Protecting the neighborhood
by M. Stewart
As the Trayvon Martin case continues to pick up steam, new information has been released by Sanford, Fla. police. The shooter, George Zimmerman, told police that the teenager came up behind him while he was walking back to his car, punched him, jumped on him and began banged his head on a sidewalk, and that's when he decided to pull out his gun and shoot the 17-year-old in the chest.
But let's not forget the most significant new information: Trayvon Martin had been suspended from school at some point when school officials discovered "traces" of marijuana in his backpack. For right-thinking, reasonable people, that settles it. Martin was the aggressor, and Zimmerman merely was defending himself against the attack of a teenager hopped up on weed and sugar.
As all the media talking heads bob up and down discussing this case, the one who made the most sense to me was a guy representing the National Rifle Association, who was interviewed Saturday on the radio. I didn't catch his name, so I can't give any more information about him, but I have not heard his comment since.
The NRA representative noted that the 9-1-1 tapes reveal that Zimmerman clearly was stalking Martin even after the operator told him not to. As such, the "stand-your-ground" law does not apply. You can't claim you were standing your ground when you were the one stalking the victim, he said. Obviously, his interest was more in defending the stand-your-ground law than defending the shooter's actions.
Had the Sanford police department done its job, Zimmerman's claim that he was "beaten" by Martin could have been validated by physical evidence. After all, if someone is pounding your head into a sidewalk, you're going to have wounds, but the Sanford police didn't see the need to look for any such evidence supporting Zimmerman's claim. As it stands (or so it seems), we have only the killer's word to go on, and he expects us to believe that he allowed this unprovoked savage beating to occur before he decided to pull out his gun and shoot his assailant in the chest.
Since the story went national last week with the release of the 9-1-1 audio, it has become about race, and perhaps rightly so. This case looks very much like one of those 1950s things where the white cops back up the story of the white assailant, no matter how ridiculous it is. One thing seems different, though. In the 1950s, the cops would have gone through the charade of arresting and perhaps even charging Zimmerman, knowing full well that a white jury would find him not guilty.
In the 21st-century South, the cops don't even arrest the guy. If he says he was defending himself against an unarmed black teenager, that's good enough for them. End of story.
As the Trayvon Martin case continues to pick up steam, new information has been released by Sanford, Fla. police. The shooter, George Zimmerman, told police that the teenager came up behind him while he was walking back to his car, punched him, jumped on him and began banged his head on a sidewalk, and that's when he decided to pull out his gun and shoot the 17-year-old in the chest.
But let's not forget the most significant new information: Trayvon Martin had been suspended from school at some point when school officials discovered "traces" of marijuana in his backpack. For right-thinking, reasonable people, that settles it. Martin was the aggressor, and Zimmerman merely was defending himself against the attack of a teenager hopped up on weed and sugar.
As all the media talking heads bob up and down discussing this case, the one who made the most sense to me was a guy representing the National Rifle Association, who was interviewed Saturday on the radio. I didn't catch his name, so I can't give any more information about him, but I have not heard his comment since.
The NRA representative noted that the 9-1-1 tapes reveal that Zimmerman clearly was stalking Martin even after the operator told him not to. As such, the "stand-your-ground" law does not apply. You can't claim you were standing your ground when you were the one stalking the victim, he said. Obviously, his interest was more in defending the stand-your-ground law than defending the shooter's actions.
Had the Sanford police department done its job, Zimmerman's claim that he was "beaten" by Martin could have been validated by physical evidence. After all, if someone is pounding your head into a sidewalk, you're going to have wounds, but the Sanford police didn't see the need to look for any such evidence supporting Zimmerman's claim. As it stands (or so it seems), we have only the killer's word to go on, and he expects us to believe that he allowed this unprovoked savage beating to occur before he decided to pull out his gun and shoot his assailant in the chest.
Since the story went national last week with the release of the 9-1-1 audio, it has become about race, and perhaps rightly so. This case looks very much like one of those 1950s things where the white cops back up the story of the white assailant, no matter how ridiculous it is. One thing seems different, though. In the 1950s, the cops would have gone through the charade of arresting and perhaps even charging Zimmerman, knowing full well that a white jury would find him not guilty.
In the 21st-century South, the cops don't even arrest the guy. If he says he was defending himself against an unarmed black teenager, that's good enough for them. End of story.
posted by M. | 8:34 AM
22 Comments:
I thought the shooter was Hispanic? If he is, doesn't that cancel out the race issue?
Damn, I thought you were going to talk about how the U.S. has now put a monetary value on human life --- at least regarding Afghans.
I would like to see a poll on ORL asking what people think the value of a human life is. Obviously the U.S. government has already decided that perplexing question.
Jeff--
My understanding is that Mr. Zimmerman has a Caucasian father and Hispanic mother. Not sure whether that makes him "white" in the South or not.
As for the monetary value on human life, the going rate in Afghanistan is $50k. It's probably a little more in some parts of the U.S. In Florida, it seems that human life is worth nothing at all.
His mother is seeking to trademark phrases with her sons name. Didn't take long for his family to start cashing in. A book and movie deal will soon follow. What a nice family
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/trayvon-martin-family-looks-trademark-am-trayvon-justice-142131528.html
That's just really sad and weird. When Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson get involved, you know it's going to turn out bad.
If this were a "black on black" crime, there would be no story. If the black community are calling Zimmerman white because of a white parent, wouldn't that now make President Obama white? Matt here is an interesting clip of Bernie Goldberg on the O'Reilly factor. http://www.billoreilly.com/video?chartID=610&vid=-389571452287910435 Where is the outrage here?
Did you just play the "race" card?
Mentioning Sharpton and Jackson in the same sentence, clearly you are a racist.
Seriously, I do think that the police force should make an arrest for homicide, if the evidence supports it. However if the evidence rules that the teen was assaulting Zimmerman, then let the man be.
Just saying--
With each passing generation in America, distinct race fades a little more. Who among us is a racially pure anything? Still, most people focus on the differences. President Obama is no more black than he is white, yet everyone--including himself--considers him black.
WHAT!!--
When Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson get involved, the issue becomes about race. Racial politics is their field; it's what they do. I don't think race has anything to with the legal aspect of the Martin case. It may have something to do with why it happened, but it shouldn't have anything to do with potential charges and prosecution.
The blacks will make it a race issue; they almost always do. Let's just remember one thing: the issue in this case is a law that wrongfully gives broad powers to the general public.
Trayvon Inc. People will never cease to amaze me.
http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-inc-fla-teens-case-turns-brand-193105131.html
Fred - While I can't look into the hearts of Trayvon's parents and know for certain what their motives are in trademarking his name, I do know this: Someone was making shirts that said something about Justice for Trayvon and then had some reference to "getting that punk-ass cracker". Supposedly, they are trademarking his name to avoid others from making money by selling offensive shirts like that, which only inflame the situation.
The video released yesterday clearly shows that Zimmerman's account of the incident is false. The question now has to do with possible complicity by the police in a cover-up and possible falsification of police reports.
I'd like to ask FRED why he seems so anxious to discredit the victim and his parents rather than support a citizen's right to walk on the street without getting murdered.
Trayvon had an extensive record at 17. I doubt he was out for a stroll in the neighborhood.Have you seen the recent pictures of him instead of the 5 year old pictures the media have been using. He looked like a typical thug.
Fred--
Ok, I just wanted to get your position straight: He deserved to be shot and killed because of the way he looked.
I see a lot of comments about race, blah, blah, blah. What is sad here is that a child was shot and killed by a person who was supposed to be on 'neighborhood watch'. Racial tensions are clearly high this day and age. People get over it! Race has nothing to do with someone being human being, and neither does their clothes. However, society says otherwise. Society says that 2 men, or women can not marry. I am looked down upon because my spouse is black. Big deal! I did not marry my husband because he is black, I married him for who he is. Then you have the 'what they were wearing' issue. Does that mean that someone who wears red is in a gang? Not necessarily! I feel that society needs to change as a whole, and people need to change and accept those changes as they come! It is ok to keep your guard up, and be careful of things, but because someone was walking down the road and he was wearing a hoodie does not mean that they are a bad person. If Mr. Zimmerman had handled the situation different, there may not have been a dead child.
In the police report it said that Zimmerman had cuts and was bleeding from the back of his head with corroborates what Zimmerman said about being attacked and his head being slammed off the ground. I think it was self defense.
The police report doesn't seem to be consistent with the video. That's the whole point.
Maybe you didn't see that the "New Black Panther party" just declared a Bounty on Zimmerman, Dead or Alive. I heard two amounts 10K and 1 million. So some nut job will try to collect.
When that happens I hope everyone is equally concerned.
So now you think the police are lying?
Helen, agree with you. But where is Sharpton, Jackson, NAACP and all the media when another kid loses their life? Where were they with the 9 month getting killed? Why didn't Obama speak out on that? If you ask me it's the black community who keeps racism alive and well. Black colleges, black scholarships, BET channel, NAACP, Jackson, Sharpton, affirmative action.............................................................................. and so on.
Look at this brutal attack on a white girl who did nothing wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BMy3k_JMio&feature=player_embedded
What does a couple of girls fighting during a soccer match have to do with shooting death of Trayvon Martin? Are you suggesting that his murder is a justified response to a soccer fight? I'm sorry, but I don't see the connection.
Here's a challenge for everyone. You can watch the television coverage, read the news stories, and discuss the issues with those who agree with your point of view on this matter. It's quite easy to find people who have a 180 degree different opinion of this event, however. I just had Hannity on and flipped to Dr. Drew to see their different thoughts. You can't find two polar opposites on this topic. The challenge is to actually listen to both sides and try to form YOUR OWN opinion about this. It's quite easy to read or listen to others and repeat their arguments. It's acceptable to disagree, be wrong, and change your opinion. That is how one grows.
Post a Comment
<< Home