[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

FEC Filings Show Kamala Harris Team Blew Funds On Hollywood Stars, Private Jets

Israel’s Third Lebanon War is underway: What you need to know

LEAK: First Behind-The-Scenes Photos Of Kamala After Getting DESTROYED By Trump | Guzzling Wine!🍷

Scott Ritter Says: Netanyahu's PAINFUL Stumble Pushes Tel Aviv Into Its WORST NIGHTMARE

These Are Trump's X-Men | Dr. Jordan B. Peterson

Houthis (Yemen) Breached THAAD. Israel Given a Dud Defense!!

Yuma County Arizona Doubles Its Outstanding Votes Overnight They're Stealing the Race from Kari Lake

Trump to withdraw U.S. troops from northern Syria

Trump and RFK created websites for the people to voice their opinion on people the government is hiring

Woke Georgia DA Deborah Gonzalez pummeled in re-election bid after refusing Laken Riley murder case

Trump has a choice: Obliterate Palestine or end the war

Rod Blagojevich: Kamala’s Corruption, & the Real Cause of the Democrat Party’s Spiral Into Insanity

Israel's Defense Shattered by Hezbollah's New Iranian Super Missiles | Prof. Mohammad Marandi

Trump Wins Arizona in Clean Sweep of Swing States in US Election

TikTok Harlots Pledge in Droves: No More Pussy For MAGA Fascists!

Colonel Douglas Macgregor:: Honoring Veteran's Day

Low-Wage Nations?

Trump to pull US out of Paris climate agreement NYT

Pixar And Disney Animator Bolhem Bouchiba Sentenced To 25 Years In Prison

Six C-17s, C-130s deploy US military assets to Northeastern Syria

SNL cast members unveil new "hot jacked" Trump character in MAGA-friendly cold open

Here's Why These Geopolitical And Financial Chokepoints Need Your Attention...

Former Army Chief Moshe Ya'alon Calls for Civil Disobedience to Protest Netanyahu Government

The Deep State against Trump

A Post Mortem Autopsy: From A Diddy Party to a Pity Party

Whoopie Goldberg Blames Inflation on Grocery Store Owners, Calls Them Pigs

Sean ‘Diddy’ Comb’s Attorneys Seek $50M Bail Package,

Mike Pompeo and Nikki Haley Will NOT Be Invited To be Part of Trump’s Second Administration!

Americans Spend Big On Christmas Cheer... And Mums

Why 27 U.S. States Are Going Broke


Miscellaneous
See other Miscellaneous Articles

Title: Nancy Grace Says ‘F**king Coons’ Uncensored While Railing Against Zimmerman’s ‘Hatred’ For Trayvon
Source: MediaIte
URL Source: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/nancy-gr ... zimmermans-hatred-for-trayvon/
Published: Jul 15, 2013
Author: Andrew Kirell
Post Date: 2013-07-15 11:42:25 by X-15
Keywords: None
Views: 841
Comments: 71

While speaking Saturday night with Trayvon Martin‘s family attorney, shortly before the verdict was read for George Zimmerman‘s acquittal, HLN host Nancy Grace said “fucking coons” live on-the-air while railing against what she considers to have been the defendant’s undeniable “hatred” for the teenager he shot.

After Martin family lawyer Daryl Parks made the claim that no one will be happy with the then-upcoming verdict, seeing as how the late teenager will never be brought back to life, Grace stepped in to say that she believes, based on the audio recordings, that Zimmerman had an unquestionable sense of ill will towards the victim:

“I’ll tell you what I think made a difference. When that 9-1-1 tape first came out — and everybody, get ready, this is graphic language — when it first came out that Zimmerman had said ‘fucking coon‘ on the 9-1-1 call, to me, that was open-and-shut that that showed open ill will and hatred. Now they’ve revised it to say he said ‘These punks, they always get away with it.’ I’m wondering if that reinterpretation of what he said made a difference as to a jury finding ill will in Mr. Zimmerman’s heart.”

Parks responded that he believes the jury will likely “come to a compromise” on whether Zimmerman had any form of animosity towards 17-year-old Martin.

In her coverage of the trial, Grace had repeatedly made reference to the “fucking coons” slur she believes Zimmerman clearly said during his call to the non-emergency line of the Sanford Police Department. In a recent interview with the defendant’s friend Joe Oliver, HLN bleeped the hostess out as she repeated the slur on-air, but for whatever reason, they opted not to do so this time around.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 64.

#6. To: X-15 (#0)

".....Zimmerman had said ‘fucking coon‘ on the 9-1-1 call..... Now they’ve revised it to say he said ‘These punks'"

Is that true?

Big Meanie  posted on  2013-07-15   12:15:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Big Meanie, X-15 (#6)

http://patdollard.com/2012/04/cn...ucking-coons-in-911-call/

No, he didn't say coon. Here's the 'tube and beyond this the suggestion that he did was never introduced into the trial as evidence by the prosecution. Nancy Grace is a communist propagandist whose ratings are a notch below the PBS on a Saturday night.

Jethro Tull  posted on  2013-07-15   12:27:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: Jethro Tull (#8)

See at 4:10 and 4:11 the fucking coon comment Zimmerman stated to the dispatcher.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNCvr9V2pig

purplerose  posted on  2013-07-15   14:55:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: purplerose (#12)

Did you even listen to that? He doesn't say "fucking coons" at all. The guy who made the video put it in on his youtube but that isn't in the other 911 calls or the transcript.

This isn't part of the audio shared with the court that I provided for you yesterday.

All that is in brackets is pure speculation. Possibly this or that etc. is not part of a court transcript. This would be suggestive to a jury, not evidence presented to a jury.

Even your youtube dude has coons or goons or cones........pure speculation to get Nancy Grace's panties in a wad.

abraxas  posted on  2013-07-15   15:07:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: abraxas (#13)

Listen at 2:21 2:22 on that comment.

www.wftv.com/videos/news/...-to-sanford-police/vGZq9/

purplerose  posted on  2013-07-15   15:27:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: purplerose (#15)

Sounds like fucking cone to me. Why was Trayvon running? Why didn't he just run home?

abraxas  posted on  2013-07-15   15:39:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: abraxas (#17)

Why was Trayvon running? Why didn't he just run home?

That's a very good question. But Zimmerman should have left that to the cops to follow this boy down. I am now watching FNC where Zimmerman is in court for the last time and is being escorted out wearing a bullet proof vest and he and his family may be leaving town sometime soon. They are not safe in that community at all after all this took place.

purplerose  posted on  2013-07-15   15:52:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#46. To: purplerose (#20)

"Why was Trayvon running? Why didn't he just run home?"

"That's a very good question. But Zimmerman should have left that to the cops to follow this boy down."

I don't understand why people keep saying that. Z wasn't ordered by the police not to follow him. He was told by a dispatcher that "we don't need you to do that." Z had every right to follow him. I'm talking about following 100 feet back. Obviously, if someone was walking 5' behind Trayvon, a case could be made that he was provoking him. Anyway, how are you going to know where someone is in a condo complex if you don't follow him --- especially at night?

Do you know that gated condo complex at Mulholland and Calabasas Road by the Motion Picture Home? They have a big lake in there. It's gated everywhere except at one corner by the park. My sidekick and I decided to go for a walk around that lake one day. We got about 1/4 way around when a Mexican security guard started following us. He followed us for approx another 1/2 mile, until we got back to the park exit. He never spoke to us, but he was only about 20 feet behind us the whole time. It was like saying "I know you don't live here, and I'll just follow you around the lake until you find your way out again." We felt sort of bad about it at the time, because we didn't live there. But now, after hearing how your side thinks the world is supposed to work, I guess I should have slammed my fist into his face and banged his head on the sidewalk.

Anyway, IIRC, you and 5 milllion other Americans left Los Angeles because the cops turned it into a sanctuary city and Mexican sewer. Yet here you are promoting the idea that we should let the cops handle all the suspicious person incidents. I disagree. I don't know why the cops were called in the first place. There aren't enough cops to check out every suspicous person that walks through a condo complex. And the cops have already made a big enough mess of everything as it is. If you can't see that, who can?

Big Meanie  posted on  2013-07-15   19:45:53 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#48. To: Big Meanie (#46)

He was told by a dispatcher that "we don't need you to do that."

And just what do you think that "we don't need you to do that" meant? I know exactly what that meant. I understand that fully well in legal sense.

purplerose  posted on  2013-07-15   20:02:20 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#49. To: purplerose (#48)

And just what do you think that "we don't need you to do that" meant? I know exactly what that meant. I understand that fully well in legal sense.

We don't need you to do that is NOT an ORDER. At most it is a suggestion.

James Deffenbach  posted on  2013-07-15   20:18:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#51. To: James Deffenbach (#49)

We don't need you to do that is NOT an ORDER. At most it is a suggestion.

And one that Zimmerman chose to ignore and take matters into his own hands.

This is not over people. The DOJ is now looking into this more in depth. And if not the parents may still bring this lawsuit in the Florida Supreme Court and all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. One of the legal issues I would address in the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari would be this:

1) When may the "Stand Your Ground Law" be applied as a legal ground for defense on a public sidewalk regarding a confrontation between two people where one person initiates the confrontation causing the other party to react in self-defense?

purplerose  posted on  2013-07-15   20:34:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#52. To: purplerose (#51)

I don't encourage the DOJ getting involved in this thing after the jury found G Z not guilty. What part of that is hard for people to understand? Did white people riot and burn shit down when O.J. slit Nicole's throat from ear to ear and killed Ron Goldman? While it is true that Ron's parents sued his murdering ass in civil court and won a judgment against him so far as I know they never got a penny.

And Trayvon initiated that confrontation, at least according to the evidence. When he could have gone on home in the FOUR MINUTES he had when Zimmerman didn't even know where he was, he chose instead to sucker punch him and try to beat his head off on the sidewalk. I can't imagine why you are taking up for him.

James Deffenbach  posted on  2013-07-15   20:38:59 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#59. To: James Deffenbach (#52) (Edited)

http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/...-law-as-it-stands/2131594

The most productive way to channel the frustration with the verdict is to change Florida's "stand your ground" law to recognize that individuals who initiate confrontations are not then immune from responsibility of the consequences. Legitimate self-defense cases would still be protected, but it would remove the near-amnesty that people have to act recklessly, putting themselves and others in harm's way. The law as it stands is an invitation to more bloodshed and heartache, and a society more divided. [emphasis added in bold]

I agree with the above quote by the editor's commentary on the Florida Stand Your Ground Law. It makes sense to me. When Zimmerman got out of his vehicle, he put himself in potential danger and harms way and by his recklessness to pursue Trayvon Martin, makes him (George Zimmerman) the one who initiated the confrontation...not Trayvon. This is what I have been saying all along concerning the police dispatcher who advised George to not follow Trayvon.

purplerose  posted on  2013-07-15   22:40:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#61. To: purplerose (#59)

I agree with the above quote by the editor's commentary on the Florida Stand Your Ground Law. It makes sense to me. When Zimmerman got out of his vehicle, he put himself in potential danger and harms way and by his recklessness to pursue Trayvon Martin, makes him (George Zimmerman) the one who initiated the confrontation...not Trayvon. This is what I have been saying all along concerning the police dispatcher who advised George to not follow Trayvon.

Well, I disagree with you and I disagree with the folks who want to abolish any self defense law. Stand your ground law makes sense because people who have done nothing wrong have no duty to retreat from an aggressor (which in this case was Trayvon Martin). I see you finally are agreeing that the dispatcher did not ORDER Zimmerman to do or not do anything.

James Deffenbach  posted on  2013-07-16   0:06:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#64. To: James Deffenbach (#61)

I would like to further add that the other reason why I support what this editor has said is because I have read that other States within the union, are considering adopting this same Florida "Stand Your Ground Law". The editor noted that changes in this law need to be made (such as adding a clause concerning immunity of individuals). The immunity factor reminds me when I read of cases concerning government actors (such as when President Bill Clinton was sued under color of state and federal law and deprivation of Paula Jones and others Constitutional Rights), due to his gross misconduct in the Oval Office concerning actions done which exceeded the scope of his official duties.

The Florida "stand your ground law" was carelessly written in that it did not address issues concerning individuals who act capriciously and with ill disregard for another persons life, whether by revenge, hatred, or just by their arbitrary disregard for the life of another person. This law actually enables individuals to flaunt the law and take matters into their own hands. And this is so wrong. It needs to be amended because there are some people who simply think they can do no wrong when laws like this are written.

If government actors are not immune from personal liability when their actions exceed their official duties, then the Florida law also needs to add a clause in it that specifically limits the immunity defense argument for those whose actions were done with malice, ill-intent, and/or complete disregard for the safety of themselves and others.

purplerose  posted on  2013-07-16   1:34:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 64.

#65. To: purplerose (#64)

The Florida "stand your ground law" was carelessly written in that it did not address issues concerning individuals who act capriciously and with ill disregard for another persons life, whether by revenge, hatred, or just by their arbitrary disregard for the life of another person. This law actually enables individuals to flaunt the law and take matters into their own hands. And this is so wrong.

I've got news for you: Texas has a law that goes way beyond "stand your ground". Goes like this: if somebody comes onto my property at night and steals my toolbox, I'm allowed to chase down the perp and shoot him in his back to recover my toolbox if I think he's about to get away with it, even if he's left my property. That's a short and crude interpretation of the law, but it's been upheld by grand juries numerous times over the decades.

X-15  posted on  2013-07-16 02:15:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#66. To: purplerose (#64)

then the Florida law also needs to add a clause in it that specifically limits the immunity defense argument for those whose actions were done with malice, ill-intent, and/or complete disregard for the safety of themselves and others.

Sorry, but what you're saying is p.c. bullsh*t.

Anyone breaking into another person's home is the one with malice and ill-intent.

Why should the home owner defending himself and his property be scrutinized for "intent"?

Ridiculous.

scrapper2  posted on  2013-07-16 03:49:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#71. To: purplerose (#64)

So if I understand you correctly you believe that the 27 pages of jury instructions in the Zimmerman case were not enough but you would add more confusion into the mix by tweaking a law that says plainly enough that no one has a duty to retreat when faced with bodily harm or death, that they have a right to defend themselves. Yeah, that sounds like a plan. Let's give the jurors a set of instructions that will take them from now until their grandchildren graduate from college in order to make sure that the state gets their convictions (after withholding exculpatory evidence which would have shown that the case shouldn't even have been brought). Yeah, good thinking.

James Deffenbach  posted on  2013-07-16 09:46:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 64.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]