pjMom
backyardconservative
Carol
fuzislippers
iainswife
Obi's Sister
nicedeb
Pat Austin
Jill
Quite Rightly
retrieverheart
Sherry
just a conservative girl
Zilla
The Politics of the Death of Trayvon Martin
The death of Trayvon Martin is still in the headlines and getting a great deal of coverage on the cable news shows. I personally watch very little television, but when I do turn on CNN or MSNBC this is a major topic. New polling is out that shows a racial divide on how you look at the case. Many whites, myself among them, feel that this has been politicized by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton. Now, I will admit anytime that Rev. Al gets involved in something I am more than just a tad suspicious. See, I grew up outside of New York City and I remember the Tawana Brawley Case. A very sad story of young teenaged girl who made accusations of rape at the hands of white attackers. The longer it when on the more of the circus it became. Brawley came from an abused background and had a step-father who was literally a killer and a mother who had abused her in the past for running away. The racial strife that besieged the city during this incident is well-remembered by the people who had to live with it once this story left the news. While Sharpton was successfully sued, he didn’t pay the monetary damages, people paid it for him. We then can move onto the Duke LaCrosse players. Rev. Al tried to destroy these young men’s lives based on a lie. When there is a big spotlight that he can climb into, he never misses the opportunity. He is nothing more than a race hustler and a con man. How this man continues to have any creditability is beyond my comprehension. Al Sharpton has blood on his hands.
I have been on record as being disgusted about how some one the right have decided to put Trayvon on trial. This doesn’t belong in the court of public opinion. This case is moving along in the justice system. More slowly than many people would like, but nonetheless it is moving along.
There are many things that we don’t know about this case. What does the coroner’s report say about where the bullet entered Trayvon’s body. They can tell what angle the gun was held at and how close the gun was to his body when it went off. Did Trayvon have any defensive wounds, did he have Zimmerman’s DNA under his fingernails, and did he have any other injuries beside the gunshot? Where was Trayvon’s body in relation to Zimmerman’s car? Where was Trayvon spotted in comparison to the store and his dad’s home? All of these things will help bolster or help destroy Zimmerman’s statement of events that led to the shooting. None of these things have been made public, so we have no way of knowing what evidence the state has and what they don’t. Zimmerman has said that Trayvon went for his gun. Is his fingerprints on the gun or the holster? If so, game over; Zimmerman will be a free man. Rightfully so, in my opinion. That will be a clear-cut case of self-defense.
I have nothing but sympathy for the parents of Trayvon. They buried their child. Let me say that again, they buried their child. That is a pain that no person should have to go through. No matter the circumstances, it is one of the most painful things that anyone will endure. They want justice done in the name of their son. A perfectly understandable thing. Any parent would want a full accounting of what happened to their child and how they died. I am even willing to cut the woman some slack about getting the trademarks. She has a very good attorney who I am sure told her to do this. Lets be honest here, people would have tried to make money off her son’s death and this prevents people from profiting off her pain and loss.
What I find so troubling is how this boy’s death is being used and politicized. The family made an appearance on Capitol Hill in regards to Stand Your Ground laws. That is a state issue and has nothing to do with the federal government. But people have decided to use this death to further their anti-gun agenda. Stand Your Ground Laws isn’t really a gun law. It says that you can use up to deadly force to protect yourself even off your own property. You can do that in any number of ways that don’t include a gun. Some people are well-trained in martial arts and could end another’s life with their bare hands. You could use a knife if you happen to have one, a tire iron if you are on the side of the road changing a tire and some one tries to attack you. The law isn’t designed to be about guns, it is designed to allow people who are being threatened with imminent danger to protect themselves. But of course the anti-gun lobby will use anything that they can to limit the constitutional rights of gun owners.
We also see cries of racism. There is zero proof that Zimmerman is a racist. Zero. The people who are perpetuating this should be hanging their heads in shame (Rev. Al). Racism is a very serious charge and it should not be made lightly. There is word on the 911 call that you can’t make out. Somehow this has turned into the word “coon”. When is the last time you heard a person use that word to describe a black person? That is not something that is part of the everyday conversation about race in this country. When you make claims of racism that have little to no basis in fact, you are taking away from the true claims of racism. I have heard one person go as far as to say that Zimmerman’s tutoring of underprivileged people was actually proof that he is a racist. He did it to prove his superiority or something like that.
The Congressional Black Congress is not going to be outdone by Rev. Al, so they have decided to enter a resolution to honor the life of the young slain teen and it also calls for a repeal of the stand your ground laws. Oddly, one of the people who signed onto the resolution is Congresswoman Frederica Wilson who helped pass the law in the Florida legislator. Oh, the irony and how it is not being reported that this law passed unopposed.
The media bias in this case is well documented. NBC has admitted to “editing” the 911 call. Apparently that happened in the control room. Uh, huh. They purposely reported this case as a white on black hate crime. They have done everything in their power to convict Zimmerman, to heck with the facts; or more precisely the lack thereof. They have led to some of this uneven polling that we are seeing. They have taken an unfortunate set of circumstances that we don’t have all the facts about and turned it into political theater. A very sad commentary on how the view their jobs as unbiased reporters of facts. They are losing even the bare threads of journalistic integrity that they had left. Especially when you consider Al Sharpton is allowed to lead rallies then report on them during his show. While he is opinion and should be given a little more leeway, he has been allowed to use that platform to push a point a view about a criminal matter.
Rev. Al says it is people on the right who have decided that Zimmerman is not guilty. I don’t believe that to be true. I think most on the right feel that they don’t have enough facts to say what did or did not happen and we would like to see what the special prosecutor has to say about the available evidence.
I have heard on interview with Trayvon’s mother. She won’t accept anything but a conviction. Of course she is still in mourning and dealing with her grief. I can’t imagine that Al Sharpton will accept it if the prosecutors come back and say that the evidence shows that Zimmerman acted within the law and no charges will be brought. I know some who will not accept it either. At least at this point. They have made up their minds. They ignore the fact that there is a witness that backs up Zimmerman’s claims. Trayvon was on top of him punching him. There are wounds seen on him in the video that released. There was tape on his nose showing that their was some sort of injury. To me the only way that Zimmerman should have felt reasonably in danger was if Trayvon did go for his gun. If not, he was not justified in shooting him.
I have come to the conclusion that at the end of the day we will find that both Zimmerman and Trayvon both made some bad choices. Zimmerman should have stayed in his car and locked the door once he knew the police were coming. Trayvon should have either ran to his dad’s or called 911 when he was made uncomfortable once he realized that some strange man was following him. If either of them had done these things, Trayvon would still be alive today.
just a conservative girl, 
cindy, and 2 others are discussing. 
Ike 1:31 PM on 04/06/2012 Permalink |
As to your opinion that “…the only way Zimmerman should have felt reasonably in danger was if Trayvon did go for his gun.”, I disagree. If Martin was on top of Zimmerman, banging his head onto the ground – or a concrete sidewalk – how much of that physical punishment does a person have to take before being reasonably in fear of death or serious bodily injury? How much pain? How much potential serious bodily injury is required? Must a person in that situation wait until they feel their skull fracture before they’re entitled to kill in their own defense? Why do you suppose that one of the life lessons which used to be imparted to kids – at least in the working-class white world I lived in – was “Don’t start a fist fight with a man who has a gun.”? Take a guess. Because precisely this will happen to you, regardless of race, regardless of time of day or night, regardless of anything other than if you are beating up a man (or woman) who has a gun, they will shoot and kill you. Bad choices? Yes, I agree with that part, however, the producing cause of Martin being shot was his physical attack on Zimmerman. Not conservative racism; there is a live witness to has told the police that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating his head into the sidewalk. How many times does a person have to be hit before you belive they’re entitled to kill in self-defense?
SignPainterGuy 7:21 PM on 04/06/2012 Permalink |
Dittos Ike ! “Must a person ……. feel their skull fracture before they`re entitled to kill in their own defense ?” This seems to be much the same rationale behind the protection of and the laws against harming grizzly bears. Apparently, the bear`s defenders believe you must have your head in the bear`s mouth and feel the pressure of the bite into you skull, or have already lost an arm or other appendage before you can shoot to defend yourself !
I say, HORSE MANURE !! No animal is worth a hair or fingernail of a human ! No criminal or attacker is worth dying for. The attacker certainly doesn`t care for your rights; a home invader gave up his rights as soon as he crossed the curb ! Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 !
If criminals could come to reasonably expect a person to defend himself, likely with deadly force, much violent crime would be prevented by the fear of dying themselves in the process of committing a crime. A whole lot of second thoughts !
just a conservative girl 7:49 PM on 04/06/2012 Permalink |
he knew that the police were coming. On top of that his injuries were not severe enough that they required him to seek medical attention outside of what was being done at the scene. It is well known that this man had anger management issues. It could very well be that he reacted in anger more than fear of his life. Again, we have to wait and see what the medical reports have to say about his injuries. From what little we can glean from the video (which is not much) his injuries looked relatively superficial.
Ike 9:04 PM on 04/06/2012 Permalink |
He was a part of the neighborhood watch and was protecting his neighbors and their homes. He knew the police were coming; yes and do you suppose that was anything he considered, while his head was being pounded into the ground – or concrete? Would you have thought, “Oh, the cops are coming, so I won’t do anything”? You are ignoring the question. The question is: how much physical injury must a person suffer before being legally – or morally, if you prefer – justified in killing their assailant? His injuries are ‘relatively’ superficial because he shot and killed his attacker. From what legal source comes your implicit idea that there is some threshold of inflicted injury required before the use of deadly force is legally permitted?? Put yourself in Zimmerman’s position: you’ve been punched in the face and knocked down by someone who you strongly suspect of being a burglar who is looking for somewhere to burgle; he is – right now – pounding the concrete sidewalk with your head; you scream and yell for help, but no one answers or comes to help. Are you going to tell me that you would simply lay there and be beaten to death – or to whatever degree would satisfy Martin – without raising a hand to defend yourself? Suppose that one of the hypothesized events was occurring: that Martin was attempting to take your gun out. Does that change your opinion? And even if true, does it matter that he had anger management issues? Of what significance is that? Having served in the Vietnam War for three years, I can tell you that in life-and-death situations, anger is a virtue, not a disease – as it appears to have become here in these ‘modern’ times. No, it seems plain, based on the publicly-released information from law enforcement that Martin attacked Zimmerman, was beating his head against a sidewalk – perhaps was trying to take his gun, maybe not – Zimmerman was yelling for help and got none. So, he took out his gun and shot the man who was attacking him. Good outcome? Of course not, but the fault is Martin’s, not Zimmerman’s, based on the available evidence that has been publicly released. There is no requirement in the law that a person being beaten wait until some certain amount of damage is done; the requirement is that that person be reasonably in fear of serious bodily injury or death. Having one’s head bashed into the sidewalk repeatedly, after having been punched in the face and knocked down would seem to create that fear in any reasonable person.
just a conservative girl 9:37 PM on 04/06/2012 Permalink |
You are assuming that Zimmerman is telling the whole truth about what happened. Yes Trayvon at some point was on top of him – According to one witness. According to another that was not the case. Do you think that if you start a fight with someone and they end up getting the better of you during that fight that you get to kill them? For all you know that is what happened. You can’t say who threw the first punch. No one saw it.
There is a woman being interviewed right now as I am writing this saying that she believes the cries she heard came from Trayvon. She also believes that they were on the grass the entire time of the fight. She was on the phone with 911 when she heard the shot.
You have chosen to believe Zimmerman’s story in total, without the police reports of the physical evidence you are making assumptions of facts that may or may not exist. You don’t know where the body was found in relation to the car, in relation to the sidewalk, and many other things.
To say that Zimmerman acted within the law with the scant evidence that is available is irresponsible. Just as irresponsible as Rev. Al saying that he was shot in cold blood because he was black.
fuzislippers 12:27 PM on 04/12/2012 Permalink |
[quote]You are assuming that Zimmerman is telling the whole truth about what happened. [/quote]
And you are assuming he’s not. Why not let the courts decide?
just a conservative girl 1:13 PM on 04/12/2012 Permalink |
I know that death was avoidable. Both of them could have made different choices that night. Whether it is criminal or not, no one can reasonably say with the evidence that has been released thus far. Only two people know what really happened and one is dead.
Ike 9:03 AM on 04/07/2012 Permalink |
I have not reached any final conclusion in this case, for precisely the reasons you list, summarized as ‘we haven’t heard the evidence yet’. I am arguing with your statement that Martin had to be reaching for Zimmerman’s gun before Zimmerman would have been justified in shooting him. (That is, by the way, clearly not the law in any jurisdiction that I’m familiar with.) I would point out that you also appear to believe any claim contrary to Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. You assume, without any evidence at all, that Zimmerman started a fight with Martin. On the question of who threw the first punch, since the police report that Zimmerman had a broken nose, blood on his face and some minor injury to the back of his head, it seems more likely than not that Martin caught him by surprise with a fist to his face and followed up as that one witness described. But you’re correct that a final decision must wait on hearing the evidence, in court. I am handicapped in these cases by my education, training and experience: in addition to combat duty in Vietnam, I am a retired court reporter and attorney who defended criminal defendants, so I have notion of what the law is in such cases as well as first-hand knowledge of what fighting for my life is like. I say again that my argument is against your notion that Zimmerman needed more justification to shoot Martin than what some of the witnesses are saying and what some of the physical evidence supports. There is no legal requirement to have some specific degree of injury, only that the person shooting has a reasonable fear of the imminent infliction of death or serious bodily injury. You have written that more is needed and it is with that assertion that I argue. Not with “who did what to who” or “who’s guilty and who’s innocent”.
just a conservative girl 9:20 AM on 04/07/2012 Permalink |
There are things about Zimmerman’s story that make no sense. The body was found face down. Which means he had to have fallen forward after being shot. Which would lead one to believe that he fell on top of Zimmerman. That gives me pause about his story. Another thing that gives me pause about his story is that he said he was attacked from behind. The police said he had grass stains on his clothing on his back. If he was in the street walking back to his car, attacked from behind wouldn’t he have fallen to the point where his head was in the grass and his back on the concrete? Again, we don’t know if there is blood on the concrete or not. What I am saying is that his story doesn’t add up that it is the complete truth. I also don’t think if he started the altercation, which is possible. There are now two or three witnesses that say that is true. If true, I don’t see how self defense becomes an issue. If I were on a jury and someone started a fight then killed the person and claimed self defense, I would have to convict.
I also do take issue with imminent threat when you know the police are coming. Head wounds tend to be very bloody, for whatever reason the scalp bleeds a great deal. His clothes don’t appear to be that bloody. The little evidence we have doesn’t back up his story of self defense to me. I would need to know more.
cindy 11:40 AM on 04/07/2012 Permalink |
I beleive that some of the most damning evidence against Zimmerman may be where the bullet entered Trayvon and the trajectory of the bullet. If the bullet entered Trayvon’s back, then Zimmerman is lying about being on the bottom as they struggled. It also means he could have avoided deadly force by continuing astride Trayvon’s body until tthe police arrived. I think Zmmerman, having successfully interrupted a burglary in process in the neighborhood already, wanted to play “hero-cop” for which he is not qualified. He could not have made a citizen’s arrest under the facts with no evidence to support him except a vague suspicion. I dislike both Rev. Sharpton and Jessie Jackson for their sensationalism and divisive tactics, but I do believe there was racial profiling in this case: Young black men were perpetrators in four of the last eight burglaries in the neighborhood; Zimmerman targeted Trayvon because of this (Would he have targeted young white men? – I doubt it); therefore, he did not see Trayvon as an individual because of his race, despite his altruism toward black children in given situations. Finally, this case would not have gotten as far as it has in the court system, were it not for the court of public opinion. I wonder if Zimmerman will invoke the 5th Amendment?
just a conservative girl 4:19 PM on 04/07/2012 Permalink |
Cindy, Zimmerman won’t have to plead the 5th if criminal charges are brought, he is under no obligation to testify. Although one would think in a case where you are using self defense it would be better that you do.
I am not sure I will go as far as to say racial profiling. I grew up in an all white town. We had a very small police force and truth be told they didn’t do much as it really is a sleepy little town where little happens. But if you were a person of color driving through there late at night they would follow you. I asked one of the cops one day (they used to come to the Friendly’s we hung out at). He told me that it wasn’t racist, it was risk assessment. I didn’t really buy it at the time, but as I have gotten older I see what they were saying. They knew they didn’t live there, so what are they doing driving around late at night? They also followed people in old beat up cars because this is an affluent town and most people didn’t have older cars. I am sure in most cases it was totally innocent, but I would be willing to be dollars to doughnuts that by doing that they saved my home or one of my neighbors from being robbed at least some of the time. (And I am not saying because they are people of color, just that they were people who had no business being there late at night.) They didn’t pull people over and give tickets for no reason, just would follow them until they crossed over into the next town. If the break-ins were being committed by young black males (I am not saying this was the case, I don’t know) and you see a young black male that you have not seen before then yes you would look at that person with doubt if you are trying to play super cop. Color is also a descriptor. It doesn’t always involve racial profiling. But you and I agree on the hero cop thing. Something he was obviously woefully unprepared for. I think an experienced, well trained cop would have had a different outcome even if Zimmerman is telling the truth. Most cops carry taser’s which are not usually deadly.
Maybe you are correct about getting the special prosecutor assigned. I would like to think that a plea to the governor and AG Bondi would have yielded the same result without all this hoopla. But I may be being naive on that count. We will never know now.