This seems to have become the story of the day. I planned on writing in detail about this, but there are two pieces I'll link to later that pretty much capture my views on the matter, so I'm going to limit myself to writing about a particularly disgusting aspect - the way America's premier race pimps and opportunists have swarmed on this like pigs to a troth.And sadly, the president of the United States has joined them , reversing a previously more balanced stance, perhaps because it's a useful distraction in an election year.
The facts of the case are fairly simple.There was a confrontation of some kind between Treyvon Martin, a black teenager and George Zimmerman, a Hispanic neighborhood watch volunteer.
During whatever occurred, Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman, who had called the police prior to the shooting. Zimmerman claimed that he was in fear of his life and had fired in self defense, which is legal in Florida and a number of other states. Martin was unarmed.
Since the police knew Zimmerman, who had provided them with info on local crime a number of times, they accepted his story after an investigation, which apparently was fairly cursory.
Rather than treating this as the tragedy it is, having it investigated properly and letting the justice system do its work, a number of the usual suspects have smelled a bonanza for themselves and are involved in creating racially based agitation, even to the point of inciting violence.
Al Sharpton, a man responsible for a pogrom in Crown Heights and the murder of several people among his other exploits reveled in heading a rally, where he stopped just short of telling people they had a right to riot over the killing. He'll undoubtedly save that just in case a jury comes up with the 'wrong' verdict for Zimmerman.
Louis Farrakhan
openly threatened 'retaliation' and 'no justice, no peace, as did
Jesse Jackson,who claimed that blacks are 'under attack' and that killing them is 'big business'.
Significantly, Jackson also targeted the laws in Florida and other states that give people the right to defend themselves when attacked.
Worst of all in some ways was President Obama, who declared that if he had a son,"it would look like Treyvon Martin" and emphasized the racial aspect of the incident. Aside from the asininity of a president of the United States being clueless enough to be commenting on a pending case, there were a number of other problems with what the president had to say about this tragedy.
Would it have been different, as the president implied, if the dead teenager were white, or Hispanic or Asian? Or does the president see this case through a racial prism, as he has with so many other matters?
As far as I'm concerned, those whom are taking advantage of this tragic incident are guilty of a horrid injustice to us all.
Two pieces pretty much reflect my own views on the other aspects of what happened. First,
this one from Rep. Allan West:
I have sat back and allowed myself time to assess the current episode revealing itself in Sanford, Florida involving the shooting of 17-year-old Treyvon Martin. First of all, if all that has been reported is accurate, the Sanford Police Chief should be relieved of his duties due to what appears to be a mishandling of this shooting in its early stages. The US Navy SEALS identified Osama Bin Laden within hours, while this young man laid on a morgue slab for three days. The shooter, Mr Zimmerman, should have been held in custody and certainly should not be walking free, still having a concealed weapons carry permit. From my reading, it seems this young man was pursued and there was no probable cause to engage him, certainly not pursue and shoot him…against the direction of the 911 responder. Let’s all be appalled at this instance not because of race, but because a young American man has lost his life, seemingly, for no reason. I have signed a letter supporting a DOJ investigation. I am not heading to Sanford to shout and scream, because we need the responsible entities and agencies to handle this situation from this point without media bias or undue political influences. This is an outrage.And
here's a slice of this one from Ace over at Ace of Spades:
Oh, the Media decided We Have To Have a National Discussion about this story.
1. I appreciate the media dubbing Zimmerman "a
white Hispanic." Like the Israelis, he's now an honorary member of the Oppressive White Majority.
2. Certain local stories of race-on-race crime ignite the media's passions.
Others do not.3. Most of the time, stories like the one I just linked are not reported by the media, for various reasons. One is that, alas, black on white crime is so common as to be not newsworthy, whereas the reverse is rare and hence, oddly, makes national news.
Another reason is that such stories are, by their nature, inflammatory (no pun intended, of course).
But the media does not mind inflammatory stories when the right people
are inflamed. Farrakhan, for example, states that "soon and very soon" the "law of retaliation" "may be applied."
Now, if that story about the black kids setting the white kid on
fire -- while declaring "You're white, this is what you deserve" -- was excessively inflammatory, why the media rush to inflame further black on white violence?
4. The cops acted predictably and understandably in not arresting Zimmerman. Here are the facts,
as they knew them at the time: Zimmerman was a law-abiding citizen who gave them lots of (correct) tips about local crime. He was helpful to the police (probably also annoying in being
too vigilant -- but while such people may annoy the police, they nevertheless appreciate the help that comes with the annoyance).
He called in to 911 to report a "suspicious" character, then followed him, waiting for police to arrive. Eventually there was some violence (Zimmerman was reportedly bloodied) and he claimed self-defense.
Now, under those circumstances, the police are not going to be very suspicious of Zimmerman. If he was attempting a murder, he went about it in a strange way -- calling police to arrive at the scene of the crime before there was a crime. He had no known motive against this Trayvon Martin fellow -- they'd never met.
Why suspect a deliberate murder?
That doesn't make Zimmerman innocent -- but it does explain why the police thought he was likely innocent of wrongdoing.
5. If the facts are as the media reports them, then it does seem like Zimmerman was following around a kid who wasn't doing anything illegal at all. Then again, if the facts were as the media reported them, the Duke Lacrosse Team was guilty of violent gang-rape.
While the liberal media screams, once again,
"Trust us, and forget all about our hitting the Panic Button time and time again before!," some of us would like to see what the facts
really are before coming to a conclusion.
6. As a general matter, and
inescapably, the law of self-defense is a very thorny thicket. The media would like to simplify the law and simply declare that anyone who shoots anyone else is guilty of murder (because they would like to ban all guns, period, and this is a cutesy manner of achieving that goal through the back-door).
But these laws are
inescapably thorny and these cases are
inescapably very dependent on actual
facts.
At the heart of every self-defense case are a pair of related questions: Did the defendant reasonably believe his safety was in jeopardy when he struck the fatal blow? And, based on the circumstances, did the defendant act lawfully, within the accepted safe-harbors for the use of lethal force in defending one's life (or another's life)?
Facts, not ginned up racial outrage or general anti-gun animus, answer these questions.
Given what we think we know (and remember, the media has lied before): it appears that the kid was unarmed, the guy can't rely on self-defense to save his life.
Further, it appears (again, appears) that Zimmerman initiated the contact/confrontation, not the kid, so the "stand your ground" law
is not even relevant in the case.Ace has more to say on the matter at the link, but I think you get the general drift.
