Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Racially Motivated? Not Logical

"Do not banish reason for inequality; but let your reason serve to make the truth appear where it seems hid, and hide the false seems true." ~ William Shakespeare

The first time I heard of the Trayvon Martin case, I was at the library in Fredericksburg, Virginia, catching up on my Facebook friends' statuses.

The first literal mention of the name, "Trayvon Martin" that I ever heard came from a link posted by my Liberal College professor Doctor Nephew. He quoted from something called "Slate":

"How did we get to the place where George Zimmerman could claim that his shooting of a 17-year-old kid armed with nothing more than a bag of skittles was 'self defense?' "

Then, his take on the story followed the same apparent lack of thought: Some self-appointed neighborhood watch guy shot and killed a little black kid apparently simply because the kid was black.

Along with his report, he included a picture of little Trayvon that had been taken when he was 12.

Wow! The kid surely looks innocent in that picture!

Since I wasn't officially back on the internet at the time, I couldn't really expound on my opinion of the tragedy, but, my first thoughts were these:

This story (the way the Liberal press spins it) doesn't make sense.

A man sees a little kid who is merely walking home after buying his little brother a bag of Skittles and decides to gun the kid down with no reason. Other than his skin color.

That's all I heard, and it just doesn't make sense to me.

I try to put myself in his place. At the scene. At the time. I try to think logically about what could have motivated this man to pull out his gun and shoot an innocent kid to death.

I try to imagine that I, as a neighborhood watch captain, notice a kid walking down the street who I don't recognize. I keep an eye on him, because there have been some incidents of criminal activity in the neighborhood recently. Then, seemingly out of the blue, with no forethought, no provocation, other than the kid is black, I decide to pull my gun out and shoot the kid.

Never mind that I undoubtedly know that I will certainly be arrested and jailed for such an unprovoked attack on another human being, and be sentenced to death, or, at the very least, life without parole. Especially since, considering the politically correct climate that exists everywhere (including Florida), a white on black crime is particularly egregious.

Why would I want to risk prison and even death to rid the world of one anonymous black kid?

I wouldn't. I don't see any logic in the charge that Trayvon Martin was shot simply because he was black. There has to be a reason. There has to be more to the story.

It just doesn't make sense.

Now that a few weeks have past and we have learned much more about the circumstances surrounding this incident, we find there is more, much more, to the story.

Since those first few news stories surfaced, we have learned that the kid was acting in a suspicious manner, wandering around at night, in the rain, and, in Zimmermans own words, "looking about". If he was simply walking home with a newly purchased bag of candy in the rain, doesn't reason tells us he would want to walk rapidly and directly home to avoid getting wet as much as possible? Why wasn't he? What else could he have been doing other than simply walking home?

Combine these factors with the fact that Zimmerman was aware of recent criminal activity in the neighborhood.

George Zimmerman, the neighborhood watch captain, called 911. Is this the actions of a man who has cold blooded, racially motivated murder on his mind?

Then, we find Mr. Zimmerman was directly confronted by the kid, and suddenly the kid punched Zimmerman in the nose and lept on top of him and proceeded to bash Zimmerman's head into the pavement. If you had a gun and you were suddenly viciously attacked, would you use it to defend yourself?

And we learn that NBC edited the tape of the 911 call to make it appear that the incident was racially motivated. We have also learned the video of Zimmerman arriving at the police station was retouched to hide his injuries, making his story about self defense look suspect.

Now, I suppose it's possible that George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin because he was black, but the facts don't support that theory. Nor does logic.

But, that's not the reason I felt motivated to blog on this thing.

I can't help but wonder why a man with my nephew's obvious superior intellect would leap to such an illogical conclusion without ever once doubting one word of the story first released by the national news media.

Could it be that he wants to believe the worst about people? What does this tell us about his world view? How has this particularly jaded world view evolved to the point that his entire perspective is completely illogical?

Where is the blame to be placed?

23 comments:

Joe said...

Glad you're back.

I agree completely. There is some motivation to telling the story wrongly from the get-go.

Then the call for convictin before a trial!

This one stinks...bad.

Timothy said...

The tip off to this entire story is that Obama said that Trayvon could be his son. That shows the political motivation right there. It's just another avenue to dived and conquer by the left. Without all the facts, it fit the narrative... until the facts began to surface.

Marshall Art said...

First of all, the original video of Zimmerman at the police station was NOT doctored, was later enhanced to show detail more clearly. Other than that, no problem with your re-cap.

As to the point, there are many who wish to maintain the view that there are serious problems in America that don't really exist. Rampant, cartoonish racism is one of them. Does racism exist in America? ATTENTION LIBERAL VISITORS!! I'm saying it does, just not quite the way libs prefer to believe without reason (except to drum up emotional responses they can use to their advantage). I even admit that racism exists on the right side of the ideological divide. I just don't see it as typical, considering none of the conservatives I know are racist.

But it serves the left to promote the image of a racist America in the sense of white supremacy typical of the KKK, and that this sentiment is typical amongst the right-wing.

What I find ironic about the case is that Zimmerman is said to be a registered Democrat. I haven't heard any of the race-baiters address that.

Jim said...

Obama said that Trayvon could be his son.

No, he said that if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon.

That shows the political motivation right there. Who's motivation and how?

Marshall, where was Barack Obama born?

Always On Watch said...

I note today that Zimmerman's attorneys have removed themselves from representing Zimmerman. They even said that Zimmerman is or might be (didn't quite catch that part of this morning's interview with the attorneys) out of the state of Florida.

This entire mess is being exploited so as to promote a race war. And if Zimmerman IS in the wind, well, that does look bad, doesn't it? Is he running away or running for his life?

Trader Rick said...

jim, nobody knows for certain where Obama was born, since we've not seen a valid birth certificate.

The blame lives with lying liberal media shills, puppets of the administration, who will go to any lengths to advance their evil race hatred agenda.

Fredd said...

This whole mess smecks of the Rodney King beating.

Remember that guy? Pillar of the community, innocent and pure as the wind driven snow?

And then the mean old LA police started beating him for absolutely no other reason than for being black.

And then there's OJ. Innocent and pure as the wind driven snow, fingered for a double murder that he didn't do, even though the victims' blood was dripping from every part of the guy.

He was simply black, and that was the only reason the police had an interest in OJ.

Now poor, innocent candy-eating Trayvon, minding his own business in the middle of the night in the rain in a neighborhood that was plagued by break-ins recently.

I'm getting sick of this crap, Mark.

Parklife said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jim said...

nobody knows for certain where Obama was born, since we've not seen a valid birth certificate.

Proof that you are either an idiot or a racist (or both). He has released a valid Certificate of Live Birth recognized as proof of Hawaiian citizenship by all State and Federal agencies.

He has released a long form birth certificate CERTIFIED by Hawaiian state officials that it is authentic.

The fact that you still question this says it all.

The only reason to believe that "nobody knows" where Obama was born is that he is an "other", a "not like" you, a person with life experiences that are different from yours. And yet there are hundreds of thousands of Americans who were born in America and spent much of their early years in other countries. And Americans who were born in other countries. All who are as American as can be. McCain was born in another country. Ever ask for his birth certificate? How do you know Admiral McCain was actually his father?

I know, you'd vote for Allen West in a heartbeat and he's black (he's also a moron). But that's because he holds positions close to yours.

You hated Clinton, I'm sure. And probably Kerry, too. But I'll bet you never questioned where they were born.

You should join Sheriff Joe's posse. Maybe you can learn "the truth".

Jim said...

even though the victims' blood was dripping from every part of the guy.

What? Apparently Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden failed to place that "fact" into evidence at the trial.

Trayvon, minding his own business in the middle of the night

Is 7:00 PM "middle of the night" to you? Better get your facts straight.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

I don't know why the hell you'd bring up Obama's place of birth, unless it was to make some lame point. I've never made an issue of it, except to say that the butthead could have ended the questions as they were asked by providing the documentation right away. Instead he's waited until just recently, and some are claiming that they are fraudulent and showing why they think so.

We can presume two possibilities why he didn't present his birth certs immediately:

1) He saw it as a way to play up the distraction and to allow those who questioned his birth to be seen as goofy. This would make perfect sense for a "uniter".

2) It took him this long to get the fraudulent documents made. (Not saying they are, because I never cared about this issue.)

What's more clear is that you obviously had deceitful intentions in bringing up the subject. But for one to question his place of origin at this point does not suggest either idiocy or racism, but only bewilderment and confusion that could have been prevented had the "uniter" been the transparent president he promised he would be.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter why anyone had no reason to suspect Clinton or Kerry in this same manner. Neither were fathered by a Kenyan, spent a childhood in Indonesia or had anything else about their origins suggest the possibility that they might not have been born here. But as a result of this issue, I have no problem with every candidate providing such documentation as a requirement in order to run for POTUS.

Your belief that "birthers" are merely compelled by Obama being "different" shows just what a horse's ass you truly are. A guy who had no background to speak of, no record of note, no history of accomplishment of any significance, but instead a history of questionable associations...SOMEBODY had to vet the guy. You libs wouldn't.

Jim said...

except to say that the butthead could have ended the questions as they were asked by providing the documentation right away.

The only people that a presidential candidate owes the "documentation" to are the secretaries of state in each state in which he was on the ballot. Can you name ANY state SOC that was denied any requested documentation and still allowed Barack Obama on the ballot? And if so, why would they?

Be that as it may, he released documentation sufficient to prove his citizenship for the US State Department and the State of Hawaii in 2008. Read that again. 2008.

Instead he's waited until just recently

See above: 2008 proof enough for a US passport.

some are claiming

Yeah, and "some" are claiming 9/11 was an inside job.

We can presume two possibilities why he didn't present his birth certs immediately

No you can't because no legitimate authority was denied the documentation and he DID release proof of citizenship in 2008.

He saw it as a way to play up the distraction and to allow those who questioned his birth to be seen as goofy.

Calling it "goofy" is putting it mildly. However, since he DID release proof of US citizenship in 2008, your statement is based on a false premise.

It took him this long to get the fraudulent documents made.

The long form birth certificate was certified authentic by Hawaiian State officials, no fraud was necessary. What do you think he pulled a birth certificate out of the CIA and then sent it to Hawaii for certification?

confusion that could have been prevented had the "uniter" been the transparent president he promised he would be.

There was no confusion. He was "transparent". He provided proof of citizenship in 2008. No state SOC denied him a place on any ballot due to lack of or fraudulent documentation.

Neither were fathered by a Kenyan What relevance would that be? Did anybody check McCain's birth certificate to make sure HIS parents were US citizens? Or Clinton's? Or Kerry's? He had documented, certified proof of citizenship. Of course, his father was a black man. Obama only spent 5 years from age 6 to 10 in Indonesia.

John McCain spent much of the first 15 years of his life in Panama and the Pacific region. John Kerry spent a number of his school years in Europe. Clinton went to college in England.

anything else about their origins suggest the possibility that they might not have been born here.

Nor is there anything at all in Obama's background to suggest he wasn't born here.

I have no problem with every candidate providing such documentation as a requirement in order to run for POTUS.

Obviously it was provided as required.

A guy who had no background to speak of, no record of note, no history of accomplishment of any significance, but instead a history of questionable associations

Much the same could have been said about Abraham Lincoln or George W. Bush. Of course, neither was black or had lived outside of the country.

And yet, Obama had 46 years of "background" including magna cum laude law degree from Harvard Law School, law review editor and president, work in law firms, Illinois legislature terms, and US Senator, and two books. I'd call that "background", "record", and a "history of accomplishment."

SOMEBODY had to vet the guy.

And you think Hillary Clinton, Fox News, and Drudge didn't.

Who is the horse's ass?

Trader Rick said...

Ah, I'm so glad that Mark is back blogging. But that means I have to endure the outrageous argumentum ad hominen that the anonymous troll "Jim" slings about. "Jim", YOU are the horses arse.

AS a matter of fact, John McCain's status as a natural born citizen WAS brought into question. His birth Certificate was never questioned as to authenticity, but CONGRESS dealt with his eligibility to serve as President. Get your facts right, "Jim".

Oh, wait I forgot, you don't live in a world where facts are important. Never mind.

Jim said...

John McCain's status as a natural born citizen WAS brought into question.

I'm well aware of that. I have my facts straight. That wasn't my point.

His birth Certificate was never questioned as to authenticity

Thanks for making my point. And why is that? Why was his never brought into question?

When it comes to complaints about ad hominem attacks, I don't think you really have any standing. You've produced three or four in this one post alone.

Unknown said...

You clearly stay on top of all things law related. I hope you’ve heard of JD Match. If not, you should check them out. I work with them, and they might be the only thing law related that is also easy and free. http://bit.ly/HWHeCV

Krystal said...

Back to the Trayvon ….

I'd like to point out that according to a 2007 report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics:

* 8,000-9,000 blacks are murdered each year. 93% of these murders are carried out by other blacks.

* Blacks are 12.5% of the American population, but are 46% of the homicide victims. That means that 42.78% of the murders in this country are black people killing other black people.

A U.S. Department of Justice report that covered stats from 1974-2004 showed that:

* 52.2% of all murders were committed by blacks and 45.8% were committed by whites. (black murderer rate of 4.176 white murderer rate of 0.698).

2010 statistics from a study done under the direction of Eric Holder shows:

* 20% of hate crimes are committed by blacks even though they only made up 13% of the population. That means that their rate of hate crime is 1.53 while the average of all other races combined in this country is 0.92.

* Blacks murder twice as many whites each year than whites murder blacks

* In most interracial crimes (not just murder), the victim is white and the assailant is black. Black assailants attack whites 45% of the time. White assailants attack blacks 3% of the time.

And the attention is on Zimmerman shooting Martin and the obvious racism that white people have against blacks.

Hmmmmmm ...

No, it does not make sense. But let me tell you this much, if it were the other way around and Martin killed Zimmerman we never would have heard about it. How do we know this? Consider the facts above and the number of interracial murder reports you have ever seen.

Jim said...

Krystal, your data is impressive. Links would be good, but I'll believe you.

I'm not sure what the data shows. Are blacks more violent because of their race? Are blacks more prone to criminal activity because of their race? Or are blacks more prone to criminal activity because they are generally poorer than whites?

I'm just asking.

But let me tell you this much, if it were the other way around and Martin killed Zimmerman we never would have heard about it.

Very likely true. And why? Because Martin would have been marched right off to jail regardless of whether or not he claimed self defense. The only reason that this became a cause celebre is that an African-American young man minding his own business was shot dead and no complete, thorough investigation was done by the authorities. (If such an investigation WAS done, why did the police chief resign?)

The family of the dead man wanted a "day in court" for their son. After something like 46 days, and with the help of the media, they got it.

Mark said...

"an African-American young man minding his own business was shot dead"

Yeah, I guess one could call it minding one's own business if one's own business entails breaking another person's nose, then leaping on top of him and repeatedly pounding his skull into the pavement.

C'mon Jim. If you had a gun, and someone viciously attacked you, are you saying you wouldn't shoot just to prevent him from killing you?

Jim said...

Yeah, I guess one could call it minding one's own business if one's own business entails breaking another person's nose,

There is no evidence that Martin was breaking anybody's nose prior to being assaulted by a man with a gun. There IS evidence that Martin was returning from the 7/11 on a street that he was legally entitled to be on to a house that he was legally entitled to be at.

In other words, he was minding his own business.

C'mon Jim. If you had a gun, and someone viciously attacked you, are you saying you wouldn't shoot just to prevent him from killing you?

First of all, since I'm not in law enforcement or the military, I do not have a gun. I have no need for a gun, nor any desire to own one. If I want to get my gun-shooting jollies, I can (and do) go with my son to the local gun shop range, buy a box of 9mm, rent a pistol, safety glasses and ear protection and have at it a paper target.

I would not have put myself in a position to defend myself since, again, I'm not in law enforcement or the military. Be that as it may, if I were being viciously attacked, I would do whatever I could to defend myself, including jumping on someone who had me fearing for my life and pounding his head on the pavement or anything else to keep him from hurting me.

If that was what Martin did, it was clearly self defense. What Zimmermann did MAY have been self defense, but he should never have been in a position to have to defend himself since, like me, he was not in law enforcement or in the military.

Mark said...

Jim I can't believe you are being so obtuse.

There is no evidence (none) that Martin was being attacked, but there is a preponderance of evidence that Zimmerman was. He had the broken nose and the wounds on the back of his head to prove it. Plus, he had grass stains on the back of his shirt; evidence that he was on his back on the ground.

The only wounds to Martin's body was the one gunshot wound.

All of these FACTS support Zimmerman's account of the incident.

Face it, Jim. Martin was a thug who got what he deserved for being a thug. If it hadn't been Zimmerman, it would have been some rival gang, but either way, he probably wouldn't have lived into his thirties.

Jim said...

There is no evidence (none) that Martin was being attacked,

There is ample evidence that Martin was assaulted or felt threatened by Zimmerman. Martin was doing nothing illegal.

there is a preponderance of evidence that Zimmerman was

There is evidence that Martin fought with Zimmermann. There is some evidence Martin directly initiated that physical contact. There is evidence that Martin felt that his life was in danger and acted in self-defense to disarm someone who assaulted him with a deadly weapon.

The only wounds to Martin's body was the one gunshot wound.

Do you have a source for that? An autopsy report, perhaps?

All of these FACTS support Zimmerman's account of the incident.

Not so. There is only evidence to support a struggle. There is no evidence prove that Martin initiated contact or that Martin somehow sneaked up on Zimmermann and attacked him without cause. There is plenty of evidence that Martin felt threatened and that he may have acted in self-defense.

Martin was a thug who got what he deserved for being a thug. If it hadn't been Zimmerman, it would have been some rival gang, but either way, he probably wouldn't have lived into his thirties

And this statement is prima facie evidence that you are indeed a racist.

Krystal said...

Jim,

"Because Martin would have been marched right off to jail regardless of whether or not he claimed self defense."

Really? A good friend of mine was pulled out of a delivery truck and beaten into a coma by five black men between the ages of 18-22. They took nothing from the truck. They told the police they did it because he was a white man and they didn't want him in their black neighborhood. It was a hate crime. Period.

He was two weeks in the coma. Once very athletic, he is now disabled.

The same month this happened, the news channels were doing a focus on racism in S. Florida. They did story after story with black people of different ages saying they felt that they were treated differently because of the color of their skin. Not one had any proof of racism. It was all "perceived" racism. The only one that came even close to possible proven racism was a girl who was upset because her teacher told her she needed to brush her nappy hair. I saw her in the interview. She needed to brush her hair, it was totally unkept.

When three stations were confronted by my friend's mother about the incident with her son, all three said that they could not and would not air any story with black on white racism due to fear of riots.

Later, none of the five men were charged with a hate crime, even though they admitted to it.

I posted the stats, made my statement, and share this story for one reason only; white people are the victims of black violence much more than black people are the victims of white violence, BUT IT ISN'T REPORTED.

The mere fact that the news and our government fail to address or even dare mention this issue creates an issue in black and white society. Many black youth believe they live in a society where whitey hates them and is out to get them. It creates a victim mentality. It creates anger at a false enemy. Anger turns to rage. Rage is acted out. The lives of young black men in particulair are being destroy by hatred for an enemy that doesn't exist. They end up living out their existance in prison, IF they live that long. It a waste of life. Waste pisses me off!

Many white people are going angry at always being accused of racism no matter what. They are tired of the Black Panthers and others who point fingers at the mole hill of racist violence against blacks when the mountain is the violence inside the black community itself. TWICE as many white people are murdered by blacks each year and the news turns a blind eye. As does our government.

The outrageous amount of attention that the Martin/Zimmerman situation is getting, sad as it is, it CREATING the feelings of anger and resentment.

I grew up in a multicultural community. We have a multicultural family. My children couldn't care less the color of a person's skin. I want it to stay that way, but I have to admit, it is getting more and more difficult for me to not become jaded. It's one reason I rarely watch the news.

And this from a woman who had it out with her parents when she wanted to date a very intelligent, handsome, and dark black boy in high school.

Jim said...

It was all "perceived" racism.

Are you suggesting that no black person in this country is EVER treated differently and negatively by people because of their color? No black person has ever been stopped for driving while black? No black person has ever been followed around a department store because they were black? Never happens? Ever?

Later, none of the five men were charged with a hate crime, even though they admitted to it.

What were they charged with? Is it possible that they plea-bargained out of a "hate crime" charge? Could that have happened? Whose fault is it that they weren't charged with a hate crime?

white people are the victims of black violence much more than black people are the victims of white violence, BUT IT ISN'T REPORTED.

Your stats don't support the conclusion that "it isn't reported".

They are tired of the Black Panthers

Sorry to say this, but you must be watching too much Fox News. The New Black Panther Party is like five guys and the ONLY people who are giving them a "stage" is Fox News.

TWICE as many white people are murdered by blacks each year and the news turns a blind eye. As does our government.

Your stats, again, don't support this conclusion.

When three stations were confronted by my friend's mother about the incident with her son, all three said that they could not and would not air any story with black on white racism due to fear of riots.

With all due respect, and I mean that, I don't believe this claim. There is more to this response than this. Are you suggesting that news media were being directed by authorities not to air such stories or that they took it upon themselves to not air the stories? I just don't believe there isn't more to it.