The real charge against Zimmerman

Supposedly, the state’s theory is that Zimmerman followed Trayvon, jumped him, beat him up, then shot him.

Of course no one believes this. When the prosecution questions prosecution witnesses, they make no attempt to support their supposed theory. Every prosecution witness bar one, while being questioned by the prosecution, has shot down that purported theory one way or another. It is clear from the prosecution witnesses while being questioned by the prosecution, even Trayvon’s girlfriend, that Trayvon jumped Zimmerman from the shadows and beat him up, motivated in part or whole by racial hatred. Rather, what the prosecution does attempt to argue, by the questions that it puts to its witnesses, is that Zimmerman was not hurt all that much, that he should have just put up with being beaten and mugged, that he should have just sucked it up.

Obviously, were the situation reversed, no one would suggest that a black man should just suck it up. Were the situation reversed, that a dead white assailant was in part or whole motivated by racial hostility would have been reported in headlines the size of tombstones.

The basic issue here, the real, though unspoken, prosecution claim, is that blacks are entitled to attack white people without being resisted by lethal force, even though no one would propose the converse. It is that simple.

5 Responses to “The real charge against Zimmerman”

  1. […] The media and a Zimmerman witness. Related: GLP comments. GLP’s Zimmerman stuff. Related: The real charge against Zimmerman. Related: No hope for Zimmerman. Related: Rachael and voting. Related: What the racist left is […]

  2. Chevalier de Johnstone says:

    I would rather say the basic charge here, the real case being prosecuted in front of the eyes of the gullible viewing electorate, is that guns are bad.

    It is a given assumption in the anti-gun community that black people are not supposed to have guns. This is an unspoken target of all urban anti-gun laws, from which a well-spoken, moderately wealthy, politically-connected white person can almost always find exemption. Even black people largely agree that other black people can’t be trusted with guns. Law abiding ghetto-dwellers supposedly can’t have firearms to defend themselves, because of the risk those firearms may be stolen by criminals.*

    Now the government’s case is that white hispanics should not be allowed firearms, because to do so carries the risk of putting them in a dangerous situation where they might “accidentally” shoot someone in “self defense”, at the risk of having the firearm taken from them by an attacker as witnesses appear to indicate Martin threatened to do.

    The unstated argument, perpetuated by the all-female jury, the focus on Martin’s mother, the numerous female witnesses, is that men can’t be trusted with guns. This is not to say that all women or these women believe this, but it is the imagery that is being portrayed.

    If I am wrong, the argument will be advanced that Martin, a known drug-user, was quite possibly suffering from a psychotic episode due to ingestion of an overdose of DMX in the form of the “watermelondrank” 2/3 the ingredients for which were found on his person, and that it is quite possible that the only means anyone had of stopping his violent psychotic and hallucinatory rampage was to shoot him with sufficient stopping power (point blank range generally works.)

    I think I am right, and we will never see this argument in the courtroom.

    * The obvious counter-proposal is more gun control: a state-funded program to teach law-abiding firearms owners how to control the weapon so as to put a full magazine center mass in any criminal attempting to steal it.

  3. fnn says:

    Non-elite white people are not allowed to resist the ethnic cleansing of their neighborhoods by blacks through community organization and aggressive community patrolling.

    Strangely enough, PC demands that resistance to blacks be outsourced to Mexicans. The Hawaiian Gardens Mexicans, however, went too far in their overt racial hostility and were federally prosecuted.

  4. Faré says:

    Well, Planet of the Apes was indeed a thinly veiled fable on the post-colonial world, when the former “inferior” races turn the tables on their former masters…

  5. Jehu says:

    Non-elite white people are not allowed to resist the ethnic cleansing of their neighborhoods by blacks through community organization and aggressive community patrolling. They are especially not allowed to confront blacks and demand their business, and particularly not when they have tactical dominance through numbers or a concealed weapon. Zimmerman is being charged mostly because he at least implicitly confronted a black man. Think Planet of the Apes and the taboo of saying ‘no’ to an ape.

Leave a Reply