The Breitbrats have been striving mightily to absolve George Zimmerman of any responsibility for Trayvon Martin’s death. Most recently they have posted a video that they claim shows a wound on the back of the head of shooter George Zimmerman. It is their contention that the presence of such a wound proves that Zimmerman was the victim in a scuffle wherein Martin was the aggressor.
It is a pretty long stretch to surmise that a 140 pound teenager decided to attack an armed man twice his size, but that’s the line that the right-wing is peddling. And no one does it with more bombastic zeal than Breitbrat Dan Riehl. In his article he claims to have acquired a new hi-def video that contradicts a police video previously released by ABC News.
“A new High Definition clip from the same video appears to make clear that Zimmerman had a gash, or wound of some kind on the back of his head. That would be totally consistent with his version of events on the night in question and opposite the impression ABC News gave its viewers.”
Notice that the Breitbrats are endeavoring to corroborate Zimmerman’s story. Why conservatives have chosen to align themselves with the shooter in this incident is mind-boggling. Are they just naturally sympathetic toward gunmen who kill unarmed kids? Why wouldn’t they be concerned about the fair and proper administration of justice wherein anyone who shot another person is arrested and investigated to determine if a crime had been committed? For the trigger-happy rightists this is just a political skirmish where they get to put on a phony bravado and spew NRA cliches.
And notice also that they contradict themselves within just a few sentences. First they assert that the video “make[s] clear that Zimmerman had a gash, or wound,” then, in the same paragraph, they declare the video inconclusive. And not just inconclusive, but shoddily and unethically so:
“Given analysis by Breitbart Media and the Daily Caller already performed, the ABC video appeared to be inconclusive, at best. […] any determination beyond the video being inconclusive is shoddy, if not intentionally unethical, Journalism – if not deceptive and misleading Journalism.”
How the Breitbrats can view an inconclusive video and conclude that a wound is clear is more than a little curious. The only shoddy, unethical journalism being practiced here is by Riehl and the Breitbrats. A viewing of the video they posted reveals their deliberate attempt to distort the evidence. Consistent with their history of deceptively misrepresenting videos, the Breitbrats have selectively focused on a single frame of this video to advance their dishonest argument. However, the frames before and after the one on which they focus tell a more complete story:
As is obvious from this video, there was no injury on Zimmerman’s head. That is, unless the injury would appear and disappear every few seconds. What’s more, had there actually been an injury, and it was cleaned up at the scene by paramedics as claimed by Zimmerman’s camp, why are there no bandages over the wounds? These are wounds that were described as serious, such as a broken nose and a gash that would require stitches. But according to the Breitbart’s defense team, Zimmerman’s injuries healed completely (but for an alleged bruise) by the time he arrived at the police station within an hour of the incident.
The only thing that any of the critics of the police are requesting is that the normal course of justice be taken. No one is trying Zimmerman on television or pronouncing verdicts. But any decent citizen ought to agree that the circumstances of this incident require an investigation that can only occur with an arrest and the opening of a case. But that’s something the right is dead-set against. We can only wonder why.
9 thoughts on “Breitbart’s Zimmerman Defense Team Discovers Mysterious Shadow That Proves Trayvon Martin’s Guilt”
Gun rights. That’s one reason. Also, anything liberals and especially Obama are outraged over must be disputed. As far as I can tell, there’s no particular sense of affiliation with Zimmerman nor even a natural animosity toward Martin. It’s simply a conservative reflex to defend what the enemy attacks, and vice versa.
A faction on the Right becomes outraged if anyone decries racial profiling, or if anyone supposes that unequal treatment by the police may be due in part to race.
So the idea that Zimmerman was acting based on some kind of racial profiling or prejudice (as possibly evidenced by his call to 911) is assailed. The same applies to the notion that the case might have been handled differently by the police had the victim of the shooting been a Caucasian.
There are a good number of people who play a special race card called “you are playing the race card”. Rush has done this for years by claiming that racism doesn’t exist to the extent that some minority spokespeople say it does. So these people (like Rush) make themselves (ordinary Caucasians) out to be the victims of the aggressive self-asserting minorities.
Once Obama made even the most general sympathetic reference to the situation there was all the more cause to try to promote this as a wedge issue.
There are a good number of people who play a special race card called “you are playing the race card”.
Excellent point. Thanks.
I think you’ve both hit on the reason the right has jumped on this. Once Obama had anything to say about it, their knee-jerk reaction was to find an opposite view. The problem is that the opposite view to seeing this as a tragedy is to celebrate it. And that’s what they’re doing by coming to Zimmerman’s defense and praising what they regard as vigilante justice.
While I agree with the above comments, I also will break ranks a little, and say that the usual suspects of Sharpton, et al, without conclusive evidence, automatically and loudly proclaimed racism, when that may or may NOT have been the case. Once Al Sharpton gets involved, whether he is correct or not, the conservative media will instantly line up on the opposite side of the issue. I wish the focus had been on the facts and known evidence. I believe we could have focused more on knee-jerk vigilantism, and an overreaction by a wannabe tough guy cop.
The Conservative Media allowing themselves to be manipulated by Al Sharpton is not the problem. They’re not given a pass by choosing to ignore relevant issues as counterpoints to someone they don’t trust. The issue at hand is three fold: 1) what are the limits of vigilantism, particularly in respect to organized groups like “Neighborhood Watch”; 2) what rights do innocent people, particularly young people, have to walk neighborhood streets without being harassed by pseudo-crime fighting organizations, or even police; 3) did race play a part in the shooting.
In relation to number 3, as part of the Breitbrat response, would the reactions be the same if the dead teen had been a white kid? Given the spurious justifications offered by those on the right, I’d have to say no.
may or may not become a link when I post. Unfortunately there’s no preview button.
Anyway, here’s a great, comprehensive explanation for the con behavior from our friends at Salon.
“As is obvious from this video, there was no injury on Zimmerman’s head…”
Once again, you are proven wrong. CNN and ABC, at minimum, have now said that there appears to be several welts on the back of his head. Note: I said “appears to be”. I thought the video was inconclusive back when you all were saying that Zimmerman wasn’t hurt; I still say that. But your statement has been blown out of the water.
Here’s an idea: Wait until the medical records come out. They will say if Zimmerman was injured that night.
You’re quite right about the medical records, if any, resolving this. And if there aren’t any medical records, why not? We know now that the ambulance originally called for Zimmerman was canceled.
However, I can’t see any injury in these pictures. And it is absolutely clear that there are no bandages on either his nose or the back of his head. If he were were beaten as badly as he claimed – if his nose was broken and his head was repeatedly bashed into pavement – how could there be no need for a bandage?
Again, I agree with you about waiting for any physical evidence that is available. And that’s been the real issue from the start. Why wasn’t this treated like any other shooting incident where a case is opened (usually after an arrest) and an investigation conducted? A month went by before anyone sought to investigate, and that was only because of the attention the case got in the local press.
If the evidence points to Zimmerman being justified, I’m cool with that. I’m just glad that it is being looked into – finally.
Comments are closed.