4um: Nancy Grace Says ‘F**king Coons’ Uncensored While Railing Against Zimmerman’s ‘Hatred’ For Trayvon

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: 883
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.

Yeah, and you can bet your ass and whatever else you hold dear that if they could have gotten some audio analysis expert to say that he did say it, no matter whether he did or not, they would have put him on the stand. Just like they put that idiot, Rachel Jeantel on there, the one who didn't believe that creepy ass cracker was a racial insult.

She's probably been told since fourth grade (aka last year) that blacks can't be racists.

Nancy Grace Still Falsely Claiming Zimmerman Said 'F**king Coon'

Print Article

Send a Tip

John Nolte

15 Jul 2013, 6:55 AM PDT

In March of last year, the day before NBC anchor Al Sharpton's incendiary rally, and just two days before President Obama would launch the George Zimmerman case into the stratosphere with his own racially-tinged comments ("If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon."), CNN falsely accused Zimmerman of describing Trayvon as a "f**king coon." Two weeks would pass before CNN retracted this falsehood.

CNN's retraction came after the audiotape of the 911 call was enhanced and it was clear that what Zimmerman had said was "f**king cold," not any kind of racial slur. In fact, there is nothing in this case or in Zimmerman's past that points to any kind of racism whatsoever.

And yet, a full fifteen months after CNN's audiotape enhancement debunked Zimmerman's use of the word "coon," Nancy Grace, the star and face of CNN's sister network Headline News, is still falsely telling viewers that Zimmerman described Trayvon as a "f**king coon." Moreover, HLN didn't even bleep out the phrase.

Here is Grace inflaming racial tensions with falsehoods Saturday night:

Grace: "What I think made a difference; when that 911 tape first came out -- and everybody get read, this is graphic language -- when it first came out that Zimmerman had said "f**king coon" on the 911 call.. I mean to me, that was open and shut that that showed ill-will and hatred."

That would be a very insightful comment were it not for the fact that Zimmerman did not say "f**king coon," and it seem impossible to believe that Grace doesn't know this.

Apparently, the left-wing media site Mediaite is also unaware of the fact that Zimmerman did not say "f**king coon." In their coverage of the Grace's statement, they make no mention of the fact that Grace's claim is factually incorrect or that CNN was forced to walk the claim back.

I think Nancy has lost what little mind she may have had at one time. Probably happened when her fiance, the one she claimed was murdered, came to his senses when he thought about spending the rest of his life with that harpy, and killed himself. Or hired a hit man to do it.

I'm no legal-beagle, but don't they call that 'inciting to riot'? Maybe the feds should be looking at her.

We used it in NYC, and I'd bet YOUR bottom dollar Sharpton has such a charge on his record.

Or maybe he just got "regusted" with Nancy lying about people to boost her career (such as it is) and couldn't take it anymore.

Well, I'm just an idiot (see here, for example), but I don't really see what anybody has to gain by inciting riots. I'll bet YOUR bottom dollar that EVERYBODY will lose that fight. Blacks, especially probably.

The thing is Whites have no control over their start or end. They are a function of the Darks. They call the shots. As to why they choose to riot, I can't say but it isn't related to their high IQs, that's for sure.

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?

Trayvon would never have turned around to sucker punch some guy carrying a gun if the guy was not following Trayvon in the first place. Secondly, this incident took place on a public sidewalk...not private property. One of the other reasons why the dispatcher advised Zimmerman to not follow Trayvon has to deal with a legal matter concerning forseeability of injury. They knew that his following Trayvon was concerned a high risk to both Zimmerman and Trayvon.

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.

On April 21, she wrote, “I do not know if I want to be a homicide detective u got to tell the family they love one died n shit they crying n shit oh lord I dnt kno.”

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?

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.

mmm, no. When they told him that he said ok and walked back to his truck (according to the evidence). Then Saint Trayvon sucker punched him about four minutes later thereby initiating the contact and paying the price for it.

I interpret that to mean that they'd prefer that I didn't do that. But as far as I can tell, that wasn't an order. And even if it was an order, who cares? As far as I know, dispatchers can't give orders.

I don't care if a cop said "we don't need you to do that" either. After what they've done to my town, I could care less what the cops think is best. All that matters is what the law says. If Zimmerman was legally allowed to follow someone, that's all that matters.

That said, if a cop ORDERS me not to follow someone, I'm not going to argue with him, even if I knew that I was legally allowed to do something. If it turns out to be a big deal, I'd file a complaint.

According to an X-15 article posted today, he has a title now: "butt-sniffing noodlehead Piers Morgan"

First, Trayvon ran away. He had no business returning to assault the "creepy ass cracker" and he should have just ran home.

Yes, Trayvon assaulted the "creepy ass cracker" on a public sidewalk thinking that he could simply beat the shit out of him and run along home. He thought wrong and this was a fatal mistake.

I've been followed before and I don't hunt the person down and assault them. I get the hell out of there. And if I am assaulted, I also have a CCW and would defend myself--in private and in public. Self defense is the point of a CCW.

" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11

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.

He said "ok" and stopped the pursuit, then Trayvon ran back to assault him. The confrontation was the assault, not the pursuit which was already done with.

" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11

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.

Yes, Trayvon, or Saint Skittles as some have called him, initiated the confrontation by his assault on Zimmerman. Zimmerman had not broken any law by following him. The law breaking started when Trayvon sucker punched him and broke his nose. Why otherwise intelligent people don't understand that is a mystery to me.

Boggles my mind as well, no matter how many times the facts are clearly stated deflection ensues for Saint Skittles.

I've asked why he had to resort to assault many times, no logical answer. Violence is the obvious answer.....but violence always begets more violence. This case proves that astute saying.

" If you cannot govern yourself, you will be governed by assholes. " Randge, Poet de Forum, 1/11/11

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.

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.

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"?

PA has a similar law, but again that has nothing to do with the Zimmerman case. His defense was self defense. Period. On this alone the jury found in his favor. And regarding stand you ground, when did it become an obligation to try and outrun a 17-year old felon intent on cracking your head open. Those are the very reasons I carry a gun. If someone would really like to change a rotten system they’d work on law that would make it criminal for the state to overcharge a defendant, eliminate the lesser charges that tag along with the major one, and finally make the prosecution pay all court fees and punitive damages associated with a not guilty verdict.

Fuckin right ! (Make them do the time alloted for the crime upon a not guilty verdict and shoot the bastards if they withhold evidence).

Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehood’s school. And the one man who dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.

Bingo! The State can cost a citizen his last penny in defense of a crime that never should have been brought to court. In this matter it was a raw political prosecution. Then, when it's over, they get to thumb their noses at any Brady violations, and fire an IT kid who was a whistleblower to their crimes. That type of power should be in the hands of the citizens, not the federalies.

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.