Memo To Fox News: Trayvon Martin Won’t Be Testifying Because He’s DEAD!

Throughout the trial of George Zimmerman for his role in the death of seventeen year old Trayvon Martin, Fox News has been conspicuously prejudiced in favor of the defendant. The theme most prominent on Fox has been a regurgitation of Zimmerman’s legal team that portrays their client as a hapless victim and Martin as a violent thug. Today Fox went further down that path to pass judgment on Martin with an editorial titled: “Trayvon Martin’s testimony wouldn’t have changed anything in Zimmerman trial.”

That is one of the most disgusting expressions of disrespect for a crime victim you’re likely to ever hear. Because there is one change that would be glaringly obvious were Martin’s testimony to be available. It would mean that he was alive. For Fox to publish an editorial dismissing out of hand what a dead kid might have said about the man who shot and killed him is astonishingly cruel and insensitive.

The author of the column was not an authority on crime or civil rights, it was the notorious gun nut John Lott, who has made a career of advocating for the most extreme deregulation of guns, including the “kill at will” laws that were at the center of the Zimmerman case from the start. Lott has been taking Zimmerman’s side of this debate since it first became public last year. More recently, he published an editorial on Fox News last week saying flatly that “The Zimmerman trial is already over,” and that it should never have been brought to trial. That’s been the position of Fox News for months, and their community web site, Fox Nation (aka Factory of Lies) has posted numerous articles pleading on behalf of Zimmerman-as-victim.

Lott’s arguments in his new column were just as repulsive as the heinous headline. He begins by asking a leading question: “Is there even one piece of convincing evidence that Zimmerman did not act to defend himself from a threat of ‘imminent death or great bodily harm’?”

The answer to any objective person is “Yes.” In fact there is a great deal of evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor. He was stalking Martin, who had done nothing wrong. He left his car to follow him after the 911 officer advised him not to. The ensuing confrontation occurred only because of these facts, which are not in dispute. You cannot claim self-defense if you are the aggressor, even if you end up on the losing side of the battle.

Lott further reveals the bias in his argument when he sets up a hypothetical scenario to make a point: “If both Zimmerman and Martin had both been white or if Zimmerman had been darker skinned, this case would never have gotten to court.”

Of course, there is no way for anyone to know whether that is true. But the telling thing about Lott’s selection of scenarios is the one that he left out. The scenario that Lott wants his readers to ignore is: What if Zimmerman were black and Martin were white? Were that the case, it would almost certainly have resulted in the arrest of the shooter.


Most of the rest of the column was Lott’s misreading of the evidence presented in court and his one-sided analysis of his own slanted version of events. But the most egregious overstepping of decency was his assertion that were Martin alive to give testimony it would have meant nothing. For some reason, Lott thinks that Martin’s word is worthless. He thinks that if Martin had described a confrontation wherein Zimmerman had assaulted him after having followed him, and then shot him only after he was unable to subdue him, that none of that would have been relevant to the jury or the administration of justice. What is it about Martin that makes Lott regard his testimony as absent of any value? Would Lott apply that same standard to any other victim?

There has been much debate over the apparent racial aspects of this case. Lott himself raises it at the end of his article by declaring that the episode “has left lasting damage to race relations in the U.S.” But there is an undercurrent in these events that may be even more significant than race. There is a reason that a prominent gun advocate is taking such a visible role in Zimmerman’s defense, and that Fox News is providing him the platform. The gun lobby has taken a strong interest in this case as it impacts their long held beliefs that everyone be allowed to carry weapons at all times, in all places, and be excused if they use them to kill other people.

The commencement of this trial was deeply rooted in racial politics when the local Florida police never bothered to arrest Zimmerman or make reasonable efforts to ascertain what happened, to preserve evidence, or to conduct a legitimate investigation. But the outcome of this case may revolve more around guns and their place in a civilized society. And the evidence of that is apparent when gun nuts like John Lott are leading the parade for murder defendants, rather than experts on race or crime.


49 thoughts on “Memo To Fox News: Trayvon Martin Won’t Be Testifying Because He’s DEAD!

  1. What I think got lost in this case is Zimmerman knew he was armed from the start that emboldened him. Fact Trayvon had just as much right to to be there as Zimmerman.Fact it’s no doubt in my mind Zimmerman was stalking this kid. He got his ass kicked. The problem I have with this case is everything line up to perfectly in Zimmerman favor.Worst is that Zimmerman showed no remorse. Fox is racist so I expect nothing less. Which why out of the media outlets Zimmerman chose to go on Hannity show to do an interview

    • @dsand1445, very well stated. Unfortunately, prejudice is what fools use for reason.

      • Scott, you’re surprised the libs think that? – they believe all conservatives are racists and/or prejudice – not just Fox.

        • Of course, not all fox viewers are racists. But,all racists watch fox and it is their favorite channel.

        • I am offended that you make such a sweeping judgmental statement about all Liberals. I am married to a conservative Christian & I am a liberal Wiccan. I don’t think for a second that my Caucasian wife is a bigot as she loves my multi~ethnic self. I have 11 ethnicities. I see Bigots where they are. & they are in Fox news as well as in the Rep party. They are also in all other tv stations & all other parties. It may be people that dislike or hate Caucasians or Negro’s or Asians or Easter & Western Indian’s. Bigotry is bigotry & it is ignorant no matter whom the person is. Steve how do you feel about other ethnicities. I don’t say race (or ?? American’s) because I was born here in America not in another country. The correct use of Mexican/African/Asian American is for those American’s that have been naturalized via immigration & were born in another country. I am an American simply because I was born here but not only that but so were over 17 generations confirmed born here. As I am also part Native American Ohlone tribe is one of my 3 tribes I have over 17 generation in Monterey county Ca. So again I take offence that “Scott, you’re surprised the libs think that? – they believe all conservatives are racists and/or prejudice – not just Fox.” was your statement. The 1st woman I fell in love with is a Conservative as is my wife today. I have never blamed all of any group for the actions of one of them. I will say this that the leaders of the Rep party seem to all have a leaning in the direction of bigotry not just toward other ethnicites but other religions as well. this nation wasn’t created to be a christian nation it was created to be a land of the free. Free to believe as you please & not be persecuted for it. & Christians so called good christians did just what was done to them to the natives. They enslaved them & forcefully converted them. Which they knew to be wrong because it was done to them in England. This is what was done to my people from all of my ethnicities by christians. They said it was wrong when Pharaoh did it to them but like the Rep party it is ok when they do it to others. They hushed a Dem representative the other day with no good reason for saying shame while they can call Dems out of there names & worse & think that is fine. That is what we have a problem with. The Rep leaders that your voting in think they are entitled to more than anyone else in the US. They are not & they need to be put in check. If your party won’t do it then we the people that are not blind must.

  2. The most important thing to remember is the role of the armed citizen. It is not the role of the armed citizen to arbitrarily decide, for themselves, in their own heads, that any given person is ‘suspicious’ and to then follow them as if it’s their duty. I’m surprised certain parties find it difficult to think of what would be going through a teenager’s head in fucking Florida when he notices he’s being followed. Let me be clear, it is my opinion that this kid thought he was in imminent danger from someone he saw was following him. That’s not an unreasonable or implausible opinion. In fact, it’s most probable. Think about it, what the hell would Martin attack Zimmerman for? Fun? The kid saw he was being followed, why would he be followed? The kid was alone. What would be your thought process in those shoes? The entire point to this being a murder is the fact that Zimmerman out stepped his bounds as a legally armed citizen, and arbitrarily created a situation that put a teenager in he thought, WOULD THINK was imminent danger. Zimmerman created a text book prelude to a kidnapping scenario, and didn’t think what might happen to him for doing so. He’s a classic example of someone who doesn’t understand what it means to be armed, and to use that power responsibly. He didn’t think , at all, about what kind of position he put that poor teenager in. Race only comes into it in Zimmerman arbitrarily deciding that Martin was suspicious of criminal wrongdoing. He looked at him, and took nothing but that information into consideration when he, again, took it upon himself to decide that this was a criminal. This case is obviously a murder. Zimmerman is obviously a dolt that didn’t consider what Martin would think he might be, someone that wanted to hurt him or worse. It’s more a showcase of the absurdity of stand your ground laws, and how lazily thought out they truly are. Zimmerman needs to go to prison. Period. An armed citizen that doesn’t think is more dangerous than just being armed. This kid is fucking dead because some moron wanted to live out a vigilante fantasy, like most gun owners have but never act on, cause ya know, THEY AREN’T FUCKING STUPID.

  3. Addendum-There’s no reason for me to be following him other than I think he’s suspicious. He murdered that kid, no ifs ands or buts about it. It’s only being argued as it is because of shitty, batshit motivated laws that have gaping holes in them. At the very least, now there’s a perfect example of how to abuse that law to get away with murder.

  4. I have the right to my opinion just as you do. This case would not have happened if Zimmerman had not decided to take the law into his own hands period. At no point did I say all conservatives are racists I do believe Fox is racist when they allow comments and opinions by network personalities that are clearly racist Glen Beck was not fired until public out cry advertiser pulled ads.

    • it was a general statement in response to Scott – and by the way, I’ve read stuff here long enough to feel very confident in that statement that – at least on this site, libs/prgressives believe exactly that. Maybe not all of them, but enough to make the generalization.

      • It passes my understanding how someone could go through life and end up as stupid as you.

        Maybe not all but enough to make the generalization…..?? Are you even capable of thinking before you speak?? It makes me sad that you even think you could try to have an intelligent opinion about anything….or that i thought you were ever worth even my lowest efforts to have a discussion. You make me give serious thought to voting literacy tests.

        Last one, I promise.

        • “…end up as stupid as you…”

          Yet another left-winger loses an argument by resorting to ad hominem.

          • And yet it doesn’t change the fact that you are indeed stupid.

          • I’m not arguing anything, I’m calling him stupid and being disrespectful of his purposeful ignorance as if he thinks it’s a virtue that elevates his own views over ours. I thought that was obvious. Then again, I didn’t expect someone whose participation here amounts to very, very short, knee jerk, projectile vomit like rebuttals to any given post. See? That’s disrespect again. The only appropriate and relevant response to trolls that never offer anything intelligent beyond the constantly ambiguous, irrelevant, obtuse, and bubble trapped fantasy of the conservative ideal. No need to point out the disrespect here Scott, or ever. It’s by design most of the time, which is why even an ass like you can pick it up so fast and type six words to highlight it as if it destroys all leftist arguments everywhere. Like I said somewhere else here, Scott, victories for you must be few and far between.

        • Now there is the classic liberal respnonse I’ve come to know so well. My comment was ignorant, no doubt, but accurate in my opinion. You choose to ignore my total contempt for the liberal/progressive view of the world. You deal with it by calling me names and/or other things vs. accepting that not everyone thinks highly of your “enlightened” view and won’t accept in any way the complete lack of freedom and/or oppression that comes with progressivism. I could choose to be less ignorant, but I don’t – and you’ll keep coming back because you just can’t help it. When I discuss with people face to face, I’m much more respectful because we can dig much deeper into the reasons for our disagreements and we’re generally less emotional. And by the way, I don’t care if you’re sad – you don’t really want debate, you want support only for your views.

          • oops – correction to one line above as it contracicts itself:

            “complete lack of freedom and/or oppression that comes with progressivism”

            Should be:

            complete lack of freedom and the oppression that comes with progressivism.

            • Steve In York: Aren’t you doing the exact same thing that you’re decrying, though? Over-generalisation of the subject in the same manner? “…..complete lack of freedom and the oppression that comes with progressivism.” Isn’t that just as bad as saying that “All conservatives are racist”?

              And for the record: even if we ignore the Southern Strategy; even if we ignore the fact that it was the Conservative wing of the SCOTUS that just invalidated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act; even if we were to ignore the fact that African-American Conservatives seem to condescend to others of color; even if we ignored all of that, could you really sit here and objectively say the the right-wing/Republican/Conservative leadership isn’t pushing an agenda among its adherents of fear of those that don’t look like them?

              I think that, if you were to answer fairly and objectively, you response would be in the affirmative.

          • Steve,

            Be honest, did you secretly get gay married in California at an abortion clinic while stoned out of your mind with Nancy Pelosi singing “We Are the World” in the background?

  5. It’s not that I’m a smart person or anything, it’s that everyone else seems so damn STUPID.

    • Your characterization is typical for libs – all that don’t agree with you or see things your way “seem so damn stupid”. Maybe we see libs like you in ways you don’t like too much. I’m not even going to say them as I’m not interested in arguing about it –
      be who you want to be, but don’t think we’ll all just go along because you think you’re so much more enlightened than others.

    • And here’s an article I actually wrote about how much they let their viewers use the N-word in their comments.

      BTW, they’re still using it- I screen grabbed Fox Nation using that word 14 times this week on Al Sharpton alone.

      But nice try- Ranks up there with the Neo Confederates claiming they no longer use slurs, then making up for lost time when the people they’re trying to convince leave.

      • Wow. That’s a great collection of true expressions from the Fox community.

    • That article was written by an African-American woman who was pointing out that it’s time for both blacks and whites to stop using the N-word. I actually took the time to read it. So your sarcasm doesn’t work.

      • And I suppose the fact that it’s basically just defending Paula Deen, while singling out Jay-Z (Hey, isn’t his wife a regular Fox Nation target?) was an unintentional side effect.

        You know, the same way it’s unintentional that this sounds almost verbatim to Laura Ingraham’s N-Word rant:

        Or that it contains traces of Ingraham’s Paula Deen defense:

        And some of her Rachel Jeantel racial whining:

        Inghram alone proves Fox News is racist, because every host approves of these comments, and this behaviour from her. They enable her, they agree with her, and when she gets under fire… they defend her.

        Yeah, Fox is not racist, just number one with racists like Scott.

        Oh- And, unlike you, Scott? I have black friends. The ones who believe Greene even wrote that immediately pointed out that it sounds exactly like Ingraham. EXACTLY.

        • You are lying about Laura Ingraham, Fox News, and me. And you know it.

  6. I love how Right-Wing posters like Scott are living on ad hominem, while pretending it’s an instant resort of the left. How about we spend some time in the real world?

    Before the right made it about race, you know what the Trayvon protests were about? That the police took a guy who disobeyed their orders to chase after a kid he didn’t know whether or not he was armed, escelated the situation, then killed the kid- allegedly because he was getting his donkey kicked. I didn’t hear race in the protests, I heard “Why’s this guy so special?”

    Every racial element of this is on Republican media. And they did it because they wanted to keep it from being about their precious, precious guns. Someone brought up “Stand Your Ground,” their instant response was to force the subject to race. When Zimmerman turned out to actually be a racist with a racist family, they upped the ante that the black protesters were more racist.

    They couldn’t let this be a trial about the abuse of a gun law, or Zimmerman’s preferntial treatment, which could have made him a 1 percenter issue, given his parents. So they went to the only thing they know. And congratulations- Thanks to GZ actually turning up to be a racist, they got it. All they have to do is keep bombing the coverage with racial suggestions, and the precious, precious guns are safe to kill more kids.

    • First of all, Aria, your precious little Newshounds website is a total dog. Your friend Ellen has been caught in lie after lie. And since you have nothing to say about the non-stop ad hominem that Mark uses, you have no credibility at all.

    • I think he just proved the point in your first paragraph.

      • Bigtoe, he also proved that he apparently got all his information about Newshounds from Johnny Dollar. It might interest him to know that J$ owner Mark Koldys actually got kicked out of Newsbusters because he’s too dishonest, even for Bozell. Let that sink in a moment. No, let that really sink in.

        Oh, and Scott? If you’re the Scott from J$… be sure to tell Marky Boy that if he’s gonna accuse people of stealing his identity, pre-meditating it in his comments makes him look kinda… retarded.

        • Johnny Dollar has continously exposed the lies that Ellen and Co. have told over at Newshounds.

  7. “…You cannot claim self-defense if you are the aggressor…”

    Following Trayvon Martin is not an act of aggression. Ill-advised? Perhaps. But the aggression did not start until the blows started.

    “…even if you end up on the losing side of the battle…”

    Put down the crack pipe and face the facts. Since George Zimmerman was pinned to the ground in MMA “ground and pound” fashion, that means Trayvon could keep raining blows on Zimmerman’s head until his skull was smashed and/or his brain stem was snapped in two. With that scenario in play, Zimmerman was not just “on the losing side of the battle”, he was in real danger of being beaten to death.

    • “Following Trayvon Martin is not an act of aggression.”

      Whether or not it’s an act of aggression depends on the person. Personally I would consider it to be one. I’ve been followed in the past and it scared the crap out of me. So much that I was worried about my safety. I didn’t act aggressive in return in those cases but only because I knew I was at a serious disadvantage. If I knew I had a decent chance of winning a fight with someone that was following me, I definitely would have acted more aggressively and I would consider it to be me defending myself against some creep who for all I know is planning on raping and murdering me.

      Seriously people, if you decide to go following people expect to get punched.

      • Exactly! And if you are following someone who you have already described as a “fucking punk” and you are carrying a loaded gun, you are by definition being aggressive. If your victim ends up pummeling you it’s your own fault.

        • “If your victim ends up pummeling you it’s your own fault…”

          And if you are being beaten to the point of unconsciousness, if your nose and face are being busted open, and if the back of your head is being slammed into the pavement until your brain stem is in danger of being snapped in two, then you have the option of fighting back (and using deadly force, if necessary) to keep from getting killed.

          One guy got referred to as a “f###ing punk”, and the other guy was called a “creepy-ass cracker”.

          • You are adding opinions as to Zimmerman’s condition that are not in evidence. The defense conceded that his injuries were minimal. And Zimmerman called an innocent kid walking home from the store a “fucking punk,” while Martin called a stranger who was stalking him a “creepy-ass cracker.” Very different.

      • Hey Scott, I’ve put the crack pipe down and though my buzz is gone my logic is not. Yours however never existed in the first place. I get it you truly believe because every argument I’ve heard sounds just like yours that Trayvin Martin was a thug who that night Instead of getting candy he was out doing thug things by himself alone and poor Geore stumbled upon thus, profiled, called the police was advised BY THEM, the authority. To stand down. Did the opposite followed a 17 year old who though he is a fat slob had 100 pounds on the kid plus he knew he was armed. A confrontation was made he got his ass beat he shot the kid. Essentially since you and I were not there those are the facts. Now here’s where we use logic. I know it might be difficult and I know your brain can’t but follow me here. Trayvon Martin walking to his house. Unarmed with candy. Had Zimmerman listened to the cops there would be no story. He did not. A confrontation occurred. Martin is dead. Why? Because Zimmerman took the law into his own hands. A crime was not being commuted until that point. I have no idea how defenders of Zimmerman refuse to see that. Both media outlets can portray Zimmerman and Martin as whatever they want. Martin a thug, Zimmerman a weirdo that had a temper problem. Regardless the fact are mentioned above neither knew each other. GZ had no idea who TM was. He saw a suspicious kid. Looked black. Followed him for doing nothing wrong. End of story kids dead. Why? You answer that in your typical I refuse to understand logic fashion and explain to me how if Zimmerman had he listened and not got out of his car would have been attacked? Please I beg you.

        • “…would have been attacked…”

          Trayvon Martin had his choice, too. He could have simply told Zimmerman, “Dude, I’m just walking home. Quit following me.” He instead chose to punch him. That was when the law was first broken.

          • Yeah, all he had to do was tell what he thought was his would be kidnapper or murderer that he was just walking home. That right there Scott is proof of how hard you’ve thought about this. According to your reasoning, Martin knew zimmerman ‘simply’ thought he was suspicious and was following him because he thought he should deal with the cops based on what he looked like. Martin not being aware of Zimmerman’s mindset and obviously not being fucking psychic is the WHOLE POINT here.

            The way I see it, you don’t have the right to get upset when I call you people out for showing how fucking stupid you are. You think it’s cause I just hate the right, right? It’s because you say shit that makes you look like a fucking moron!!!


            • I am smarter than you will ever figure out.

            • Maybe you’re right Scott. All the evidence I have is the totality of your expressed opinions and reasoning behind them as you’ve put out on the Internet here. Maybe you’re misrepresenting yourself. I don’t know. Your comments rile me up dude, it’s difficult for me to understand how someone can come up with such opinions and think they’re intelligent and valid. I try to, but I just end up confused and bewildered how someone could allow vices like selfishness and xenophobia get the better of you and dictate your politics. It’s not something I undestand. But, maybe you’re right, again, because it’s just here that I can say that on.

              That said you can’t deny that you’re just here to troll.

    • Following someone is very aggressive. Anyone who has ever been followed knows this and knows the fear and adrenaline that erupts. Zimmerman could have rolled down his car window and yelled ‘neighborhood watch’ (or something to that effect) and a real burglar would have left the subdivision. I once approached a baby wild deer. Wanted to take a picture. The fawn panicked and ran off a ledge. It stumbled and eventually died from it’s broken neck. I killed that young innocent animal as sure as I breath. I was an aggressor.

      • No shit! Your ignorance of the situation YOU CREATED doesn’t excuse you! Why is that hard for some to understand??!?!?

  8. I’m a 53 year old white woman. I wear hoodies all the time. If I were coming home from a local store, late at night, does that give a wannabe cop reason to stop and harass me?

  9. who cares . when an innocent white person is murdered it’s no big deal. show a picture of him that isn’t 10 years old.

    • The only people who assign that much value to race in this case are the right and those on the left who’ve been talking about race their whole lives. And no, it wouldn’t be ‘no big deal’. This case has so much attention because everything that happened was technically legal, but obviously disgusting. The circumstances are extraordinary here, the details make it outrageous to a lot of people. Not on race mind you, on the details of Zimmerman’s intent and in that the nature of his actions created a situation that put a lone teenager in a classic ‘I’m about to kidnapped’ mind set. But he’s dead, and according to the only living party, he was in the right on everything. The fact that Zimmerman took the law upon himself and put this kid in the kind of situation he did, without even thinking about that, and ended up killing him. Martin, like any other kid in the whole goddamn world, thought that a stranger was following him at night and intended him harm. He got out of his car and walked toward him after having followed him. While visibly armed. The KID thought he needed to defend himself, and because he’s dead he’s not here to say that which means Zimmerman’s probably gonna walk. It’s an extraordinary case because, if both parties were around, they both would cite self defense. The system isn’t designed for circumstances like this, and technically, no laws were broken by anybody, which is why this is a showcase for emotion. But I gotta ask, why focus on race at all, let alone as the biggest part of it? That’s not why it’s captured our attention. To say it is on either side is missing the point of the importance of this case. Of course, by all means have that argument with others that see it as most important part of this, but in reality it isn’t.

      And for the record, race is a part of this, a small part. Just looking at Martin made Zimmerman think he was suspicious, historically it’s relevant. But far from the most intriguing. Even saying ‘if the roles were reversed’ is totally pointless, they aren’t reversed. Rationalize it’s capturing a part of the public’s attention because of race if you want, but that’s not the true reason, it’s because of loopholes and technicalities and beyond ordinary circumstances in self defense cases.

  10. Ron said it best…..if the color was reversed it would be no big deal. Take away people’s color & get to the facts.

  11. Okay, I had to stop reading in the second paragraph with the mis-use of the word “their”. I fully expected to see OMG and LOL after that.

Comments are closed.