Monday, July 1, 2013

Why George Zimmerman is Not-Guilty Part III

The sheer ridiculous nature of the assertions of Zimmerman's guilt are so outrageous that, in my mind, it's a wonder that this case even went to trial.

We are told to believe that George Zimmerman is racist and that because Trayvon Martin is black, Zimmerman chased him down, confronted him, pinned him to the ground, and then shot Trayvon in cold blood--because Trayvon is black.  To prove my point, I'm going to ask a series of questions that everyone should answer for themselves.

1.  If GZ intended to kill TM, why did GZ call the police?  If you intend to commit a crime, would you call the police right before you are about to do it?

2.  What evidence is there to prove that GZ is, in fact, racist?

3.  If you believe that GZ is racist, then do you believe that GZ would not have called the police if he saw a white kid wearing a dark gray hoodie walking around between houses at night?

4.  If you listen to the 911 audio tape, at 2:06 GZ reported "he's running."  Immediately after that, you can clearly hear Zimmerman open his car door and get out of his car to follow Martin before the 911 dispatcher asks if he's following TM.  When GZ answers "yes," the dispatcher says "we don't need you to do that."  GZ replied "okay."  Why are people saying that GZ ignored instructions to stay in his car?

5.  When GZ says "these assholes, they always get away," why do people assume that GZ is talking about black people?  At the beginning of the call, GZ mentions that there had been break-ins recently.  Why wouldn't you assume that he's talking about people he believed were responsible for the break-ins?

6.  TM called GZ a "creepy ass cracker," over the phone.  How is that not racist?

7.  If TM was truly afraid for his life and had no ill intent, why didn't TM call the police to report a "creepy-ass cracker" following him?

8.  Why was TM walking among the houses and not on the side-walk?

9.  Rachel Jeantel deposed that on the phone, she told TM to hurry home and that he was "almost there."  If TM was so close to home, why didn't he just run straight home?

10.  If TM didn't return to GZ to confront him, then are we to assume that GZ somehow caught up to TM?  TM was a football player.

11.  Why are we not allowed to consider the facts that TM was a pot smoker, was a 17 year old kid with a tattoo, and was serving his third school suspension at the time of the incident in terms of character reference?

12.  Why didn't Rachel Jeantel call the police after she allegedly heard TM getting into a physical altercation?

13.  Why did many of the witnesses' stories change?

14.  And finally, are we to believe that GZ pinned down TM and then shot him in cold blood in an open area in plain view of other people who he would have realized could serve as witnesses to his nefarious deed?

So far, I have yet to see any evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that GZ killed TM for any reason other than self-defense.  The prosecution's case is based on highly suspect witness testimonies, and it hinges on something that is actually impossible to prove: whether or not George Zimmerman is racist.

That's why I say he's not guilty.  But of course, in America any time someone who sort of looks like a white guy kills a black guy, it's always racist.


Micky said...

Heh, Trayvon didnt know he wasnt being followed by a white guy, but called him a cracker anyway.
That bugs me..

I mean, if Trayvon is supposedly the one whos racially sensitive, not racist, then why not allow some benefit of the doubt before labeling Zimmerman ?

Yeah, its pretty hard not to see how this whole charade is being used to further paint blacks as victims.
And as long as the culprits get away with it Liberals will continue to win votes based on how well they pander to this kind of bullshit.

Jersey McJones said...

I don't hear "liberals" talking a lot about racism in all this. I also think that most liberals, like me, think the second degree murder charge was a little over the top. This seems like a involuntary manslaughter case to me.

I think there are a few things about all this that peeks the interest of liberals like me.

1. Untrained, armed neighborhood watches and security - bad idea.

2. "Stand your ground" laws - essentially, mobile castle doctrines.

3. What to do if someone is noticeably surveilling you - how may you react? How may a minor react?

4. Idiots running around all over the place with guns - bad idea.

These are the more serious questions thoughtful people are asking. All the rest is sensational bullshit.


Silverfiddle said...

I've read the entire series. Nice analysis.

This was a tragedy, and certain elements are squeezing all the race hustling out of it that they can.

Those same elements will cause the streets to explode when Zimmerman is found not guilty, and I believe he will be.

Keep in mind, all we've seen so far is from the prosecution. They have no case, and what they have brought out so face helps Zimmerman.

The Smoking Man said...

"1. Untrained, armed neighborhood watches and security - bad idea."

Because the police never make mistakes.

"2. "Stand your ground" laws - essentially, mobile castle doctrines."

If "stand your ground" is a mobile castle doctrine, then why is he even on trial? Oh, because it's not.

"3. What to do if someone is noticeably surveilling you - how may you react? How may a minor react?"

Ask the NSA. They have you under surveillance 24/7.

"4. Idiots running around all over the place with guns - bad idea."

It is their constitutional right to do so. By your logic we should reconsider whether cars should be legal, because idiots driving around all over the place at 60+MPH with 2 tons of steel behind them is also a "bad idea."


Che Joubert said...

The word 'cracker' was explained well by Rachel Jeantel, in an interview with a journalist. She said it was not a racial slur, but meant someone who pretends to be a cop or security guard, but who doesn't follow normal cop procedures such as speaking directly to the suspect, such as, 'Do you have a problem?', or words to that effect. This is interesting because the original meaning of the word cracker was 'bragger' or 'show off,' and was only later used to refer to certain poor whites, so their use of the word to mean 'pretender' is close to its original meaning.

Also, I grew up in Gainesville, FL during the KKK days, in the 50's, and we had more lynchings in our county than in any other county in the US. In those days we lived under apartheid. Blacks were not allowed to visit white homes, any town facilities. They had to step off the sidewalk into the street if a white person approached. Groups of white men would be 'deputized' and go out stalking, provoking and killing black men at night

What amazes me is that it hasn't been that long since apartheid and lynchings were banned from the south, yet this blog actually states that 'assertions of Zimmerman's guilt are . . . outrageous.' Actually, from listening to the 911 tapes, including Zimmerman's - it's obvious there were more men with him. You can hear 'Jeremy' saying 'He warned me he was going to kill him.' There was also another man in a white t-shirt, who was neither Zimmerman, Martin, or Jeremy, so probably at least three men were involved in this typical racial killing.

Jack Camwell said...

Che Joubert,

Thank you for visiting. I'm going to have to categorically disagree with you on just about everything you said.

Your first point, about the original meaning of "cracker" used as a pejorative term, actually does more to hurt your argument than help.

The term "nigger" was originally a neutral term to describe blacks. It originated around the 17th century, and it was a variation on the Spanish "negro" and the Latin "niger," both words for the color black.

It wasn't until much later that the term was used pejoratively, but there is no mistaking that today it is a racial slur.

But by your logic, so long as the person who uses the word "nigger" defines it as "someone who is of low education, disrespectful, and morally unsavory," then that means "nigger" can be used in such a context that makes it not racial. But of course, we both know that is absurd because how many people use the term "nigger" to describe white people? Just as well, how many people use the term "cracker" to describe black people?

That would be like calling a Roman Catholic a "kike."

On the 911 call from Zimmerman, there are no other voices but Zimmerman's and the dispatcher. On the 911 calls from the witnesses, the voices you hear are the witnesses and their family members.

You have failed to present any evidence that this death was racially motivated. All you've done is present theory and conjecture, and none of it is based on the evidence that actually exists.