Hannity Exposes Biased Ferguson Liberal During Explosive Confrontation

AUTHOR

August 23, 2014 8:44am PST

Quite the heated interview recently took place as Sean Hannity brought yet another race baiter on his show. Exposed as a racial tension aggravator, a Democratic politician in Ferguson, Patricia Bynes, was brought on to discuss her blatantly biased claims.

After twanging the nerve, and only further stirring the racial pot of so many already frustrated citizens, Bynes, during a previous interview explained that the Mike Brown case was about “police brutality,” “racism,” and “racial profiling.” During her most recent interview, Hannity decided to “educate” the politician a bit on the U.S. legal system.

Kicking off the conversation by asking Byrnes if she actually witnessed the crime, Hannity indirectly told the woman not to make assumptions – after all, you know what they say about assumptions. Furthermore delivering quite the smack down, Hannity went on to express his wonderment as to where she was getting her facts, but the conversation quickly turned volatile.

(See also: Key Witness In Mike Brown Case Wanted For Theft, Lying To Police)

“Let me educate you, Committeewoman,” Hannity said. “Let me educate you about the legal system in America.”

“I don’t need your kind of education,” Bynes responded.

The two bickered back and forth as to the legalities of the matter, but most of all whether or not the Mike Brown case was one regarding police brutality. Byrnes, in a desperate attempt, continued to bring up several unrelated points regarding other officers and their actions despite them having absolutely no relevance.

(See also: St. Louis Cop Caught In Racist Rant: I’m ‘Into Diversity – I Kill Everybody!’)

In America, those suspected are considered innocent until proven guilty and by throwing in the actions of other criminal officers into this case, in which quite a few facts are clearly yet to be exposed, goes to prove the biased nature of those attacking officer Wilson.

Wanting to “educate” the woman again, Hannity asked, “If he was charging at the police officer, the police officer – by law, that would be defined as justifiable use by force. You are aware of that, right Committeewoman?”

“I am very much aware of that, but there is no way that an unarmed man should have two shots in his head and four in his body. So you keep wanting to talk over the facts. I think you need the education here,” Bynes shot back.

(See also: Intelligence Officials Zero In On ‘Jihadi John’ Who Beheaded Foley)

Hannity just wasn’t having the woman’s ignorance as he further questioned, “If he was charging at the officer and he was only hit in the arm. And if he kept charging after being hit in the arm, the officer would still have the right to defend himself by law. Is that not true, Ma’am?”

Inadvertently saying that Hannity had a point, Bynes did her best to continue the argument by saying, “Well, the officer does have the right to defend himself, but two shots to the head? He’s doing too much. I think a logical person can agree to that.”

Why is it that Wilson has already been put on trial despite the facts still having to come out?

comments

You must login in order to leave a comment.