I've written about the Trayvon Martin affair before. More and more reports are indicating that perhaps he wasn't as 'pure-as-the-driven-snow' as the mass media and racial (racist?) activists have portrayed him, and that Mr. Zimmerman might have had genuine cause to defend himself. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the grand jury has to say about it.
In the meantime, this cartoon (reproduced here by kind permission of the author) sums up very well the partisanship and racial prejudice being displayed over the incident.
(The cartoon refers to this horrific incident in Kansas City.)
Another perspective on President Obama's 'concern' is provided by cartoonist Gary McCoy:
As Les Jones points out, there have been examples of the mainstream media deliberately 'editing' the transcript of Mr. Zimmerman's call to 911 in order to falsely imply that he's racist. Hmm . . . I wonder why I haven't heard or read about correspondents mentioning Tawana Brawley while reporting on Al Sharpton's diatribes about Mr. Zimmerman?
Peter
4 comments:
Good questions all Peter, and I'm wondering about that myself...
Yes and even 'snopes.com' that site that allegedly 'sets the record straight' has called the murders of Newsom/Christian "...somewhat sensationalized..." Somewhat Dowdified - that is the proper English, I assume? To Dowdify? ;-> Read the whole (rather short) article to get a taste of what I mean.
But it is no laughing matter. Apparently brutal murder can be 'sensationalized'. Why would that be? Because the facts were not forthcoming, in fact, the reports were sketchy and remained so. No mutilation, thank Heaven. Just two extremely brutal murders with torture (oh, right, no torture) and rape thrown in for fun. Just for fun, mind you.
Makes me heartsick for our Beloved Country...
Here is the link:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/newsom.asp
Sorry, there is no such thing as "reverse Racism" it is just plain racist what they are doing.
Also that said, Zimmerman is solely responsible for that kids death whether he was justified in pulling the trigger or not. He put himself in the position to have a confrontation even though he was told specifically not to by the dispatcher. So, even if he was in immediate fear for his life when he pulled the trigger, he put himself in that situation instead of backing out and waiting for the police. There was no one else in immediate danger that he was protecting by following the kid and didn't need to go there. just my NSHO, worth every penny you paid for it.
The last official report I read stated quite clearly that Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle when he was attacked from behind.
In common parlance, "gunnies" are not allowed to shoot once the threat is no longer imminent. It would seem that any attack upon Zimmerman was not in response to imminent threat. Thus, Zimmerman's use of self-defense was logical, correct, and lawful.
But then, I don't know the whole story yet. So I, for one, am withholding any attack on Zimmerman or on Martin.
Would that all you clairvoyant experts could do the same.
Post a Comment