I’m really sick and tired of the various news outlets, celebrities, politicians, and race-baiters going about making Trayvon Martin some sort of martyr for getting killed after assaulting George Zimmerman. Per an interview with Rachel Jeantel, Martin threw the first punch. A jury found Zimmerman not guilty of the charges, probably due to self defense, but these people simply will not let it go.
Quite frankly, I’m not surprised that this is going on. I’m disgusted, yes, but not surprised…
As pointed out in previous posts, this case was never about the rule of law. It was about “social justice.”
Social Justice has many, many definitions, but the definition that the above mentioned people seem to have is that the minority is always the downtrodden and innocent while the majority is evil and guilty. Therefore, if any crime is committed between people of different color, guilt and innocence are automatically assigned before any facts are in evidence (or at least the facts that support this assumption are brought to the forefront while the inconvenient ones are buried).
The media is complicit in this miscarriage of justice. NBC altered the police calls to make it appear that Zimmerman was profiling Martin on the basis of his race. Zimmerman was answering the police dispatcher’s question as to what the race of the person Zimmerman had under observation.
The media also reports first that a white person killed the teenager, and later amended the description of the shooter as a “white Hispanic.” Really…a white Hispanic? This must mean that the President of the United States is a white African-American. Obviously, the media made up a racial description to save their own butts from the appearance of bias.
And then there are the pictures. The picture of Martin that was circulated was of a 13-year old boy, not of a 17-year old teenager. And from what I’ve seen, the picture(s) of the older Martin were anything but complementary.
Last, the media is about as biased as the worst Klansman, especially about what stories to cover. What about black-on-white crime, or the black-on-black crime of Chicago’s Southside? The selectivity of the media is absolutely appalling – they are to report news, not implement social change. I offer the below as an example:
To the media – leave the editorializing in the editorial section, reader’s opinions on the opinion page, and report the news without bias. Why else are your ratings dropping like lead balloons? Is it because that your “journalists” are viewed as opportunistic liars and clowns?
But the media has an agenda besides being the self-appointed agents of social justice. They also follow the mantra of “if it bleeds, it leads,” so they get the benefit of playing both sides. I think this picture from Michael Ramirez is perfect:
Then we have the various race-baiters and politicians, including the President, weighing in on an incident that they really have no idea what happened nor any business getting involved in. However, political pressure is applied, rules bent and broken, and a trial costing millions of dollars spent for a charge that would never stick. And it wasn’t going to stick because of race, or guns, or anything else these clowns were making it out to be. It was a case of self-defense, which is what the initial police investigation indicated.
Now the Attorney General is trying to appease the race-baiters by ginning up a civil rights charge. Why? Possibly to avoid the “riots” threatened by the race-baiters and predicted by the media pundits. What happens, then, if that falls through? Punt, Mr. Attorney General? The FBI has already investigated and found no racial motive behind this unfortunate incident.
So now the race-baiters are taking center stage again, promising riots and chaos if “justice” – their form of justice – is not served. And exactly what justice is that? Mob rule? What ever happened to the rule of law? Silly rabbit, justice by the rule of law is for kids, not the grown-ups who act like children throwing temper-tantrums because they don’t get their cookies before supper. Take this excerpt from National Review Online:
“We are outraged and heartbroken over today’s verdict,” NAACP president Benjamin Jealous said in a statement moments after a jury of six women found George Zimmerman not guilty of second-degree murder and manslaughter.
That’s what it has come to for the NAACP. The Zimmerman case wasn’t about due process. It wasn’t about Trayvon Martin’s family having their day in court. The NAACP didn’t care about the trial, it wanted a conviction — and the law be damned. The facts be damned. Justice be damned.
And the NAACP isn’t finished with George Zimmerman. It now wants to deny him one of the most fundamental civil rights we as Americans possess — the right not to be tried a second time for the same crime. “We will pursue civil-rights charges with the Department of Justice,” Jealous added in the post-verdict statement.
So much for the civil rights of another minority. George Zimmerman just happens to be Hispanic. Or “white Hispanic,” as the New York Times described him.
The fact is, if George Zimmerman had been a black man, this case would never have been brought to trial. If George Zimmerman had been black, the NAACP and Al Sharpton would never have marched on Sanford, Fla., and demanded that the state take over the case.
The fact is, George Zimmerman was guilty in the NAACP’s eyes of not being black. That is why he was charged and prosecuted. A young black man was dead on the streets, and a non-black guy killed him. It had to be racism that caused his death. There was no other explanation, and justice had to be exacted.
That is mob justice, plain and simple. The same kind of mob justice blacks faced until so very recently in the South — and in much of the rest of America.
The real issue that I have is that many of these people will see racism in every act that a person does or says. For instance, Anthea Butler is an associate professor of religious studies at the University of Pennsylvania and wrote:
“When George Zimmerman told [Fox News host] Sean Hannity that it was God’s will that he shot and killed Trayvon Martin, he was diving right into what most good conservative Christians in America think right now.
“Whatever makes them protected, safe and secure, is worth it at the expense of the black and brown people they fear.”
Really? I fear minorities? Folks, I’m here to state that I have had supervisors and co-workers of various ethnic and sexual orientation, and I feared none of them. In fact, I can safely call many of them friends.
The reality is that people like Ms. Butler and the Rev. Sharpton whip up the masses to secure power and privilege for themselves without regard to the aftermath. I think of the Duke Lacrosse and the Twanda Brawley incidents that were completely false, and the damage that was done to race relations. These people inhibit the healing of the rifts that they claim they want to close.
And they all do this in the name of “Social Justice”.
I close this post with comments (rearranged by me) from Jason Riley:
George Zimmerman’s acquittal of murder charges in a Florida court has been followed by predictable calls for America to have a “national conversation” about this or that aspect of the case. President Obama wants to talk about gun control. Civil-rights leaders want to talk about racial profiling. Others want to discuss how the American criminal justice system supposedly targets black men.
All of which is fine. Just don’t expect these conversations to be especially illuminating or honest. Liberals in general, and the black left in particular, like the idea of talking about racial problems, but in practice they typically ignore the most relevant aspects of any such discussion.
The homicide rate claiming black victims today is seven times that of whites, and the George Zimmermans of the world are not the reason. Some 90% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks.
So let’s have our discussions, even if the only one that really needs to occur is within the black community. Civil-rights leaders today choose to keep the focus on white racism instead of personal responsibility, but their predecessors knew better.
“Do you know that Negroes are 10 percent of the population of St. Louis and are responsible for 58% of its crimes? We’ve got to face that. And we’ve got to do something about our moral standards,” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. told a congregation in 1961. “We know that there are many things wrong in the white world, but there are many things wrong in the black world, too. We can’t keep on blaming the white man. There are things we must do for ourselves.”
The left wants to blame these outcomes on racial animus and “the system,” but blacks have long been part of running that system. Black crime and incarceration rates spiked in the 1970s and ’80s in cities such as Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia, under black mayors and black police chiefs. Some of the most violent cities in the U.S. today are run by blacks.
The jury’s only job in the Zimmerman trial was to determine whether the defendant broke the law when he shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin last year in a gated community near Orlando, Fla. In cases of self-defense, it doesn’t matter who initiated the confrontation; whether Mr. Zimmerman singled out Martin because he was a black youngster in a neighborhood where there had been a series of burglaries by black youngsters; or whether Mr. Zimmerman disregarded what the police dispatcher told him before he got out of his car. Nor does it matter that Martin was unarmed and minding his own business when Mr. Zimmerman approached.
All that really mattered in that courtroom is whether Mr. Zimmerman reasonably believed that his life was in danger when he pulled the trigger. Critics of the verdict might not like the statutes that allowed for this outcome, but the proper response would not have been for the jury to ignore them and convict.
Lawful Justice, or Social Justice – you decide.