Okay, the show trial for the purpose of political correctness has run its course and Mr. George Zimmerman has been judged ‘Not Guilty’.
Which is what the police department said in the first place, if anyone remembers.
Then Al Sharpton got involved, remember? I have a serious question for anyone willing to chime in: Who in the world would take Al Sharpton seriously? I really want someone to answer this question. Sharpton was the spearhead for the Tawana Brawley case, remember? Remember the completely fraudulent claim of rape? Remember Sharpton’s comments on the Bernard Goetz case, where Bernard Goetz was approached and threatened with violence to surrender his money? Mr. Goetz shot the four stickup men in self-defense and Sharpton declared Mr. Goetz a racist because he didn’t surrender his money.
Why is anyone going to take Sharpton seriously?
George Zimmerman was a citizen legally in place and legally armed. Trayvon Martin was a huge (four inches taller than Zimmerman), tattooed, thug-looking man of only seventeen years. Martin took exception to Zimmerman looking him over and attacked Zimmerman, throwing Zimmerman to the ground and beating Zimmerman’s head against the ground. In fear of his life, Zimmerman shot Martin, ending Martin’s life in the course of the attack.
The local police investigated the event and concluded Zimmerman acted in self-defense – as did, one notes, the jury in the recent court case. So why was Mr. Zimmerman later charged with murder and put on trial?
To placate Al Sharpton. To placate the parents of Trayvon Martin. To placate the demonstrating crowds of racist minded people who were demanding revenge on an honest man who resisted being beaten by a black thug.
Much has been made of the fact Martin was ‘unarmed’. What is important in self-defense is the actual ability and willingness to commit harm. Mr. Zimmerman’s physical condition following Martin’s attack demonstrates both the ability and willingness to do bodily harm to Mr. Zimmerman. For the period 2007 to 2011, 811 people every year were killed by ‘bare hands’ (officially ‘personal weapons’ which include feet and teeth). Martin not being in immediate possession of a ‘weapon’ does not diminish the threat to Mr. Zimmerman, nor protects Martin from self-defense.
Now Mr. Zimmerman has been acquitted of the charges. Already the racial hatred group called the NAACP wants the President to pursue ‘civil rights’ charges against Mr. Zimmerman. So, defending oneself against a violent attack by a black man is racist? What a curious idea.
The Attorney General of the United, Eric Holder, made a public statement wherein he stated Mr. Zimmerman’s killing of Martin was “… unnecessary and tragic…” Unnecessary? How so? The jury in the case said it was self-defense. What isn’t necessary about repelling an attacker? Also, how can the Attorney General make such sweeping comments – a conclusion, by the way – PRIOR to an ‘investigation’? It seems the results of the investigation are not in doubt; just finding the facts to support the conclusion is left.
And for those who have been able to avoid the news, the FBI did an extensive investigation in the lead up to the Zimmerman court case and found no evidence of ‘racial’ prejudice. Of course, since a white (more or less, George Zimmerman is also Hispanic which is not white) man defended himself against a black attacker, there MUST be white prejudice involved. At least, that’s the claim of the Sharptons and Holders of the world.
How about this: Let’s have an end to violent attacks and see if the number of self-defense caused injuries abate? How about if the citizens of the United States start teaching their children to operate within the law, not commit crimes and conduct themselves like proper people?