Why Al Sharpton should be fired

In light of Al Sharpton's recent call for "escalation" due to the Trayvon Martin incident. He should, at a minimum, be fired from MSNBC. Why? For several reasons, including the same ones others have been fired for, including Imus. It's racially provocative and irresponsible. Inciting a riot comes to mind as well.

I can understand being upset, and while it's disappointing, I even understand why most blacks will automatically side with him regardless of what really happened, so this scenario is even more volatile. I'm not surprised that he did such a stupid thing, because I suggest he is indeed a stupid man, and try as he may, fails miserably at being an intellectual or a true leader.

I actually signed an internet petition when I first heard about the Trayvon killing. The story I read angered me at the injustice. I regret it now. After learning much more about it, the facts don't appear to be anything like what was presented to me. The incredible lies by omission and how he wasn't the innocent sweet little boy in the picture they circulated. The media has seemed to enjoy stoking the fire and leaving pertinent information out of the story. Fox, CNN and of course MSNBC are skewed one way or the other, you have to look on your own to even get close to what happened. No surprise there. So I'm especially outraged because he does or should know just as much as we do by now and it makes it that much worse.

Another reason he should be fired, he is absolutely the worst "host" I've ever witnessed. It's painful to watch as he butchers the English language and struggles to string two sentences together. Please explain to me why, other than the fact that he is a popular black person still riding the coat tails of MLK, he has his own show? Does he offer anything of value to make me overlook how unqualified he is to just speak well on camera? Which is sort of expected at that level is it not?

What happens when innocent people are hurt or killed for no reason because of this? Is it worth it to him?

Please explain to me why this is a good idea.

I couldn't agree more. This whole double standard is getting a little old.

I think he should be fired for being an opportunist racist idiot.

Zimmerman should be charged with manslaughter at the least though. He had no visible injuries, no reason to shoot a person. He provoked Trayvon and shouldn't have followed him, especially after the dispatcher told him not to. If some random weirdo was following me I'd try to defend myself too.

I had no idea that Al Sharpton actually had a job.

But yes, I agree. If the news media had any shred of credibility, they would sever all ties with him, for his (essentially a call for a race war) unless Mr. Zimmerman is arrested, found guilty and executed.

reply to post by Paschar0


I like the GUY! I like the way he fights! The poor child was screaming! The idiot that shot him should be arrested! Is it against the law to walk to a store and buy candy and a drink? 911 Communications told the Neighborhood Watch guy to Back Down..Do Not Follow..and what did the guy do?

delete

deleted

Originally posted by RealSpoke
I think he should be fired for being an opportunist racist idiot.

Zimmerman should be charged with manslaughter at the least though. He had no visible injuries, no reason to shoot a person. He provoked Trayvon and shouldn't have followed him, especially after the dispatcher told him not to. If some random weirdo was following me I'd try to defend myself too.

edit on 30-3-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

I hear what you're saying, but at the same time, it's not illegal to follow someone. 911 operators give bad advice all the time, remember the 90 year old woman they advised not to shoot the intruder coming through her window? She's alive and well today no thanks to them.

While neither of us were there, I suspect Trayvon became irritated at being followed and it escalated over time. I understand why Zimmerman followed him and actually agree with his reasoning somewhat, I also can understand why Trayvon was angry about it.

But the bottom line is who threatened or attacked who first and I believe that was Trayvon. He may not have liked being followed and treated that way, but it doesn't justify attacking Zimmerman for it. There are consequences and risks when you resort to violence, too often people think it's a joke or treat it casually while acting "hard", which also seemed important to Trayvon.

I agree. Al Sharpton is an extreme racist and even my most liberal friends agree with me. In a just world, that alone would be enough to get him fired. And he really is the worse host ever. I don't even think he writes his own material, he just reads whatever is on his teleprompter. It's almost like listening to a nervous third grader read out loud in class.

I agree most with what RealSpoke said above. Martin had every right to defend himself. If some guy was chasing me with a gun, and cornered me, I would have beaten him to the ground, too, if I was able. The fact that Martin was over 6 feet tall and wasn't really a child does NOT justify what Zimmerman did. Misinformation is the fault of the MSM, not the victim.

reply to post by RealSpoke


Bingo, his choice to escalate by pursuit.

reply to post by Paschar0


It's not legal to shoot someone you provoked a fight with, by following him, which can be seen as a threat. If an older male was following me at 17, I would probably be scared for my potential life. It is just straight up creepy.

It's not legal to shoot someone unless your life is threatened (self defense).

Zimmerman had no visible injuries, I really doubt much of a fight happened by looking at the police tape after the incident.

On the 911 call you hear a YOUNG man screaming for help and then once the shot occurs, it stops. Witness testimony, video,and telephone recordings all point of the guilt of Zimmerman, not Trayvon.

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by Paschar0

 

It's not legal to shoot someone you provoked a fight with, by following him, which can be seen as a threat to Trayvon. It's not legal to shoot someone unless your life is threatened (self defense). Zimmerman had no visible injuries, I really doubt much of a fight happened by looking at the police tape after the incident. On the 911 call you hear a young man screaming for help and then once the shot occurs, it stops. Witness testimony, video,and telephone recordings all point of the guilt of Zimmerman, not Trayvon.

edit on 31-3-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

Actually it is. It's not illegal to annoy someone, but when that person attempts to attack you, then you have every right to defend yourself. Zimmerman did have injuries and was cleaned up at the scene, this was verified. It's also believed Zimmerman was the one screaming on the 911 tape, why would he continue to scream if the attack stopped, I'm still unsure about this part myself.

I've seen Trayvon's tweets and read about his history, it's not great. I've looked at Zimmerman's, also not great, but not quite as dubious in my opinion

So I have to disagree that all things point to Zimmerman's guilt, I see it quite the opposite.

reply to post by Paschar0


You can't shoot someone for a scuffle anyway, they have to be using deadly force against you. Following anyone is harassment, and since it was a very young boy, exponentially creepy.

And there have been pictures floating around the internet that isn't even Trayvon. Also, you think he should be liable to die because you didn't like his tweets? His tweets can somehow make his death less a crime, or the person who did it less guilty?

Witnesses, phone accounts, and video all point to his guilt. Don't see how you could see anything else. The screams are clearly from a boy, not a man on the phone tapes. The screaming stops because Trayvon died, it makes no sense that it would be Zimmerman.

While the definitions vary from state to state, the general rule makes an important distinction between the use of non-deadly and deadly force. A person may use non-deadly force to prevent imminent injury, however a person may not use deadly force unless that person is in reasonable fear of serious injury or death. Some states also include a duty to retreat (exceptions include Louisiana and Florida), when deadly force may only be used if the person is unable to safely retreat. A person is generally not obligated to retreat if in one's own home in what has been called the castle exception (from the expression "A man's home is his castle").

In Runyan, the court stated "When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justiciable."

en.wikipedia.org...

Florida has the "stand you ground rule", so in fact, you can shoot someone for a scuffle if you "feel" your are being threatened is the law.

The pictures I've seen are all of Trayvon, giving the middle finger, etc. Those reasons alone of course are not reason enough to shoot him, but they speak to his character. The first picture I saw of him was a school picture many years old. So the idea was to make me believe he was a sweet innocent small child. Why would they intentionally try to mislead people this way? There were recent pictures that could have been used, they used it because they wanted to paint a picture that served a purpose.

The information I heard initially pointed to a cut and dry case of Zimmerman's guilt. After reading and learning more about events and then learning more about Trayvon, it quickly became clear that wasn't so. If you can look at ALL the evidence and reports and see how this entire incident has been manipulated and still stand by your statements, I just can't understand that.

It was a trajedy, like anyone that's killed over something stupid, but it doesn't mean you make it into something it isn't just to serve an agenda. It's one thing to allow yourself to get fooled, it's another to keep allowing it.

I do find it to be distasteful and somewhat of a conflict of interest.

But I also tend to think that "news" as we know it is long gone or corrupted. Everything seems to be "analysis" or "commentary" because, obviously, they want to control what we think.

On the surface what Sharpton is doing may be very similar to O'Reilly or Hannity but his chosen issue is far too volatile to be fanning the flames like they all do.

It is extremely hypocritical that MSNBC fired Pat Buchanan because of a chapter title in his book called "The End of White America", but decides not to fire Sharpton for his highly inflammatory remarks, which could incite violence and race wars. Then again, what else would you expect from arguably the most biased Network on TV.

reply to post by Paschar0


The stand your grand law is a self defense law. It has the same main frame of my former post.
The law in Florida is this ;

776.041 Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who: (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Multiple photos have went around the internet that were not of them. You can't judge someones character by 2 or 3 photos anyway. You never gave anyone the middle finger before? Are you forgetting he was a 17 year old? Not emotionally mature at all, brain isn't even fully developed.

But really, mainly because if Zimmerman never would have followed him, none of this would have occurred. He was the aggressor. A guy following you is a potential threat to your life. Normal people do not follow teenagers or anyone for that matter. Serial killers and robbers follow people.

You cannot base guilt of perceived feelings of a persons character, that just promotes ignorance. I studied a lot on the case and ALL of it leads to the guilt of Zimmerman. Due to the fact Zimmerman was following him, didn't retreat when told to by the 911 operator, multiple witnesses testimony, and police video.

I'm basing my opinion on facts, you are going by what you perceive Trayvon's character was. Did you even stop to think what Zimmermans character is?

Al Sharpton is a rabble rousing racist bigot. I see no difference between him and white supremacists. Same song different verse. He should never have been given a show in the first place. The only airtime he should get is the same type the Klan gets.

This is why he should of never
of been on tv in the first place.
This is why he never was before,
and yes he should if anyone should.
A wana be luther jr.

If anyone is interested
the million man hoodie march for today
is being discussed a bit more in depth here
along with other updates and everything
you need to know about the case

Originally posted by RealSpoke
I think he should be fired for being an opportunist racist idiot.

Zimmerman should be charged with manslaughter at the least though. He had no visible injuries, no reason to shoot a person. He provoked Trayvon and shouldn't have followed him, especially after the dispatcher told him not to. If some random weirdo was following me I'd try to defend myself too.

edit on 30-3-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

This dude was asked to get a street name for the cops. he walked and got it and walked back to his car. I was reading on twitter the blacks want a last battle "blacks kill all da whites" for real dude? drop it and move it along