I had written a piece a long time ago called “Trayvon Be Gone” about the case that threatened a racial eruption in our country just last year. My piece was less about blaming Trayvon Martin and exonerating George Zimmerman but more an illustration how people’s hate comes to the surface as they make their declarations of truth based not on facts but on bias. Today a jury found George Zimmerman, the shooter, Not Guilty in the case of the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin and so I thought I would reprint my piece.

Reading some of the response to the verdict is scarier to me than the prospect of a man possibly gunning down a young man based on the color of his skin—which is not, in fact, what I think happened on that fateful night. I think George was trying to shoot the hoodie, which we all know is evil, and unfortunately Trayvon was wearing it at the time.

“This verdict represents a tragic miscarriage of justice,” Barbara Arnwine, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said in a statement.

Did it? Or did it represent the justice system working, in which a group of 6 jurors of  George Zimmerman’s peers weighed the facts presented and found the killing of Trayvon Martin justified?

“I remain stunned at the decision,” [Jesse] Jackson said on CNN’s “New Day.” “That the grown man, armed, murdered the unarmed boy [and is] going home.”

Is that what really happened? The way Jesse Jackson portrays it, a big burly white man murdered a small, fragile black boy just for the sport of hate. While I often question the sanity and intelligence of the American citizenry, if that were the case any jury would find Zimmerman guilty quicker than the Premature Ejaculation Champion of the World could blow a load. But it is not what they determined and I don’t believe the facts support this stalking murderer image that Jackson is implanting into receptive, especially black, minds.

I think that we clearly must move on to the next step in terms of the federal government and in terms of the civil courts,” [Al] Sharpton said on MSNBC Saturday. “Clearly, we want people to be disciplined, strategic. This is a slap in the face to those that believe in justice in this country.”

Is it? Why, because you didn’t get the verdict you want? That’s like declaring your utter contempt for the sport of baseball after playing in a game and after nine innings your team is the losing one. Al Sharpton screams for joy every time a black person is killed, injured or wronged—or even when not wronged but he can argue that he was—because then he becomes a somebody with a voice that people give credence to, why I have no idea, instead of the nobody that he is.

Eliot Spitzer, former New York governor and attorney general [and whore-mongerer], called the verdict a “failure of justice.”

“An innocent, young man was walking down a street, was confronted by a stranger with a gun and that innocent, young man was shot,” Spitzer said on “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” on ABC. “The criminal justice system should be able to deal with situations like that. It didn’t.”

Martin was “innocent” when he was walking down the street, of this Eliot “Spits-on-her-ass” is correct. When he attacked George Zimmerman he was no longer innocent and Zimmerman had the right to defend himself.

This is the same argument that people use against Israel, that because (according to their claims) Israel does not belong there, she has no right to defend herself from attack. When rockets flew over the border from Lebanon into border towns of Israel, threatening the lives and security of Israeli citizens there, many criticized Israel for responding to the attack. This is as incredulous as if Mexico started hurling rockets into Texas claiming that the land was theirs—which it was at one time—and expecting that the United States wouldn’t rip Mexico a new gilipollas for it.

[All quotes above taken from this article: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/news/zimmerman-civil-rights-charges-142917019.html]

Nancy Grace, a person who what comes out of her mouth smells almost as retched as what comes out of her ass, was making a case that George Zimmerman shouldn’t have been carrying a gun, despite his friend on her show telling her that he had a legal right to carry a gun based on his concealed weapons gun permit and Florida State Law. Her rebuttal? “I don’t care! I don’t care! And you know what, Jeffrey Dahmer, Jeffry Dahmer had a legal right to have knives and a boiling pot and that doesn’t means it’s okay!”

It was necessary for her to cut off his mic after he started to say that they found THC, marijuana’s active ingredient, in Trayvon’s system. She was afraid that trying her argument of “I don’t care! I don’t care! Bill Clinton smoked pot and he was a good president!” would make her look uglier than the pile of manure she is.

Perhaps scariest is that she was a Constitutional lawyer at one time, which makes me think either she is being manipulated by her controllers or is a complete moron. I am leaning towards “Both.”  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrfiUzIo4lU

And then I saw the report (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3f6_1373681050&fb_source=message) of some “new” Black Panthers, whose novelty is about as new as a “Neo”-Nazi’s, say on camera that they would essentially hunt down George Zimmerman. The reporter even asked, “Are you directly threatening George Zimmerman,” to which the leader of the group answered proudly that he was. Folks, I am no law expert but I’m pretty sure that it’s a crime to say you are going to kill another man, but I have no proof he said that—oh wait, he said it on television.

Among other things this fool said was some hateful Jewish statement because George Zimmerman’s last name sounds Jewish, I guess in an associated role-reversal of him making his last name “Muhammad” and thinking that somehow he is now brethren to the prophet by this name. Let it be clear, George Zimmerman is not Jewish–not that this is in any way relevant–and the closest he’s ever been to the inside of a temple is when he slept with a Jewish girl in college.

Scarier was when he called on Hammurabi’s Code from the Old Testament and  (paraphrased), “An eye for an eye. If they kill one of our babies, we’ll kill one of theirs!” I don’t know if that is borrowing a justification of murder of a child from the Bible or from the Palestinian handbook that, as I remember hearing, cold-bloodedly killed two Israeli boys who were camping in retribution for two Palestinian boys who were caught in a crossfire by Israeli soldiers with the same battle cry, “Two or ours, two of theirs.” It seems Neo-Muhammad keeps good bedfellows, not saying he is a gay man–but if he were, I would support his right to marry.

But don’t worry, folks, the “new” Black Panther protest consisted of just four men who sewed some cool panther decals on a few black berets they got at a tag sale. They are as small and numberless, despite the self-claimed leader saying that he had 10,000 people ready to follow him, as that fool Christian preacher (is that a redundancy?) from the sticks who was going to burn Korans as a form of protest, resulting in many Muslims–including one on the Afghanistan Parliament–calling for the “justified” eye for an eye killing of any American that happens to be walking his dog on a sunny day. That is not “an eye for an eye”; it’s closer to “an eye for a pair of sunglasses.”

I have heard intelligent black friends say that the Republicans vote against anything Obama proposes because he is black. No, they vote against anything Obama proposes because he is a Democrat and that has been the way for decades, if not centuries, in our country, that political scum–which is everyone in politics–care more about party than country.

This conclusion by otherwise intelligent people, unlike the “new” Black Panthers, is the same “conclusion without facts” that I see in the George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin case. I will practically guarantee that most who came out immediately with bold statements of whether George Zimmerman was innocent or guilty probably didn’t do any research on the topic other than perhaps listen to the hate speech of a professional gasoline dispenser on any sparks of hate he can find like Al Sharpton.

This shows an underlying perceived inequality and injustice based on race which, whether true or not, still needs to be addressed, for perceptions of the mind create one’s reality and an prevalent perception like this is bound to turn The Matrix into The Killing Fields.

Like a belief in God, few have the truthful voice to say, “I am not sure…but this is what I believe.” Instead they stand on their pulpits, whether public or personal, and spout nonsense, hyperbole, myths, fables and a sprinkling of facts as truth “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The jury found a reasonable doubt. And so justice was served, even though not everyone’s personal biases agree the verdict.

Let it be clear where I stand in bullet points:

It is a tragedy that a young man is dead when any number of factors, such as George not following him, or him staying home instead of going out for snacks, to perhaps even the outfit Trayvon chose to wear that day, would have resulted in him being alive today.

Trayvon wasn’t killed because he was black. Any Hispanic, white or even a Chinese kid if his parents weren’t forcing him to stay at home and study next year’s curriculum, if he was dressed like a hood and attacked George would have been shot and killed. If the same black, Hispanic, white or Chinese kid were wearing a suit and tie he wouldn’t have been followed. This is not to say that it is “illegal” or wrong to wear a hoodie but talking to a cop friend about profiling, it is clear to me that police find some outfits and behaviors more suspect than others and investigate people exhibiting such dress and behavior more often than your average suit—even though in most probability a Wall Street suit is more likely to be a criminal.

-The facts that I researched before the trial and which I outlined in the preceding piece to this one, “Trayvon Be Gone,” led me to conclude that George was suspicious of Trayvon and might have pursued following him, was surprised by Trayvon who suddenly appeared in front of George and said, “You have a fuckin’ problem?” to which George said, “No,” to which Trayvon cold-cocked him and proceeded to smash his head into the pavement. [DISCLAIMER: I haven’t followed the case or its facts since the story broke and so I don’t know if other information has subsequently surfaced.]

Most who declare that George is guilty haven’t looked at the facts. They are being racists, essentially saying that if a black man dies at the hands of a white man that it is always a crime and one based on racism, which is no different in its blatant racism than saying if a white man dies at the hand of a black man then the black man is definitely guilty. While I find any murder a tragedy expressing the low consciousness of man, our law does turn the other cheek on some murders, as in self-defense, which the jury concluded to be the justification in this case.


There are those who have felt the crushing fist of injustice and stand more determined to keep their palms open, ready to embrace their brothers instead of labeling them the enemy and striking back. Those with hate in their hearts attack another not involved and feel justified. Believe me, I understand the anger of a man like Malcolm X and I agree with a lot of what he said but there is a more loving, and I think better, way than “By any means necessary.”

I remember watching a DVD I had on Malcolm X, which included a lot of his speeches and people reflecting on him. When the small clip of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. came on talking about Malcolm, it was overwhelmingly clear to me that X’s movement fueled by hate made him a pygmy compared to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s movement motivated by love.




Leave a Reply