Friday, August 9, 2013 - Volume 4, Number 6

© Copyright 2013, The Ultrapolis Project. All Rights Reserved.

George Zimmerman, Pride and Prejudice

Will Progressive Left “Conversation” Advance Cause of Black Americans?

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE:

· To Stand or Not to Stand – Part 1

· Readers Respond to UWFR on Gay Pride Malice and “A Gay Defense of Traditional Marriage” – Page 2

· Cartoon: The Zimmerman Rainbow – by Nate Beeler

Zimmerman and The Conversation

Did Liberal-Progressives Advance Race Relations?

The Model B29

If anything made clear George Zimmerman’s innocence of the crime of murder, it was Juror B29’s anguished denunciation of her own vote to acquit Mr. Zimmerman of the charges against him. Confused and unclear about the proper use of the word ‘murder,’ as well as the purpose of the law and the rules of evidence, she nonetheless explained in beautifully transparent terms why, despite her own feelings about Mr. Zimmerman’s guilt, she voted to acquit.

A lot of us [jurors] wanted to find something bad, something that we could connect to the law…because the evidence shows he’s guilty of killing Trayvon Martin. But we couldn’t prove that intentionally [her emphasis] he killed him, and that was the way the law was read to me.

She seemed innocently and utterly oblivious to the idea that that was the whole point of the exercise; and the system worked as intended (remarkably so, given her words). The seemingly “non-white” mother of eight, with a strong preferred expressed sympathy for Mr. Martin’s parents as a fellow parent, coming into deliberation wanting to convict Mr. Zimmerman, still said the evidence was not there. She made plain she went with how she read the law, and not her “heart.” This is what liberal democracy has always strived for. B29 is the model juror.

Ms. B29 sought the forgiveness of the Martins. Probably to her surprise, but quite understandably, the Martins were not pleased with what she had to say.

The news media, which by their own admission vote 80%-85% Democrat (they just say it does not influence their coverage), and by various measures support policies and views from the Left-side of the political spectrum, were clearly struggling with the issue on how to cover her comments. After all, they have good reason not to suggest that people should go with their emotions in jury deliberations – that could be devastating to minority defendants. They have not dwelled much on Ms. B29’s comments since.

How We Knew

The Left’s activists got ahead of themselves in this case, which is why we predicted on our Twitter feed back on March 27 of last year that “new facts to surface from Trayvon Martin case will complicate the picture of what happened - and efforts to 'use' the event.” Of course, this is exactly what happened, not just in the weakness of the prosecution’s case in court, which the media treated as a surprise, but also in the subsequent interviews of Trayvon Martin’s friend, Ms. Rachel Jeantel. Among other things, Ms. Jeantel told the liberal-progressive, Martin-friendly Marc Lamont for the Huffington Post, responding to his question as to who she thought struck first: “In my mind,…Trayvon. It was Trayvon.” (Watch how Mr. Lamont in the interview tries to salvage the situation and put it back on Mr. Zimmerman.) She also explained to the craven Piers Morgan and the amiably earnest Mr. Lamont that she and Mr. Martin thought the “creepy-ass cracka” (cracker) might be a gay rapist, and probably brought upon himself a “whopass” by Mr. Martin.

How did we know what would happen? It is not because we had access to any information not available to anyone else. There simply was not enough concrete information to make the harshly judgmental conclusions that were being advanced from blogs, to CNN and MSNBC, to the halls of Congress, within hours of news coverage of the deadly shooting. Congresswoman Frederica Wilson, Democrat from Florida, while wearing a large pink rhinestone-studded cowboy hat and a lapel flower the size of her head, declared in a shrill cry that “Trayvon was hunted down like a rabid dog!"

Humans being what we are, once we very loudly, publicly, and morally indignantly proclaim a view, our pride makes it almost impossible for us to step back in light of new evidence. In the Zimmerman case, the new evidence that pointed in another direction never stopped coming - and never made a difference for those who had spoken out so firmly so early.

The Progressive Conversation

Alongside the angry accusations of racial bias against Mr. Zimmerman and anyone casting doubt on his guilt as racially motivated, hard Left liberal-progressives on talk shows repeated the need for a national "conversation" on race, in order to help heal and bridge the racial divide. But in our observation, their starting point of the so-called conversation, in every instance that we observed, was dishonest or outright disconnected from what anyone that disagreed with them might actually think about what they had to say. ("America, you are racist. Now, let's talk." - this brings up the contradiction of how is it that if liberal-progressive ideas are the "mainstream" in America as the Left often maintains, America is still racist?)

On National Public Radio's program "Tell Me More" hosted by Michel Martin, days before a verdict was reached, Georgetown law professor Paul Butler explained the correctness of the liberal-progressive view by saying:

If we reversed the races here, a not guilty verdict is impossible to imagine. So think about a big black man who followed a skinny white teenager, gets into a fight with him. The skinny white guy isn't armed, and the big black guy shoots him dead and then claims self-defense. Does anybody think that a jury would buy that?

Sounds plain, except the professor left out some very important descriptions. "Skinny teenager vs. big guy" does not make clear that, according to the police report, Mr. Martin was 6' to Zimmerman's 5'9". Police put Mr. Martin at 160 lbs. and Mr. Zimmerman at unknown, though credible news reports put him at around 175 lbs. at the time of the shooting. By any account. Mr. Martin was lean, and Mr. Zimmerman was portly - and not in a good way. (The ubiquitous picture of Trayvon Martin is undated, and is clearly taken at a much younger age when viewed against the most recent photo of Martin available.) The professor's example makes no mention of the very real possibility that Mr. Zimmerman may very well have been at the losing end of a fight, with his head clearly slammed against something quite hard, and feared losing consciousness.

We can't be as certain as the professor as to what a jury would have said under the professor's scenario, but even if the verdict would be "guilty" as he is sure it would be, does that make that verdict right? The point here is that his example scenario is dishonest or at the very least grossly inept and a dereliction of his self-assumed duty to advance The Conversation. Sadly, this typifies what we have seen everywhere except on Fox News and conservative online outlets and radio broadcasts.

Continued column 2 >

An Uncommon View

The above were retrieved from from Snopes.com and are publicly available. Our goal is to let you our readers have a fair chance at deciding if the widely-circulated photo and descriptions of Trayon Martin gave an honest picture of what might have happened that tragic night. The picture in the background shows Mr. Martin standing next to adult family members (obscured here to protect their privacy-some are in the front row leaning forward).

< From column 1

Worse were the actions by NBC reporters who deliberately doctored the 911 call from George Zimmerman that made it appear that he singled out Trayvon Martin because he was black, the reporters knowing this would inflame a sense of racial injustice. (The reporters were eventually fired after the editing was discovered, but the damage was done, and many people who heard the doctored version will never know that what they heard was a lie).

Have not Fox News and the conservative media also been unfair in their commentary on the deadly shooting? Not in our view, if only because in this case the facts have favored their position. It is easy to be fair when you happen to be right.

Of Fact and Circumstance

What are the facts? The facts are that none of us except Mr. Zimmerman know for a fact all of what happened, aside from what the witnesses have to say about what they saw, and the forensic evidence. And, we know it is very dangerous to go around putting people in prison for life because we are "just sure" of what "must" have happened, or what he "must" have been thinking, as 'creepy-ass cracka's' like Piers Morgan seem to think we should.

Of Pride and Circumstance

Is George Zimmerman completely innocent? Should he have made different decisions that terrible late evening? We don't know, but probably no and yes. We do know it is possible he followed Trayvon Martin for the very reason he claimed: he did not want to lose sight of him before the police came. In our own neighborhood we have been plagued by persistent burglaries and thefts that go unpunished. The publisher of this newsletter was asked recently by another neighbor who did not know him "can I help you with something?" while looking around at homes in the area one evening. Was it annoying to be found suspicious and questioned? Sure. But, it was understandable. Maybe all either Mr. Zimmerman or Mr. Martin needed to do that night was ask the question, and the two would have then just walked away in peace towards the rest of their lives.

Loose Talk Loses Heads

The conversation on race will not be advanced one bit in America as a result of anyone's take on this case, and even less so will be the arguments of black civil rights activism. Too many white people (and now Hispanics that can be also labeled white) clearly realize that if a person like George Zimmerman - a man who mentored black children as a volunteer, who had not a trace of racial bigotry that could be found by an entire national civil rights activist establishment out for blood, whose black neighbors said he was helpful and kind to them, who did live in a neighborhood that had been recently experiencing burglaries - if he can be successfully accused of racially-motivated murder, then what chance do other whites (Hispanic or otherwise) like themselves have should they ever find themselves in a seemingly live-or-die situation facing an agitated black youth? Would just as many people loudly proclaim and denounce what "must" have been their racist intents?

During France's first bloody revolution - a legitmate rebellion against an oppressive monarchy at the end of the 18th century, Maximilien Robespierre initiated what is now known as the Reign of Terror, sending to the guillotine the royals and nobles who had reigned supreme over the starving masses. But, he kept expanding the list of those who qualified as enemies of the revolution and the people, a cause with noble aims that was just at the start. Ultimately, as even former friends began to literally lose their heads, and Messieur Robespierre darkly warned that more were to follow, his former allies and remaining friends, fearing for their own lives, turned on him, and his became the last decapitation of his revolution. Spook people enough about what you might do to them, and they will turn on you.

The Fall of White Guilt

What we have witnessed is further racial polarization of the country, not a sincere engagement of a conversation aimed at reconciliation. Just look at the comments on any article or blog. And now, following the unhinged characterizations of Mr. Zimmerman and anyone who doubts his racist intentions, we have now noticed a critique of American black culture and politics at a level we had never seen before by white people in the last forty years. We had seen it from the likes of Bill Cosby and Shelby Steele, eminent black Americans somewhat insulated from accusations of racism, but never quite so forcefully from whites. (For Mr. Steele's devastating critique of this recent civil rights activism, see his Wall Street Journal column "The Decline of the Civil-Rights Establishment.") It's so obvious: If there is an epidemic of whites murdering blacks with impunity, then why is it we are spending some much attention on this one case? The Leftist comentariat, including those on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, and MSNBC, are convincing no one that did not already want to be convinced of the evidence of America's murderous racism which they claim has declared open season on young men of color.

Among comments posted to articles on the Zimmerman case, it was not hard to find sentiments like this one posted in the Huffington Post:

Whatever helps you sleep at night, but the bottom line is you know in your heart that you celebrate the idea that an unarmed black kid is dead. One less N word in the world for you, is a good thing. You know that's how you feel.

Continued column 3 >

< From Column 2

In response to the perception that the mainstream media was painting a falsely positive image of Trayvon Martin, many bloggers and others sought and posted many allegations of the kind of person Mr. Martin "really" was. While they found some dirt, just as some was found on Mr. Zimmerman (and would be found on any human male with a minimal level of testosterone), in their reactionary zeal they also posted exagerations and falsehoods about Martin's alleged bad character.

If the larger half of the country is as blind to reality as the smaller half claims, The Conversation will not change that.

The Fall of Black Prerogative

This cut will smart a while, but not in day-to-day life. In our homes and offices, in our schools, churches and parks, in theaters and in supermarkets, we know what we see, what we live everyday, and we will continue on as we have, regardless of color. Rather, the wound will fester for those black Americans accustomed to political deference due to past racial injustices. The election of a black man as President of the United States may have done nothing to assuage their sense of grievance, but it has assuaged the sense of guilt of many whites. And, as Hispanic Americans and Asian-Americans grow to far outnumber African-Americans just as the numerical clout of liberal-progressive European-Americans correspondingly declines, that deference will almost totally disappear. We might add that the unprecented use of the term "WHITE-Hispanic" will prove to have been a reckless and foolish move in the long run.

In tandem with these developments, we think it a very likely probability, if an ironic one, that the election of Barack Obama as President will actually make any future presidency by another African-American less likely, and we will not see another in our lifetime.

The Model Jeantel

In all her public appearances, Rachel Jeantel seemed like a well-intentioned and plainly honest person to us. Probably one of the reasons she did not assist the Zimmerman prosecution, or Piers Morgan, or Marc Lamont, in making their case the way they expected. Along with Juror B29, Ms. Jeantel was the other small, subtle, and unexpected, yet very significant light in this whole dim saga.

Ms. Jeantel said this regarding judgments people were making about of her friend Mr. Martin:

Have you ever spend [sic] a day with him? Do you know him? Stop judging. Get to know the person before you judge.

Exactly right, Ms. Jeantel. In fact, in listening to you describe what you thought may have happened that fateful night in these last few weeks, you seemed far more fair-minded and charitable towards Mr. Zimmerman than any of your motivated interviewers. They just did not want to really listen to what you were actually saying. They blindly damaged the country and did even worse for their cause. They were, in the fullest sense of the word, prejudiced.

To Stand or Not to Stand -Part 1

Introduction

The other item at issue aside from racial prejudice that, as seen from the Left, led to the shooting of Trayvon Martin was the so-called 'stand-your-ground' (SYG) law in effect in Florida. SYG laws generally give deference to citizens in making decisions regarding self-defense when confronted with potential harm to body and property, and generally absolve people from legal liability if they do not retreat.

In the George Zimmerman case, while the judge included the SYG law as part of the statutes that jurors needed to consider when judging Mr. Zimmerman's proved guilt or presumed innocence, Mr. Zimmerman's lawyers did not use that law as a basis for their defense case. They did not need to, as their premise was that the shooting took place when Mr. Zimmerman was flat on his back while being assaulted, and with no option to retreat (you might be excused from not gathering that from the mainstream news coverage or commentary).