danger of education is that it provides us the tools to rationalize even the most unspeakably horrifying behavior." I believe that my professor was right, but given the "rationalization" I've seen from other people since I started blogging about two years ago, I'm convinced that someone doesn't need education in order completely to set their minds at ease, and at the forefront of this are the George Zimmerman (GZ) haters.
GZ was acquitted of all charges yesterday. Before delving into the depths of bizzarroland, I want to first say: thank God! A few weeks ago, I began a three part series titled "Why George Zimmerman is Not-Guilty" in which I outlined the myriad of reasons that I believed he would be acquitted of all charges based on the evidence at hand. And that final clause is the key to all of my thinking: based on the evidence at hand.
You see, unlike the GZ haters, I actually formulated my opinion from evidence, that nagging little thing that many people like to ignore when rationalizing their feelings. Given that there was a mountain of evidence to support the veracity of GZ's testimony, it is more than a little baffling that there were people who still called him a racist and maintained the claim that he "stalked Trayvon Martin to his death and shot him in cold blood."
|A meeting between GZ haters.|
more rationality at an imaginary tea part with a little girl.
There are two things one must do in his mind to ride on the GZ hater wagon. First, you have to make some fairly wild-ass guesses about GZ's character (WAGs, as we were fond of calling them in my days as a cryptologist). There is absolutely zero evidence, zero indication, that George Zimmerman is racist. The people that know him say that he's not a racist, yet somehow we have a bunch of yahoos--who have never even met the man--who claim to know what is in his heart.
The only basis they have for calling him a racist is because he is not black and he killed a black person. And to rationalize this, they tell themselves that if GZ had spotted a white kid skulking around between houses in a gated community to which he did not belong, GZ would not have "stalked him to his death." And of course, any rational person can see that such a musing holds no real weight because it is pure speculation based on an unverifiable "what if."
Secondly, one has to ignore the mountain of evidence that supported GZ's testimony, and make some more WAGs about "what really happened," that night. One would have to ignore the evidence that heavily suggests GZ had been attacked forcefully enough to sustain injuries to his face and head. If you listen to the 911 call, GZ got out of his car before the 911 dispatched asked "are you following him?" When GZ said "yes," the 911 dispatcher said--and I quote--"we don't need you to do that." That's all the dispatcher said. And GZ's response to that was "okay."
Immediately after affirming the 911 dispatcher's "instruction," GZ then proceeded to give the dispatcher his exact location and the call ended. There is absolutely zero evidence that supports the notion that GZ continued to follow TM, so one must deny the veracity of GZ's testimony that after the call, he went back to his car.
One must also ignore the fact that one witness claimed to have seen TM on top (only to later claim
that he wasn't sure). Then we have to ignore the fact that when put under the pressure test of police interrogation, the investigator believed that GZ was telling the truth. Just as well, we would have to ignore the facts that show that TM was far from the "angel" his mother purported him to be. We have to forget that TM was into drugs and was serving a 10 day school suspension for posession of a bag that had marijuana residue on it.
We also have to pretend we don't know that TM's second school suspension was imposed because he was thought to have marked grafiti on a school locker, and when his bag was searched, the security officer found women's jewelry and a screwdriver. When asked how he got the jewelry, TM claimed that "a friend gave it to [him]." And we also have to forget that the reason he was suspected in the grafiti incident at his school is because a "school police investigator said he spotted Martin on a surveillance camera "hiding and being suspicious" in an unauthorized area." Sound familiar?
It is mind-blowing to me that anyone can look at all of that information and still arrive at the conclusion that GZ was a racist who "stalked TM to his death," and that TM was some harmless little kid who was just innocently walking home from a gas station. Pure irrationality: that is the only way anyone could possibly arrive at such a conclusion.