I wrote a post yesterday on the Zimmerman verdict, and how some continue to allow themselves to be insulated from the truth and reality.
The blog author I highlighted responded, admitting I was correct on many parts (true to form, of course, never admitting he was wrrrrr.. wrrrrroo.. wrrrrr.. Way to be consistent, Fonzie!). Also true to form, he acknowledges he was wrong by being snarky in his headline, most of it written IN ALL CAPS, suggesting what was written in caps should be taken exactly opposite of how it is written. (How could I possibly know the "facts", since clearly he did not?)
After stumbling through an "explanation" of how Martin was merely STANDING HIS GROUND,
In other words Martin would be alive today if he had simply NOT CHOSEN TO STAND HIS GROUND. There's a double standard at work here. It's true that Trayvon Martin had a violent incident in his past - but so did Zimmerman. Martin had some racially charged statements in his internet history - so did Zimmerman. So why is Zimmerman a hero and Martin a troublemaker? Remember, there was no evidence that Martin was in the neighborhood to commit a crime. He didn't have tools. He wasn't even armed.
The author then offers this:
Since we only have Zimmerman's side of the story now, the testimony of a man who had a murder rap to beat, the trial really doesn't prove anything. And until someone can explain why people who were convinced of Zimmerman's innocence from day one got that idea, people like me will suspect that race is the motivating factor.
(emphasis mine)
First things first, the "Stand Your Ground" argument for Martin. Putting aside for a moment that it likely was Martin who confronted Zimmerman (i.e., he was the aggressor), wouldn't a rational person think that if Martin was truly "standing his ground"; and a valid argument for how Martin was acting, why didn't the Prosecution ever bring that up during the trial as being well within Martin's right to "defend" himself with deadly force? Could it be thata office supplies salesman from California knows more about the law in Florida than the Attorney General, and the prosecution team?
Second, the author believes everything is motivated by race. You know who in the case didn't think race was a factor? One of Zimmerman's prosecutors:
State Attorney Angela Corey said after the verdict that she believed second-degree murder was the appropriate charge because Zimmerman’s mindset “fit the bill of second-degree murder.”
(emphasis mine)
It's one thing to poke fun at me, but when the very person who is tasked with getting a conviction doesn't feel race was a factor, why in the world would you cling to race? If you don't believe me, do you believe the prosecutor? If you don't believe the prosecutor, who would you belive?
Truly delusional thinking out there.
+++UPDATED+++
Something else was bugging me about this passage, but I couldn't put my finger on it until just now:
Since we only have Zimmerman's side of the story now, the testimony of a man who had a murder rap to beat, the trial really doesn't prove anything. And until someone can explain why people who were convinced of Zimmerman's innocence from day one got that idea, people like me will suspect that race is the motivating factor.
It's the first few words of the passage, "Since we only have Zimmerman's side of the story now, the testimony of a man who had a murder rap to beat, the trial really doesn't prove anything." that were bugging me.
First of all, Zimmerman never testified in court. He did give his account to the police (several times, with little variation), walked through the events at the scene the following day with investigators, and passed a lie detector test the night of the shooting. His story stayed consistent and was supported by the evidence We also have more than just "Zimmerman's side of the story", we have the sworn testimony of several eye and ear witnesses that supported Zimmerman's side of the story. This is why Zimmerman wasn't charged in the first place.
In my eyes, the system and the process worked, and this was borne out in the trial. For some reason, unsupported by the facts presented in the trial, opinion of the investigators, and the words of the very prosecutor herself, you continue to believe this was impacted by race.
