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.

Why Is The Fox Nation Rooting For George Zimmerman?

For the past week a murder trial in Florida has fixated the nation and the media. This sort of thing is not unusual as the past trials of Jodie Arias, Scott Peterson, Casey Anthony, and all the way back to O.J. Simpson have proved. What is unusual is the lengths to which Fox News has gone to cheerlead for the defendant.

From the very beginning Fox has sought to portray George Zimmerman as the victim who was only acting in his own defense. At the same time, they cast Trayvon Martin as a violent thug who must have been up to no good. Take a look at the graphic editorializing Fox engaged in early on:

Fox News Racism

In reporting on the court proceedings this week, Fox continued to demonstrate their overt prejudice in favor of Zimmerman. Nearly every commentator Fox put on the air found fault with the prosecution and managed to spin the witness testimony as beneficial to the defense. And the headlines at the Fox Nation Lie Factory tell the story that Fox is desperately trying to implant in the weak minds of their viewers:

  • Zimmerman Blockbuster: Witness Saw Man With ‘Lighter Skin Color’ Getting Pummeled ‘Ground And Pound’ Style
  • Zimmerman ‘Elated’ at Prospect That Trayvon Fight Was Recorded
  • Prosecutors ‘Must Have Had a Stroke’ Over Detective’s Testimony
  • AP: Trayvon Martin’s Legal Troubles Reportedly Covered Up By Police
  • Travyon Martin’s Friend Grilled By Defense

This parade of pro-Zimmerman analysis is reminiscent of last year’s election analysis on Fox, where every discussion leaned heavily in favor of a Romney victory. Fox irresponsibly led their audience to believe that President Obama was irredeemably unpopular and bound for defeat. Fox would only present disreputable polls that showed Romney ahead, while ignoring all the other surveys (including their own) that forecast an Obama victory. When reality set in on election day, Team Fox and the gullible dupes who watch the network, were dumbfounded at a result for which they were entirely unprepared.

The same thing is happening now with this trial. The obvious zeal that Fox is expressing for a Zimmerman acquittal is not incidental. It fits into their mission to demonize minorities. Try to imagine what Fox’s (or the rest of the media) reaction to this case would have been if the races were reversed. Do you think Fox would be defending a black man who had shot and killed an unarmed white kid walking home with Skittles and iced tea?


The consequences of Fox’s disinformation could be troublesome. If Zimmerman is convicted, the response by the racially biased viewers of Fox will be shock and awe. Just like after the election, they will be unable to grasp how a jury had concluded that Zimmerman was guilty when everything they had seen on Fox News convinced them that he was innocent and that there was no chance of a conviction. Fox appears to be priming their viewers to rise up in outrage at a verdict they never saw as even a remote possibility.

On CNN and MSNBC there has been a much more balanced presentation of the court proceedings. When the prosecution flubbed an argument, it was reported as such, even on Al Sharpton’s show, despite the clear bias of the host. When a witness contradicted a defense assertion, that was reported as well. The reason for this is that unbiased journalists do not have a stake in the outcome. Liberals, from the outset, have only wanted justice to be done. They were appropriately disturbed at the start of this affair when Zimmerman was let off without an arrest or investigation. The protests that erupted were focused on those ends, not on railroading Zimmerman into jail.

Now that the people are getting their trial, the judgment of the jury ought to be respected. But That is not the tone that Fox is advancing. The hunger for absolution on Fox is palpable. They are convinced that a black youth with no record of violence or criminal activity initiated an unprovoked attack on a conscientious neighborhood watch captain. And until the jury rules, that is the position Fox is sticking with. If that isn’t racism, then what the hell is it?

Zimmerman Defense Lawyer Makes Callous Attempt At Comedy

In one of the most stunningly idiotic opening statements ever presented in a court of law, Don West, co-counsel for the defense of George Zimmerman, somehow managed to conclude that it would be appropriate to tell a knock-knock joke at the commencement of a murder trial with the parents of the deceased teenage victim sitting a few feet away (video below). West prefaced his turn at comedy by saying that “Sometimes it is necessary to laugh to keep from crying.” This was obviously not one of those times as West proceeded to strike out with the stunned jury.

West: Knock knock. Who’s there? George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman who? All right. Good. You’re on the Jury.

George Zimmerman
Be Sure To “LIKE” News Corpse On Facebook

The only plausible explanation for this severe mental aberration is that the defense is already trying to set up a cause for appeal based on incompetent counsel. The jury sat in such abject silence after the alleged joke that West beseeched them for a response pleading “Nothing?” Then, after a break, the lawyer returned to continue his opening remarks, but started off with an apology and blaming his delivery for the lack of comedic punch.

That apology is further evidence that West has no idea what was wrong with his tasteless behavior. This was not a problem resulting from the joke not being funny enough, or that it was delivered poorly. The problem was that it was a joke. The problem was that a murder trial is not the same as open mike night the Laugh Factory.

What’s worse is that the point of this particular joke is an overt insult to the members of the jury. It was a slap at the ignorance of the panel for their having been selected based on how little they knew about current events. He was telling the jury that they were sitting in this courtroom because they are a bunch of morons who never heard of a notorious criminal defendant.

That’s not exactly the best way to win over an audience. It’s probably premature to presume that this counsel has permanently lost credibility with the jury, but he certainly has dug himself a deep hole that will take considerable effort to climb out of. If this flub signals anything, it’s that the defense has very little of substance to hang their case on, so from the outset they are throwing up irrelevancies and distractions. Look for more of that in the coming weeks.