Trayvon's killer is a Democrat
Admit I laughed sardonically when I saw George Zimmerman is a registered Democrat. My first thought was, thanks all you wingnuts for defending a member of the party of your imagined evils. Wondered how they were going to reconcile that with their vigorous defense of Zimmerman's murder of Trayvon.
The early reaction suggests they've agreed to use it to excuse their own vile racism. In the world according to wingnuttia, their relentless years long villification of the poor and people of color couldn't possibly have had any effect on Zimmerman's paranoid vigilantism because he's not one of them.
Of course, this changes nothing. Zimmerman's political registration means as little as Trayvon's youthful indiscretions. The case can still be distilled to a single sentence. If Zimmerman had stayed in his car and waited for the police to arrive, as the dispatcher had advised to do, Trayvon would not be dead.
And while I'm on the subject, contrary to his wingnuttian defenders, Zimmerman's account of the murder, conveniently leaked by the police department doesn't absolve him either. You can't really judge between both sides of a story when one of the parties is dead. Furthermore, to repeat what I said on the twitter last night, it's hard to believe that no one took photos of Zimmerman's alleged injuries on the night of the murder. Funny that those haven't been leaked. And come to think of it, if Zimmerman was indeed so badly beaten up that his only recourse was to kill Trayvon, why didn't he go to the hospital to get those injuries treated?
No amount of spin can change the evidence that points to Zimmerman being an overzealous vigilante, a bigot and a stalker. The case was mishandled by the local police from the beginning and a full investigation is still needed. Whether or not he can avoid a murder charge under Stand Your Ground, there should at least be a hearing to determine whether Zimmerman is mentally fit to continue to carry a concealed weapon.
[Big thanks to Michael J.W. Stickings of The Reaction for the link at Crooks & Liars.]
[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]
The early reaction suggests they've agreed to use it to excuse their own vile racism. In the world according to wingnuttia, their relentless years long villification of the poor and people of color couldn't possibly have had any effect on Zimmerman's paranoid vigilantism because he's not one of them.
Of course, this changes nothing. Zimmerman's political registration means as little as Trayvon's youthful indiscretions. The case can still be distilled to a single sentence. If Zimmerman had stayed in his car and waited for the police to arrive, as the dispatcher had advised to do, Trayvon would not be dead.
And while I'm on the subject, contrary to his wingnuttian defenders, Zimmerman's account of the murder, conveniently leaked by the police department doesn't absolve him either. You can't really judge between both sides of a story when one of the parties is dead. Furthermore, to repeat what I said on the twitter last night, it's hard to believe that no one took photos of Zimmerman's alleged injuries on the night of the murder. Funny that those haven't been leaked. And come to think of it, if Zimmerman was indeed so badly beaten up that his only recourse was to kill Trayvon, why didn't he go to the hospital to get those injuries treated?
No amount of spin can change the evidence that points to Zimmerman being an overzealous vigilante, a bigot and a stalker. The case was mishandled by the local police from the beginning and a full investigation is still needed. Whether or not he can avoid a murder charge under Stand Your Ground, there should at least be a hearing to determine whether Zimmerman is mentally fit to continue to carry a concealed weapon.
[Big thanks to Michael J.W. Stickings of The Reaction for the link at Crooks & Liars.]
[More posts daily at the Detroit News.]
Labels: crime, dangerous idiots, racism, Wingnuts
posted by Libby Spencer at 2:59 PM
6 Comments:
"If Zimmerman had stayed in his car and waited for the police to arrive, as the dispatcher had advised to do, Trayvon would not be dead."
And if that is not accurate? If he was told he did not need to follow two minutes after he left the car, said "ok", and headed back to the car?
Would that change anything?
Police report was pretty clear that he said he was calling from his car. If he lied to the dispatcher, would that change anything for you?
What you can't change, no matter what else happened after, is he intitiated the confrontation by stalking Trayvon.
If he lied to the dispatcher that would be huge. His credibility when it comes to the parts that have no witness or direct physical evidence is determined by how honest he was in the things we CAN verify independently.
But I am not aware of any area where he did lie. Thee are a number if areas where second hand descriptions of what he said are not perfectly accurate, but they are close enough to be 'telephone game' problems.
'Stalking' is a pretty loaded term. But even if we switch it to, say, observing, there is a truth to what you say. If he had not left the car, there could not have been a confrontation.
But he has every right to leave his car. He has every right to watch what someone who looks suspicious to him is doing.
We could just as easily say that this would never have happened if Martin had not gone to the store. But HE had every right to go to the store.
It all comes down to who crossed the line. Who did something that they did NOT have every right to do.
I WANT someone to be clearly wrong. For Zimmerman to be a racist mall ninja, or Martin to be a violent punk.
Because the alternative is the 'perfect storm'. Nobody did anything that wrong, and a 17 year old boy is dead because that is the price of living in a society where people are allowed to defend themselves. And for a gun rights advocate, that is hard to stare in the face.
Being an advocate of gun rights isn't what this is about. According to the stack of paper I got with my Florida carry permit, initiating or escalating the argument deliberately does make a difference. Using a gun to gain advantage -- even declaring that you have one -- makes a very big difference and one loses ones right to presumption of self defense if one commits one or all of these infractions.
The law, in my opinion, was designed to protect people against people like Zimmerman and it would be ironic and sad that he used it to cover an act of aggression against someone who had a right to be where he was.
Yes, I understand that freedom and safety are at odds most of the time and how we compromise says much about our society. I lean toward blaming this thing on the Sanford Police and if you have been to Sanford, you might agree that that the Dukes of Hazzard would feel at home and justice might need some fine tuning, but my feeling is that the Stand your ground law is being misused in this case. Chasing someone is not standing your ground and Zimmerman crossed the line by starting the conflict and forcing the kid to try to protect himself.
It should go to trial.
What Fogg said...
If he brandished his firearm or laid hand on the kid, he broke the law and it's his ass. That simple.
But... is there any evidence this happened? The only thing I know of that supports this would be his GF claiming she can tell who touched who by sound over the phone. Is there something I am missing?
Following someone you think looks suspicious does not in and of itself waive your right to self defense.
I don't think 'stand your ground' has any application here, other than requiring probable cause to press charges.
I don't know about Sanford, maybe it's the worst racist hick town on earth. Can't convict Zimmerman because of what town he lives in though.
I do agree with your last statement though. If Zimmerman's story is legit, he of all people should want this in a courtroom, and out of the PR battle.
Post a Comment
<< Home