Michael Gaynor
Zimmerman, Martin, race baiting, racial profiling and Hannity
By Michael Gaynor
Both Zimmerman and Martin were free to be where they were when they encountered each other and to profile, or not profile, each other.
The acquittal of George Zimmerman on both murder and manslaugher charges based on his shooting of Trayvon Martin by a six women jury (five white and one self-described black hisppanic represents a third strike for the race baiters in their efforts to twist the facts to promote their political agenda and a second success for Sean Hannity in resisting them.
Strike One was the Tawana Brawley case (long ago, before Hannity was a tv and radio star). It was disgusting, but Al Sharpton is an MSNBC host anyway (and last year he pushed hard for the unjustified prosecution of Zimmerman that just became Strike Three).
Strike Two was the notorious Duke lacrosse case, in which the bogus gang rape claim of Crystal Gail Magnum and the disgusting conduct of an opportunistic white Democrat district attorney (Michael Nifong) subjected the Duke Three and their families and friends to outrageous prosecutorial abuse and agony. Nifong posed as the protector of black women, but the charges brought were bogus (and Hannity was significant in the truth ultimately prevailing).
Strike Three, the Zimmerman case, was a politically motivated prosecution that never would have been conducted if Zimmerman too looked like a son that President Obama might have had or Martin was white or, in the words of The New York Times, "white hispanic" (and Hannity this time was even more important in the truth ultimately prevailing, this time because he interviewed Zimmerman at length soon after his encounter with Martin and much of the video was played by the prosecution as part of its case, sparing Zimmerman the possible need to testify).
It's time to identify the real victim and the real villain and for people to stop pretending otherwise.
It is tragic that Zimmerman felt the need to shot Martin in self-defense, but that appears to be exactly what the jury determined and the evidence at trial supported that determination.
So Zimmerman is the real victim, of both Martin and the prosecutors, and Martin is the villain, not Zimmerman.
"Villain" is defined as "someone who behaves in an immoral way, or something that is responsible for a bad situation" (www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/villain).
That covers Martin, who attacked, and the prosecutors, who persecuted.
"Victim" is defined as "someone who has been harmed, injured, or killed as the result of a crime" (www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/victim).
Under that definition, Martin is not a victim, unless his attack on Zimmerman is the crime and a perpetrator can be a victim of his own crime.
The prosecutors lost the case, but are still calling Martin a victim. If they accept the jury verdict, as they said they do, they should stop with their distortions.
Yes, "victim' is also defined as "someone who has suffered as a result of the actions or negative attitudes of someone else or of people in general," but Martin suffered as a result of his action and negative attitude."
Now the NAACP wants the federal government to prosecute Zimmerman, but Zimmerman is a neighborhood watch captain, not a law enforcement official, and he has his constitutional rights regardless of NAACP wishes.
"The most fundamental of civil rights – the right to life – was violated the night George Zimmerman stalked and then took the life of Trayvon Martin," the NAACP petition read. "We ask that the Department of Justice file civil rights charges against Mr. Zimmerman for this egregious violation. Please address the travesties of the tragic death of Trayvon Martin by acting today." (http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-prosecution-petition-overwhelms-naacp-website/story?id=19662189
The unpassed End Racial Profiling Act of 2010 helps to explain that even if Zimmerman had racially profiled Martin (and that has not been proven), he did not violate the law by doing so. The proposed Act was intended to apply to law enforcement agents and law enforcement agencies. "Law enforcement agency" meant "any federal, state, local, or Indian tribal public agency engaged in the prevention, detection, or investigation of violations of criminal, immigration, or customs laws" and "racial profiling" meant "the practice of a law enforcement agent or agency relying, to any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion in selecting which individual to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities or in deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activity following the initial investigatory procedure, except when there is trustworthy information, relevant to the locality and timeframe, that links a person of a particular race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion to an identified criminal incident or scheme." See www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/racial-profiling2011/the-end-of-racial.html.
Both Zimmerman and Martin were free to be where they were when they encountered each other and to profile, or not profile, each other. Neither of them was free to attack the other. The jury appears to have determined that Martin was the attacker, and the physical evidence supports that determination. Martin's gunshot would ended, not started, the conflict, and Martin's only other injury was an offensive hand wound obviously the result of striking Zimmerman. Zimmerman's blood on both the front and back of his head supports a finding that Martin struck first.
© Michael Gaynor
July 15, 2013
Both Zimmerman and Martin were free to be where they were when they encountered each other and to profile, or not profile, each other.
The acquittal of George Zimmerman on both murder and manslaugher charges based on his shooting of Trayvon Martin by a six women jury (five white and one self-described black hisppanic represents a third strike for the race baiters in their efforts to twist the facts to promote their political agenda and a second success for Sean Hannity in resisting them.
Strike One was the Tawana Brawley case (long ago, before Hannity was a tv and radio star). It was disgusting, but Al Sharpton is an MSNBC host anyway (and last year he pushed hard for the unjustified prosecution of Zimmerman that just became Strike Three).
Strike Two was the notorious Duke lacrosse case, in which the bogus gang rape claim of Crystal Gail Magnum and the disgusting conduct of an opportunistic white Democrat district attorney (Michael Nifong) subjected the Duke Three and their families and friends to outrageous prosecutorial abuse and agony. Nifong posed as the protector of black women, but the charges brought were bogus (and Hannity was significant in the truth ultimately prevailing).
Strike Three, the Zimmerman case, was a politically motivated prosecution that never would have been conducted if Zimmerman too looked like a son that President Obama might have had or Martin was white or, in the words of The New York Times, "white hispanic" (and Hannity this time was even more important in the truth ultimately prevailing, this time because he interviewed Zimmerman at length soon after his encounter with Martin and much of the video was played by the prosecution as part of its case, sparing Zimmerman the possible need to testify).
It's time to identify the real victim and the real villain and for people to stop pretending otherwise.
It is tragic that Zimmerman felt the need to shot Martin in self-defense, but that appears to be exactly what the jury determined and the evidence at trial supported that determination.
So Zimmerman is the real victim, of both Martin and the prosecutors, and Martin is the villain, not Zimmerman.
"Villain" is defined as "someone who behaves in an immoral way, or something that is responsible for a bad situation" (www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/villain).
That covers Martin, who attacked, and the prosecutors, who persecuted.
"Victim" is defined as "someone who has been harmed, injured, or killed as the result of a crime" (www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/victim).
Under that definition, Martin is not a victim, unless his attack on Zimmerman is the crime and a perpetrator can be a victim of his own crime.
The prosecutors lost the case, but are still calling Martin a victim. If they accept the jury verdict, as they said they do, they should stop with their distortions.
Yes, "victim' is also defined as "someone who has suffered as a result of the actions or negative attitudes of someone else or of people in general," but Martin suffered as a result of his action and negative attitude."
Now the NAACP wants the federal government to prosecute Zimmerman, but Zimmerman is a neighborhood watch captain, not a law enforcement official, and he has his constitutional rights regardless of NAACP wishes.
"The most fundamental of civil rights – the right to life – was violated the night George Zimmerman stalked and then took the life of Trayvon Martin," the NAACP petition read. "We ask that the Department of Justice file civil rights charges against Mr. Zimmerman for this egregious violation. Please address the travesties of the tragic death of Trayvon Martin by acting today." (http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zimmerman-prosecution-petition-overwhelms-naacp-website/story?id=19662189
The unpassed End Racial Profiling Act of 2010 helps to explain that even if Zimmerman had racially profiled Martin (and that has not been proven), he did not violate the law by doing so. The proposed Act was intended to apply to law enforcement agents and law enforcement agencies. "Law enforcement agency" meant "any federal, state, local, or Indian tribal public agency engaged in the prevention, detection, or investigation of violations of criminal, immigration, or customs laws" and "racial profiling" meant "the practice of a law enforcement agent or agency relying, to any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion in selecting which individual to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities or in deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activity following the initial investigatory procedure, except when there is trustworthy information, relevant to the locality and timeframe, that links a person of a particular race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion to an identified criminal incident or scheme." See www.civilrights.org/publications/reports/racial-profiling2011/the-end-of-racial.html.
Both Zimmerman and Martin were free to be where they were when they encountered each other and to profile, or not profile, each other. Neither of them was free to attack the other. The jury appears to have determined that Martin was the attacker, and the physical evidence supports that determination. Martin's gunshot would ended, not started, the conflict, and Martin's only other injury was an offensive hand wound obviously the result of striking Zimmerman. Zimmerman's blood on both the front and back of his head supports a finding that Martin struck first.
© Michael Gaynor
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
