We need to go back to an illustrative example again. You have a busy male lawyer who needs someting from his house. He blieves his wife is out of town, and will not be back until the evening. The house is locked up, and the lawyer has forgotten the house key. However, he knows he--like me, in my former life as a lawyer--is bad about that kind of thing, so he always leaves a window open. He tells a law firm runner to go to the house, go in the window and pik up the papers the lawyer needs in the house. The wife, unexmpectedly, has come home, and she is a nervous type. She hears the runner at the window. From here point of view, he is trying to break into the house. The gun is handy to here in a drawer. She grabs it, just as she sees the head and shoulders of the 28 year old runner coming through the window. She screams, and shoots him dead, before he has a chance to say anythng.
Do you arrest the woman? The runner is totally innocent. He had a right to be where he ws. he did absolutely nothing wrong (not necessarily true of Trayvon Martin). But you MUST look at this from the pont of view of the woman. She REASONBALY believed that a person was breaking into her house. Under Texas law, and probably the law of most states, the woman had a RIGHT to defend her home with DEADLY FORCE. It does not matter whehter she saw a gun, or other weapon. Thus, what we have is a tragic ACCIDENT. The innnocence of the runner does not mateter, as it does not matter how "innocent" the 40,000 or so peole are who die in traffic accidents each year. The GRIEF and ANGER of teh parents does nto matter, as it does not matter in the case of a traffic accident killing a similar family member, caused by the negligence of someone else. Note that, ni my example, the MALE lawyer might weel be considered NEGLIGENT. But there is NO CRIME. Say the runner is BLACK. What difference does it make? Does it even make a difference that the woman is MORE AFRAID of black peoople than of white people, because she believed all of those leftist racists who spread the idea that black males are all like Herman Cain: desperate to have sex with WHITE women no matter what it takes (just threw this in to GIG you leftists out there for ou RACISM against Herman Cain). So what? The woman MAY have had a more violent reaction to the BLACK runner than she would have had to a white runner, and that does not reflect favorably upon her, but that DOES NOT MATTER. She had a right to defend here home, and that is what she did (from her pont of view, which was a reasonable pont of view uner the circumstances). No crime. And it would be absurd to say that the whole TRAGIC ACCIDENT was about RACE. Race may have been a MINOR contributing factor, but it is really all about circumstances setting up a tragic accident.
Segue to George Zimmerman. The lynch mob media is making this all about Trayvon Martin. That is WRONG. The GRIEF of Trayvon Martin's parents means nothing. The INNOCENCE of Trayvon Martin means nothing. All that matters is the pont of view of George Zimmerman, based on his Florida law--so long as George Zimmerman's pont of view is a reasonable one. and not a fantasy. A ffantasy would be the MEDIA (CNN is at least one source I heard this) idea that a person (like Trayvon Martin, in the media view) has a RIGHT to LASH OIUT in a PREEMPTIVE ATTACK to protect yourself. In other words, George Zimmerman had no "right" to shoot Trayvon Martin because he thought Martin was approaching him aggressively (witout a eapon). Similarly, MARTIN had no right to LASH OUT at Zimmerman with a physical assault (if Martin were the one to make the first assault). From Zimmerman's point of view, which is the ONLY pont of view that matters for the defense of self-defense, Zimmerman is being ATTACKED. It does not matter if MARTIN believes that he is "protecting himself" 9assumign that Zimmerman has not done something to give Martin reasonable grounds for believing he is actually under asssault). Florida law--rightly or wrongly--gives Zimmerman the RIGHT to repndd to an attack with DEADLY FORCE. Zimmerman does nto have to see a weapon. There are, of coure, cases where peole THINK they see a weapon, such as a police officer, when there was nono weapon. That, to, can qualify as a tragic accident. The anger or girief of the parents, and the inocence of Martin, means NOTHIGN. All that matters is whehter Zimmerman is reacting to a perceivied attack under Florida law.
My mother--knowng my utter CONTEMPT for the media in general, and on this case in particular--called me al excited this morning. She no longer gets the unfair and unbalanced network, where I saw Shepprd Smith be WORSE than anyone I have seen on CNN. But I have seen CNN, every time I have SURFED that network over a matter of DAYS, do a CAMPAIGN to GET George Zimmerman--regardless of the actual facts and Florida law. Nevertheless, y mother was excited at what she had seen from a CNN "commentator" this moning. It had to be a CNN commentqato, since that is the only l"news" channel my 89 yeaar old mother watches, since AT&T took the unfiar and unbalanced network away from her. Taht commentator said that a HOOD (such as that worn by Trayvon Martin), is a sign of a GANG MEMBER. Now you and I (but not most of CNN) know that there is no such thing as a totally "innocent" 17 year old boy. We also know that the media is NOT INTERESTED in finding out bad things about Trayvon Martin, and that we have no idea of just how "innocent" he really was. But my mother was DISAPPPOINTED in my reactin. I was unimpressed. First, it is total SPECULATION that Trayvon Martin was a gang member, even though I am confident that the media is not giving us a real picture of his life and character. I keep telling my mother that she has a cable TV mind, where SPECUALTION is the same as "news" and "facts". mor importantly, however, it is IRRELEVANT whehter Trayvon Marttin was a gang member. The law does nto give you the right to shoot gang members, just because they are gang members, and Florida law DOES give you the right to shoot "innocent" peole IF they attack you FIRST ("innocent" in the sense they may think they have reason to attack you).
Whether tehe hood gave some indication that Martin was a gang member is relevant only in two INDIRECT ways. First, it may have something to do with the STATE OF MIND of George Zimmerman. And the STATE OF MIND of George Zimmerman is almsot the only thing that matters here, besides lthe FACT of who attacked who first. George Zimmermn did NOT see a 17 year od kid merely walking home (the media storyline). What George Zimmerman saw was a "sinister" HOODED FIGURE who did not appear to belong in the neighborhood. Did Zimmerman not have a "right' to "investigatre" that figure, from his pont of view? Of curse he did. Further, if Zimmerman was AWARE of a "well-known" fact in the area that certain kinds of HOODS represent a trademark of certain gangs in the area, that would increase Zimmerman's reaction to any ATTACK from Martin. Note, as stated, that it would NOTA give Zimmermn the "right" to INITIATE an attack against Martin (such as by grabbing him-but tihs is a matter of FACT and NOT RACISM when the facts seem to support Zimmerman, such as a bloody nose and a 911 call). Again, it does NOT MATTER if Martin were actually in a gang or not. If Zimmerman had reason to believe that he was rprobably a gang member, then that could reasonably affect teh way Zimmerman would respond to an attack (not to mentin Zimmerman being suspiciious in the first place). The key point is that this GANG "collateral issue" is NOT that important. Zimmerman saw a HOODED FIGURE evidently hanging around where the figure did not belong. It hardly makes that much difference whether the figure was a gang member or not, or whether the figure was wearing what appeared to be the recognized reademark of a gang. Zimmerman still might be the peron ATTA KED.
But that is the OTHER way in which it COULD be relevant if Martin were a gang member. Gang members do not waive teir "right' not to be SHOT out of hand. However, you would probably be justified in giving a little more credibility to a GAnG MEMBER launch;ing an attack on Zimmerman than you would to the assertion that a non-gang member did such a thing. Agian, this is hardly crucial, since the key fACT is whether Marin did, in fact, launch an attack on Zimmerman. But it would be a pont in favor of Zimmerman in most minds--not that the media is INTERESTEd in looking into any "dirty linen" in Martin's closet. That is the main reason this is TOTAL SPECULAITON one way or the other. You cannot possibly have any confidence that CNN, or the rest of the media, wouuld seriously INVESTIGATAE (skeptically) whether tin was a gang member. That MIGHT come out in a tril, or the police investigation. It will NOT come from teh media, unless it is thrust upon them in a way they cannot ignore.
What is missing from all of the above? Right. RACE. Race has NOTHING to do with these events, although it is possible that it coulduld have had something to do with the failure to arrest Zimmerman. It is jsut as possible it had NOTHING to do with the failure to arrest Zimmerman. As my opening exmple tries to show you, it DOES NOT MATTER if Zimmerman had more "suspiciun" of black young men than of white hyoung men. If a hood like that worn by Martin gave Zimmerman reason for suspicion, fine. But if Zimmerman wre more likely to be suspicious of a BLCK hooed figure than of a WHITE hooded figure, and knew nothing about gangs, the situation would realy be the SAME. Zimmerman MAY have been more nervous about a black person, but that is not the ISSUE--jsut like it is not the issue if a white housewife shoots a blakc intruder more quickly thatn she would have shot a white intruder. The ISSUE is not whether Zimmerman was more likely to give a sinister, white hooded figure a break--even if he attacks--than Zimmerman gave the black hooded figure. The issue is whether Zimmerman was responding to an ATTACK of Martin. This is NOT a "racial" issue, and those how appear to make RACE the basis for determing the answer to that issue seem mainly to be in the MEDIA (as usual), and in the White House or leftist Democrat circles (also as usual). This zealous attempt to LYNCH George Zimmerman is fundamentally RACIST, since it makes the FACTS subsidiary to the RACE of the participants in an incident ont really about RACE.
I understnad why the pparents would be angry, as would the parents of m hypothetical law firm runner. I can understand why they would GIEVE, as would the parents of ANY 17 year old boy that is killed (whether in a car accident, shooting accident, homicide, or tragic accident caused by misunderstanding of the tow participants as to the real situation. None of this MATTERAS, desite the media. Trayvon mMartin is entitled ot no MORE "jsutice" than George Zimmerman, or any other "victim" of an alleged killing. We should be trying to ELIMINATE RACE as a facotr--not trying to EMPHASIZE it. If Martni thinks someone is "fololowing him" to do him harm, then he (and/or his 17 year old girl lfriend) should CAL THE POLICE (as Zimmerman did). Zimmerman probably should have left it up to the police to infestigate Martin (although there is really NO evidence that he insisted on a lpro-active approach because of the RACE of Marting). If everyone, including the media, would try to IGNORE RACE, we would be much better off. That includes the ENTIRE BLACK COMMUNITY, who really need ot call the police when they have a problem (again, like Zimmerman did). This is why it HARMS black peple to keep PUSIHNG the3 idea that America is still RACIST (in the old redneck way, instead of the more prevalent, current racims of the left, including the leftist media, who DEfINE people on the basis of race). Black people NEED to act like everyone is not out to "get" them because of their race. The media is encouraging them to do the exact opposite.
George Zimmerman, in contrast, has been TOLD by the President of the United States that ALL AMERICA is OUT TO GET HIM (in effect). And he is badsscially being told it is BECAUSE OF HIS RACE (in combination with the rce of Martin). Poor man. Is there ANY chance decisions willbe made on a race-neutral basis, as they shuld be? I doubt it, at this pont.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).