Background Article 1: Five things you should know about the Trayvon Martin case
Background Article 2: Why Rush Limbaugh and the right turned on Trayvon Martin
Florida Is GOP Territory... So They Will Say & Do ANYTHING To Get Their Way
Rush Limbaugh: A Racist & Paranoid Shock Jock
Glenn Beck: A Master Of Demonizing Innocent People
Case Study: The Zimmerman Trial
Two Witnesses Who Don't Believe George Zimmerman's Story
“So you heard some sort of whining, some sort of commotion outside?” Cooper asked.
“We were in the kitchen, with the window open and the blinds pulled. So we had complete view from outside,” Cutcher explained.
Cooper asked her what was the first thing she saw.
“By that time, you hear like a shot — like some other noise,” Lamilla described.
“You heard the gunshot?” Cooper interjected.
“Yeah, I run away from my backyard and when I just get into the point of my — like my screen, it stopped me, I look at the person on his knees on top of a body,” Lamilla elaborated.
“So you saw Mr. Zimmerman on top of Trayvon Martin?” Cooper questioned.
“Trayvon, exactly,” Lamilla said.
“When you say on top of, how so?” the CNN anchor pressed.
“Straddling him,” Cutcher replied.
“His legs were straddling him?” Cooper followed up.
“One on each side, on his knees, with his hands on his back. I immediately thought, okay, obviously if it’s the shooter, he would have ran,” Cutcher detailed. “I thought he’s holding the wound, helping the guy taking a pulse, making sure he’s okay. When she called to him three times, everything okay, what’s going on? Each time he looked back, didn’t say anything and then the third time he finally said, ‘just call the police.’”
“But at that time it was so dark,” Lamilla added. “I just saw this person. When she started calling the police, I saw Zimmerman walking with — touching like his hair, like kind of like confused back and forth to the body.”
Lamilla and Cutcher described Zimmerman pacing around the body, following the shooting, and disputed that there was any indication of a fight.
Pre-Analysis 3 Of The Zimmerman Trial
Pre-Analysis 4 of The Zimmerman Trial
This Is MOST Likely What Happened: He attacked Treyvon who happened to be a football player who punched him. Then he pulled out his gun and while Treyvon was screaming he threatened then killed him (if that's Trayvon Martin's voice, which it is, obviously but if not there are video clips below proving the prosecution's story. Zimmerman's family can't be blamed for lying but Zimmerman can)
Zimmerman was the one doing the threatening and the Stand Your Ground law will not apply for him, since he knew about it and used it while threatening Trayvon before killing him out of rage and/or hate. Then Zimmerman hit his head on the side of the sidewalk, badly. This story FITS the facts.
After Treyvon got shot he stopped screaming. Like in the Matrix. When Trinity got shot she stopped shooting. Same principle, i.e. getting shot shocks the body and so it stops doing whatever it was doing. If the prosecution had used the following clip they might even have won the case as most people seem to see life as a movie. Here are some clips so you can see what happens when Trinity gets shot (i.e. the same thing that happens in real life, you stop doing whatever you were doing - i.e. Trayvon was screaming TILL he got shot.) The prosecution was right. They just didn't prove their case properly.
Matrix-Trinity: Sample 1
Matrix-Trinity: Sample 2
Matrix-Trinity: Sample 3
What Prosecution Said: While Zimmerman says he reached for his gun after the 17-year-old started beating him up, prosecutors believe Zimmerman pointed his gun sooner and that Martin was shouting for help because he saw it.
Evidence of what happens in a shooting is in the well researched fictional videos above. Just the first example of the Prosecution telling the truth. Problem? They are in Florida. GOP Territory.
Stand Your Ground Law Has Increased the Murder Rate In EVERY State It Has Been Implemented In
Pre-Analysis 3 Of The Zimmerman Trial
Pre-Analysis 4 of The Zimmerman Trial
Note: Even if he wasn't told NOT to pursue the kid which he refused he would still be guilty of stalking a kid with malicious intent.
Zimmerman verdict: A green light for racist vigilantes
This verdict allows every paranoid, sub-intelligent, vigilante with a gun to go on victimizing black youth
Just weeks ago, I returned to New York City from Fire Island on a Sunday evening, and decided to stop by my office.
After I let myself into the office, I noticed some Caucasians mingling around. I paid them no mind, since our office often has off-hours visitors who rent the common space.
“Can I help you?” said a middle aged white man, testily.
“No,” I shot back. “But I can I help YOU?”
“What do you mean?”
“I work here,” I said. “This is MY office.”
“Oh,” he said, stepping back slightly. “I saw you and just wanted to make sure things are OK.”
“Thank you, George Zimmerman,” I said.
Weeks later, my sarcastic one-off is more painful to me than I could ever have imagined. George Zimmerman’s acquittal leaves me feeling so nauseous.
This office exchange has been common to me my whole life. A testy “Can I help you?” doubles as a passive-aggressive demand for me to justify my presence even where I belong. Thankfully, I have never encountered an armed white person on the other end of that presumption.
Trayvon Martin paid for that common presumption with his life.
Articles Useful For A Proper Perspective
Let's get real
Because it happened in America, the trial of George Zimmerman for shooting and killing Trayvon Martin was all about race. And because it happened in America, the people who benefit politically from the same invidious forces that led both to Trayvon Martin’s killing, and the acquittal of his killer, will deny that race had anything to do with either the killing or the verdict.
Suppose Trayvon Martin had been a 230-pound 30-year-old black man, with a loaded gun in his jacket. Suppose Zimmerman had been a 150-pound 17-year-old white kid, who was doing nothing more threatening than walking back from a convenience store to his father’s condo.
Suppose Martin had stalked Zimmerman in his car, until Zimmerman became afraid and tried to elude him. Suppose Martin had gotten out of his car and pursued Zimmerman. Suppose this led to some sort of altercation in which the big scary black man ended up with a bloody nose and some scratches on the back of his head, and the scared skinny (and unarmed) white kid had ended up with a bullet in his heart.
How do you suppose the big scary black man’s claim of “self-defense” would have gone over with a jury made up almost entirely of white women? But of course this is America, which means that the scary figure in this story is the skinny unarmed teenager, because in America pretty much any black male over the age of 12 in this sort of situation is going to be presumed to be the ”aggressor,” the “thug” – in short,” the real criminal,” until he’s proved innocent, which he won’t be, even if he’s now a dead, still unarmed teenager. And his killer is a grown man who provokes a fight with an otherwise harmless kid, starts losing it, and then shoots the kid dead.
Because this is America, pointing out that a black boy can be shot with impunity by a more or less white man because many white Americans are terrified by black boys and men is called “playing the race card.” The race card is what the people who benefit politically from the fact that many white Americans are terrified by black boys and men call any reference to the fact that race continues to play an overwhelmingly important, and overwhelmingly invidious, role in American culture in general. And in the criminal justice system in particular.
Trayvon Martin was stalked by George Zimmerman because he was black. Trayvon Martin is dead because he was black. George Zimmerman was acquitted of killing Trayvon Martin because the boy Zimmerman killed was black.
If you deny these things, you are either a liar or an idiot, or possibly both.
Nothing above requires the conclusion that the jury’s verdict was wrong as a matter of law. Florida’s laws, in their majestic equality, extend to people of all races the right to engage in vigilante killing that eliminates the sole witness to that killing. To point this out is neither a defense of those laws, nor a claim that they will in fact be applied equally. In other words, to blame this jury in this situation is to miss the point.
Zimmerman verdict: A green light for racist vigilantes
This verdict allows every paranoid, sub-intelligent, vigilante with a gun to go on victimizing black youth
Just weeks ago, I returned to New York City from Fire Island on a Sunday evening, and decided to stop by my office.
After I let myself into the office, I noticed some Caucasians mingling around. I paid them no mind, since our office often has off-hours visitors who rent the common space.
“Can I help you?” said a middle aged white man, testily.
“No,” I shot back. “But I can I help YOU?”
“What do you mean?”
“I work here,” I said. “This is MY office.”
“Oh,” he said, stepping back slightly. “I saw you and just wanted to make sure things are OK.”
“Thank you, George Zimmerman,” I said.
Weeks later, my sarcastic one-off is more painful to me than I could ever have imagined. George Zimmerman’s acquittal leaves me feeling so nauseous.
This office exchange has been common to me my whole life. A testy “Can I help you?” doubles as a passive-aggressive demand for me to justify my presence even where I belong. Thankfully, I have never encountered an armed white person on the other end of that presumption.
Trayvon Martin paid for that common presumption with his life.
Zimmerman’s stooges and apologists claim that his deadly encounter had nothing do with race. And that his trial and acquittal have nothing to do with race. His defenders effectively portrayed him as a hapless Samaritan who got in over his head. Meanwhile, they tarred Trayvon as a menace who failed to properly justify his existence.
These presumptions colored every moment of the Police Department’s botched initial reaction and the trial.
How does an armed adult defy the policy, chase down a youth, kill him, and then turn around and call it self defense? Defense from what? A fleeing kid? Was Trayvon Martin seen for his humanity? Or as a “fucking punk”? Are black men seen for our humanity or as three-fifths of a fucking punk? This verdict will have devastating consequences. It is an implicit green light for every paranoid, sub-intelligent, vigilante racist to go on victimizing black youth. Trayvon Martin is dead for no reason other than being black.
Why do Zimmerman and some Americans feel entitled to police black and brown people like vigilantes? Why did the Sanford Police Department test a dead boy’s body for drugs in “standard operating procedure,” yet failed to test a live man’s body for alcohol or drugs? Why did the Sanford Police Department fail so miserably during the critical immediate hours after arriving on the scene?
Since our juridical Establishment often turns its head – or even winks – at the prevalence of racial profiling and police brutality against black and brown people, why should anyone be surprised by Zimmerman’s chase? Or by his acquittal? Implicitly and explicitly, the law condones his racial paranoia. The so-called rationales used to design and peddle “Stand Your Ground” laws and “Stop and Frisk” laws, and immigrant policing laws, fuel a vigilante mentality allowing some Americans to feel entitled to self-police others.
Even before the verdict, the Police Establishment warned black people not to riot – as though that were a foregone conclusion – without delivering Zimmerman’s supporters the same warning. The warning not to riot – in its substance and tone – recirculates the dogma of “black men as menace.” The chase, the trial, the warnings not to riot, the acquittal all compound the passive-aggressive profiling of black and brown people.
And yet. Legions of white people are heartbroken by Trayvon’s death, and Zimmerman’s acquittal. Legions of white people do not make it their business to self-police people of color. Many people of all races feel solidarity with the boy. “We are all Trayvon.”
This sordid affair has everything to do with race, but not race alone.
Not just a cautionary tale on racial profiling and vigilante justice, Trayvon’s needless death is a devastating lesson on the paranoid logic of gun capitalism. Zimmerman claims he didn’t feel safe. Did Trayvon feel safe? What about his safety? After all, the youth was shot by a multi-racial vigilante assailant – with a troubling history with law enforcement — in a multiracial gated community.
When will we muster the resolve to stop deaths from gun violence? For goodness sake: Why wouldn’t the Aurora shooting and the Newtown massacre force us all to confront the illusory sense of safety in our communities?
Regeneration Through Violence, The Fatal Environment, Gunfighter Nation: Richard Slotkin’s masterful historical trilogy on this country’s long-standing love affair with vigilantism, cruelty, and gun violence reveals as much about Zimmerman and this tragedy as does his trial transcripts – or any news media. This tragedy rips bare all the thorny issues Richard Slotkin exposes in that brilliant trilogy.
The questions demand: How does a legal establishment maintain justice in a world getting browner by the day? And in a nation that feels the need to “regenerate” itself through violence? What will this country do to keep young people safe?
Slotkin trilogy shows us how America’s frontier myths still dominate our violent politics and culture. So, in painful ways, the man who occupies the Oval Office, in all his blackness, is irrelevant.
From the highest levels of power designing our drone policy to the inept local trenches of Florida policing, we remain a gunfighter nation. From Trayvon to the kids in Newton, young people are vulnerable to mentally ill or paranoid or racist adults with guns. The acquittal is yet another frank reminder of who writes our laws, who enforces our laws, and the very presumptions guiding our laws.
Zimmerman’s acquittal is a blunt reality check about how power works in America.
Our real problem is white rage
For all the warnings about supposed black riots, don't forget who exploded throughout the George Zimmerman affair
If there is no justice, there can be no peace. But in the American South it seems white folks suddenly believe that decorum and charm are a proper response to unspeakable acts of violence and unconscionable injustice.
The day before a jury delivered an acquittal in the murder trial of George Zimmerman, Seminole County Sheriff Don Eslinger and Sanford Police Chief Cecil Smith gave a national press conference to appeal for a peaceful reaction to the verdict — regardless of its outcome.
Eslinger, who is white, said, “We will not tolerate anyone who uses this verdict as an excuse to violate the law.”
The veiled threat of an aggressive police response to imaginary civil unrest belies the very logic that led to Trayvon Martin’s death to begin with. For, you see, African-Americans are never protected or served by the law enforcement apparatus — yet they are always subject to its military might.
Sanford police coyly “tolerated” the actual killing of an unarmed black child, but yet refuse to “tolerate” any anger expressed for the acquittal of his murderer.
This is the new Jim Crow realized.
It bears reminding that it was Sanford’s police who first allowed Zimmerman to walk away uncharged — his gun in tote. The story of self-defense seemed logical to them given the brown body lying on the ground. It was their decision not to investigate the case as a crime that led to public outcry, rallies and marches. It is only because of their total failure to do their jobs that the world now knows the name and face of Trayvon Martin.
The complete incompetence (or indifference) of Sanford police is why certain evidence that could have more easily convicted Zimmerman was inadmissible at trial — the most glaring example being their failure to perform a toxicology test on Zimmerman the night he shot Martin. Had they done so, it would have revealed whether he was under the influence of either illegal substances, alcohol or the two prescriptions drugs he had admittedly been taking — Temazepan and Adderall — the side effects of which include hallucinations, insomnia and aggressive behavior.
Instead, Sanford police let Zimmerman walk away, quietly into the night, as he did again yesterday. But the same police now threaten a quick and forcible response to any violence perpetrated in reaction to injustice their own department has engendered.
This arrogant call to remain calm in the face of such fatal injustice reveals a basic disregard for the humanity of black people. It is this fundamental disconnect — an unwillingness or inability to see African-Americans as fully realized human beings — that allows whites to blindly ignore the need for equal treatment and equal justice.
It is this warped mentality that led George Zimmerman to murder an unarmed child, feel no remorse and say it was “God’s plan.”
Human beings are allowed to be angry. They are allowed to emote fear, love, joy, relief, pride and pain. Perhaps if the white women on this jury could see a murdered child — as opposed to a “black” child — they would instinctively know that Trayvon was afraid of Zimmerman, confused by this man following him in the dark, and perhaps they could intuit Trayvon screaming for his life. There is, after all, no other way to see the facts of this case — beyond a reasonable doubt or otherwise.
But neither justice nor humanity are colorblind in the eyes of American law. The nation’s sociopolitical consciousness remains plagued by a three-fifths compromise that devalues the lives of black people in general, and black boys and men in particular.
And when the criminal justice system — in the hands, as it was, of two white defense attorneys, two white prosecutors and a mostly white jury presided over by a white judge — choose to disregard the life of an innocent black teenager, it can hardly be a surprising result. Trayvon Martin was profiled not just by Zimmerman on the night he was killed, but by the very people charged with adjudicating justice on behalf of his senseless death.
For African-Americans this is not new. The paradox of being implicitly excluded from the guarantee of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness has been reiterated and reinforced by public policy and social malaise for centuries. President Barack Obama is not immune — as he’s become the target of incessant “white rage”: race-baiting attacks, prejudice and bias even prior to his election. The Republican Party and its neo-Confederate Tea Party wing has been committed to invalidating his political and legislative legacy as much as the Zimmerman jury invalidated the civil rights of Trayvon. The disparate precedent set, therefore, becomes all the more insulting when we’re told to simply shut up and bear it.
Melissa Harris-Perry, on her eponymous MSNBC show, explained this weekend that “race riots” is a biased term that dismisses the underlying calls for justice, which are often the primary purpose for protests by black and brown people. She highlighted the key fact that in America’s history the worst “race riots” featured violent attacks perpetrated by whites against blacks: The Tulsa race riot of 1921 and the Rosewood, Fla., riots of 1923.
In Tulsa, a mob of armed white men charged into a black neighborhood, burning homes, killing over 300 victims and leaving an estimated 8,000 people homeless. In Rosewood, a series of lynchings escalated into hundreds of angry white rioters killing an unknown number of black citizens and leaving the entire town in waste.
Yet white rage is never articulated by America’s law enforcement as a reason to fear or strategically organize against. White males aren’t stopped by police in disproportionate numbers nor frisked before entering movie theaters and first-grade classrooms. But there are many angry white people out there.
The image of a threatening black male prevails in the minds of white prosecutors, juries and average citizens alike — and the Zimmerman verdict will only serve to solidify that concept and embolden like-minded vigilantes to behave recklessly and act with impunity against the lives, bodies and souls of black folks.
African-American civil rights leaders, politicians and religious authorities have all echoed the call for calm in the wake of the verdict. But what is most confounding is the fact that a black male who chooses to riot is as likely to be met with violent and deadly force as if he were walking quietly home with Skittles and iced tea in-hand. This is the ultimate tragedy that Zimmerman’s trial has unleashed in the so-called “post-racial” age.
Black males, regardless of age, environment, lack of criminal record, activity and intent are treated as suspects, never presumed innocent. Their lives are reduced to a cautionary tale — denied of due process and equal protection.
What words written here can suffice to argue on behalf of an innocent dead child, as his murderer walks free — absolved by the system that failed to hold him responsible from the very beginning? The very logic that precipitated Trayvon’s death and rendered jurisprudence to justify his killing reflects the misguided principles at the heart of Zimmerman’s defense: that this black boy had no right to live.
How is this possible 60 years after Emmett Till’s fatal demise? What progress can be gleaned from Obama’s ascendance if black children can’t be judged by the content of their character, instead of the color of their skin?
Trayvon Martin, and all of us by proxy, has been weighed in the balances and found guilty of his own murder. The sentence is death without parole.
Background Article 1: Five things you should know about the Trayvon Martin case
Background Article 2: Why Rush Limbaugh and the right turned on Trayvon Martin
Florida Is GOP Territory... So They Will Say & Do ANYTHING To Get Their Way
Rush Limbaugh: A Racist & Paranoid Shock Jock
Glenn Beck: A Master Of Demonizing Innocent People
Case Study: The Zimmerman Trial