them not in a patronizing way, but through example to fight the left, to see through them, to see what he called The Matrix, specifically the media.

And thats why The People dont need me. Yall get it.

When I first jumped on the Twitters more than 11 years ago, it was just me and about five other people giving the media hell. Now everyone gives the media hell. As an American I freakin love that. As a professional, though, Im feeling a little unnecessary.

Then again

Context helps

When I start to feel sorry for myself, I take a look around at the sorry losers with the truly terrible jobs those in the fake media. Dodging boring cannonballs is a much better job than being the sorry asshole firing them off.

What I mean is,How would you like to be Glenn Kessler?

Seriously, get a load ofThis Guy.

How would you like to be the pedantic serial liar doing the mind numbing, repetitive, drudge work of documenting 16,241 of Trumps false statements.

At least my boring life of repetition involves repeating what I believe, honestly believe, and the truth

This poor SOB goes into work everyday to dig one more ditch of lies. My guess, too, is that his hideous employers give him a quota. We want you to manufacture 30 Trump lies by the end of the week! Thats called piece work. Kessler is either a slave or a sociopath. Either way Damn.

Thats no way to make a living, son.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.

See more here:
Nolte: Fake Medias Tired Anti-Trump Playbook Is Boring Me to Death - Breitbart

What does ‘woke’ mean? Origins of the term, and how its meaning has changed – inews

NewsUKWoke was officially added into the dictionary in 2017 and it means to be awake to sensitive social issues, such as racism

Wednesday, 22nd January 2020, 9:25 am

The term 'woke' is at the centre of many of the fiercest political and cultural debates at the moment. Some people say being woke is a sign of awareness to social issues, others whip out the term as an insult.

But what does the term really mean, and why are so many people getting fired up about its use?

What does woke mean?

The dictionary defines it as "originally: well-informed, up-to-date. Now chiefly: alert to racial or social discrimination and injustice".

The Urban Dictionary, which published its original definition two years prior to the official dictionary, defines it as "being woke means being aware knowing whats going on in the community (related to racism and social injustice)".

In other words, it means to be awake to sensitive social issues, such as racism.

What are the origins of woke?

Once upon a time, it simply meant the past participle of 'wake'. While that has rapidly changed in recent years, the modern definition of the word isn't that new in the US.

In 1962 the New York Times published an article of "phrases and words you might hear today in Harlem", a neighbourhood in the northern section of the New York City where many African-Americans live.

The African-American novelist William Melvin Kelley wrote the earliest known use of the word under its new definition in an article titled, "If you're woke, you dig it".

Ten years later in 1972, a character in the Barry Beckham play Garvey Lives! says hell "stay woke" via the work of pan-Africanist, Marcus Garvey, with the line: "I been sleeping all my life. And now that Mr Garvey done woke me up, Im gon stay woke. And Im gon help him wake up other black folk".

When did Black Lives Matter use it?

The term's break into mainstream language came from the Black Lives Matter movement, which used the hashtag #staywoke in the wake of racial injustices spreading across the US.

In 2012, when unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin was shot dead in Florida by neighbourhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, the term was used heavily to raise awareness of the movement.

This has led to criticism by some that those who mock 'woke' are being insensitive to its modern usage and the plight of racism. Others argue that its specific link is not widely known.

Why do some people dislike the term?

It has become a common term of derision among some who oppose the movements it is associated with, or believe the issues are exaggerated. It is sometimes used to mock or infantilise supporters of those movements.

Lewis actor Fox accused subscribers to woke views of being "racist". He told Julie Hartley-Brewer's radio show: "The wokist are fundamentally racist. Identity politics is extremely racist."

Visit link:
What does 'woke' mean? Origins of the term, and how its meaning has changed - inews

The Covington Kids’ Revenge, One Year Later – The American Conservative

Almost to the day CNN paid out a notable cash settlement to Nick Sandmann, the Covington High School kid it defamed as a racist pup for grinning at a Native American whilst supporting President Trump, the network was one of a gaggle of MSM outlets out to spin the killing of an Iranian generalinto another Orange Man Bad. As with Sandmann, the facts never support the heavy metal screeching, but the facts also matter little. The anti-Trump agenda rules no matter the price.

You remember about a year ago, when Sandmann and his Catholic school classmates traveled to Washington, D.C., to join the annual March for Life rally on Capitol Hill. Sandmann was photographed smiling at a Native American. With one mighty flatulent blast, outlets like CNN imagined Sandmann, wearing his MAGA cap, as the distillation of everything evil, some redneck from Kentucky a-protestin them abortions and rubbing his smug grin in the face of a noble Native American supposedly trying to defuse a tense situation. The Native American was also quickly (but wrongly) glorified as a Vietnam vet.

Blue Check Twitter suggested Sandmann be punched in the face, and veiled suggestions of mob action led to threats. Sandmanns family was temporarily run out of their home. Disciplinary action included coerced apologies. Progressive media gleefully piled on. It was right out of Orwells 1984, the Two Minutes Hate.

But not only was everything CNN and the others said absolutely wrong (Sandmann was never an aggressor, and alongside his peers, said nothing in return to those taunting him), it wasnt even news. Nothing really happened. Students on a field trip. But the media appointed Sandmann their racist oberfuhrer, fashioned the others into props, and had the entire white nationalist anti-Trump agenda in one handy snapshot.

Most agenda journalism victims are expected to disappear in shame. But this time it was different. Sandmann sued a range of journalists, including Maggie Haberman, Ana Navarro, and Shaun King, for slurs they threw at him on Twitter. Included in the swath of additional lawsuits by Sandmann were CNN, MSNBCs parent company, the AP, Gannett, HuffPo, Slate, and The Washington Post. In the words of the suit, they brought down the full force of corporate power, influence, and wealth on Nicholas by falsely attacking, vilifying, and bullying him despite the fact that he was a minor child.

The suits charged that journalists maintained a well-known and easily documented biased agenda against President Donald Trump and established a history of impugning individuals perceived to be supporters of the president. They asserted that CNN and the others would have known the statements to be untrue had they undertaken any reasonable efforts to verify their accuracy before publication. In other words, they should have committed journalism, the finding of facts, in lieu of packaging what was actually nothing at all into a steamy piece that fit an existing agenda.

Sandmann beat CNN (the other suits are pending), which settled and paid rather than risk a trial. Assuming credibility and self-respect are worth about zero, we now know that the price tag for the agenda journalism CNN practices is reportedly $25 million. That amount is probably half of what the network spends on botox for Anderson Cooper, but as Coopers aestheticians are prone to say, its a start.

With a win in Sandmanns pocket and as his cases against the other media outlets work their way through the courts, others also appear ready to challenge agenda journalism via the defamation laws. Ten more Covington students are now suing various media. Elsewhere, writer Peter Brimelow is suing the New York Times for labeling him an open white nationalist. Karen McDougal, a former Playboy model who said she had an affair with Donald Trump, filed suit against Fox a month ago, claiming defamation. George Zimmerman, who killed Trayvon Martin, filed a defamation suit against HarperCollins, the Martin family lawyers publisher. Trump critic and Harvard prof Lawrence Lessig is suing the New York Times, accusing them of publishing false and defamatory information about him. Representative Devin Nunes sued CNN last month, claiming the network defamed him with false reports that he traveled to Vienna to meet with the Ukrainian prosecutor Joe Biden helped oust in 2016.

Under current law, most of those suits will fail. Going forward, how powerful a weapon defamation lawsuits might prove to be against agenda journalism will depend on how flexible the courts choose to be. Historically they have given great leeway to anyone, journalist or not, who appears to defame public figures. The idea is that if you put yourself out there, youre expected to take a few slings and arrows and so the standards of proof are higher. This is what allows tabloids like the National Enquirer to get away with making up stories about popular figures. But defamation as a business practice was once upon a time what bottom feeders did for the shock value, not regular practice for the media of record.

The hope is that justice recognizes that a new media environment has emerged, one that drags innocent people onto the national stage unnecessarily in a way that is unethical and exploitativeand that even politicians, never mind the voters who select them, deserve factual reporting. But in the case of CNN and Nick Sandmann, it appears the network would rather pay out millions of dollars than see what a court would say.

That CNN has not made any noticeable changes in its obsessive stream of agenda journalism since the original incident a year ago, or since settling with Sandmann, suggests what they paid out is to them a reasonable price to continue to lie to the American public. Most MSM gave the settlement little or no coverage. CNN itself devoted 29 seconds to the story. Like botox, settlements are just another business expense.

If this agenda-driven journalism was limited to individual acts of defamation, such as the Sandmann case, it would be bad enough. But the MSM extend the same thinking to significant geopolitical events, using their vast resources to convince the public that Donald Trump threatens their very existence.

Remember how Trump was going to start global economic war with China, withdraw from NATO, start a wider war in Syria by bombing Russian bases, start World War III with North Korea, sell out the U.S. to get peace with North Korea, start World War III because he is Hitler, start a war over Venezuela, start a genocide of Kurds with Turkey

The giveaway that journalism is near-singularly devoted to an agenda, frightening the public in service of somehow driving Trump from office, is how the mistakes are always wrong in same direction. Contrast the beatification of the good victims of the Parkland shooting with the Parkland kid who supports the Second Amendmenthe was media-doxxed out of Harvard. Meanwhile none of the people who keep track of the lies Trump tells and who are demanding fact checks before ads are allowed to run on social media seem to spend any time on the other side of the equation. Who would accept a track record this bad from their doctor, lawyer, or even their nail technician (no, seriously, cracked nails are hot this year, it was in the NYT)? Is there any price to be paid for agenda journalism?

In a rare breath of self-examination, one New York Times columnist wrote, Donald Trump is impulse-driven, ignorant, narcissistic and intellectually dishonest. So youd think that those of us in the anti-Trump camp would go out of our way to show were not like him that we are judicious, informed, mature and reasonable. The anti-Trump echo chamber is becoming a mirror image of Trump himself overwrought, uncalibrated, and incapable of having an intelligent conversation.

The Founders assigned journalism a specific role to ensure that citizens would be able to carry out informed debates. Truth, they understood, is more than an ideal; it is a perspective. Yet over the last three years, serious journalism has all but been pushed aside in a rush to do away with Trump, not by honest persuasion but by any means necessary. Fear won out, and so objectivity is now #Collusion. Seeking facts before going viral is so 2015. The media gutlessly picks on kids because they cant get Trump. We asked for an informed citizenry and we instead got Mean Girls.

Peter Van Buren, a 24-year State Department veteran, is the author ofWe Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People,Hoopers War: A Novel of WWII Japan, andGhosts of Tom Joad: A Story of the #99 Percent.

Continued here:
The Covington Kids' Revenge, One Year Later - The American Conservative

Why the Senate’s impeachment trial has way too much in common with the Jim Crow past – Salon

Donald Trump is scared. The Senate trial following his impeachment for a blackmail and campaign cheating scheme starts next week, and it's driving him to distraction. He was supposed to hosta lame event at the White House on Thursday to bolster fake concerns that white evangelicals are being oppressed, butblew off pandering to his strongest supporters for an hour, likely because he couldn'tpry himself away from news coverage of the impeachment trial's kickoff. After ending the event swiftly, Trump then tweeted angrily, "I JUST GOT IMPEACHED FOR MAKING A PERFECT PHONE CALL!"

(As with most things the president says, this was untrue he was impeached weeks ago, in December.)

Trump's cold sweats are significant, becauseeveryone who has been following this case knows that the Senate will acquit him. Not because he's innocent no one who has actually consulted the evidence is foolish enough to believe that but because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and the Republicans who control the Senate decided long ago that they wouldcover up for their shamelessly corrupt president no matter what he does. With such an assured outcome, Trump's fears seem overblown and silly, even for someone crippled by sociopathic narcissism and its accompanying paranoia.

But it's also true that high-profile travesties of justice, such as the oneSenate Republicans are currently preparingto commit, can often provoke major political backlash. Getting a jury to acquit the obviously guilty can, as history shows,cause a public that's already outraged about the crime to get even more furious. That, I suspect, is what Trump is sweating.

What the Senate is about to do is akin to the practice of jury nullification. That's where a jury decides that either they don't think the crime should be a crime at all, or that they believe people like the defendant should above the law, and so refuse to convict no matter how guilty the defendant is. This something thatin theory, and sometimes in practice, canbe used for good as when a jury refusesto throw someone in prison for a low-level drug offense, or refuses to enforce a law restricting free speech. Buthistorically in the U.S., jury nullification has tended to be used to uphold injustice and reinforce racist or sexist systems of power.

In other words, exactly what Senate Republicans are planning to do. Thatbecomes more obvious every day as more evidence of Trump's guilt comes out, from the revelations byRudy Giuliani's former associateLev Parnas to the Government Accountability Office declaring that Trump broke the law by withholding military aid to Ukraine.

The most disturbing and frequenthistorical examples of jury nullification come from the Jim Crow South, where it was normal for all-white juries to acquit Klansmen and others who committed racist murders not because they genuinely believed they wereinnocent, but because they believed it should be legal for white people to murder black people in cold blood.

The most famous of these cases was that of Roy Bryant and J.W. Milam, two white men who murdered a black teenager named Emmett Till in Mississippi in 1955. That the men had committed the crime was not in doubt they described the murder in great detail to a reporter for Look magazine. But the all-white, all-male jury refused to convict, and didn't really bother to hide the fact that they did sobecause they didn't think white men should be punished for killing black people.

Unfortunately, this problem of white jurors refusing toconvictin cases where the victimsare black has not gone away. For instance, in the 2012 Florida killing of black teenager Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman, a nearly all-white jury votedto acquit Zimmerman, even though Martin was apparently just walking home after buying some snacks and Zimmerman had been warned by a 911 operator not to pursue him and even though Zimmerman's only basis for suspecting Martin of anything was his race.The one woman of color on the juryhas since publicly lamented the process and describes what sounds a lot like bullying from the white women in the room.

The defendants in those cases walked free, but the outrage that followed had political ramifications. Till's murder helped draw national attention to the evils of the Jim Crow South and helped bolster support for the burgeoning civil rights movement. Martin's murder, decades later, helped build support for what became known as the Black Lives Matter movement.

Sometimes the backlash to injustice can be earth-shaking, as happened in 1992, when Los Angeles was torn up by riots in the wake of the acquittal by a majority-white juryof four cops who were caught on video severely beating Rodney King, a black motorist they had pulled overfor speeding.

These are all racially loaded cases, of course, which sets them apart from Trump's impeachment overhis efforts to cheat in the 2020 election and his cavalier willingness to use government resources to force foreign leaders to help him do so. Trump's inevitable acquittal in the Senate won't bequite the gut-punchso many people feel when white men get sprung for committing racist crimes.

Still,the social circumstances of Trump's upcoming acquittal go straight back to those same forces of white supremacy that have led to so many other travesties of justice in the past. After all, the main reason Senate Republicans are averse to taking what seems to be an easy way out convicting the obviously guilty Trump and letting his Republican Vice President, Mike Pence, take over is because they fear crossing the notoriously loyal Trump base, who represent their only possiblechance of holding onto the Senate or retaking the House this November.

And the reason that base is so loyal, as with many things in this country, relates to racism. Trump's base is motivated by what sociologists delicately call "racial resentment,"which is a nice way of saying that these white people see changing demographics in the U.S. and growing challengesto white domination, and they're angry about it. Furthermore,they see President Trump, a blatant and shameless racist, as their best weapon to fight to preserve a system of white supremacy.

As long as Trump keeps delivering on the racism which he has donein a myriad of ways his base doesn't care what crimes he commits. After all, Trump committed his crime to hang onto powerso he can continue to inflict cruelracist policies on our entire nation.In that sense, this case shares a common root with thosemore explicitly racist acquittals of the past. They're allpart of thelong and ugly American tradition of letting white people get away with crime, so long as they do it in the name of white supremacy.

But watching obviously guilty people get away with it can also have a galvanizing political effect, and not just when the crime itself is racially provocative. As the #MeToo movement and the Women's March demonstrated, Americans have also been roused to outrage when men commit sexual assaults and get away with it. And the ongoing fascination with gangsters who finally get caught after evading justice for years Al Capone, Whitey Bulger, John Gotti suggests areal hungerto see bad guys pay for what they do.

That'swhat Donald Trump fears: That hisacquittal will not be read as an exoneration, but as yet another famous miscarriage of justice that leads to outrage across the nation. Let's hopehis worst fears come true.

See the article here:
Why the Senate's impeachment trial has way too much in common with the Jim Crow past - Salon