Don's April 3, 2012 column on Martin/Zimmerman (DP: I don't read anything I have to take back, a year later)

          THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson Red Bluff Daily News   4/03/2012

Self-defense; shameless race-baiting; facts?

I’ve never hesitated to wade into controversy; I’ve seen the appearance of the Butte County NAACP on the tube, as well as “hoodie” wearing politicians (Democrats, of course) on the legislative floor in Sacramento, exploiting a tragedy. The way I see it, a young man, 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, reportedly a “neighborhood watch captain,” under unclear circumstances. Readers have undoubtedly seen and heard more than they need to. However, from the coverage I’ve seen on mainstream broadcasts and print reports, there seems to be a bit of a slant or bias favoring one narrative – that the shooting was an unjustified crime borne of racial animus or profiling, conclusions not supported by the facts presently known. Presumption of innocence, anyone?

Such counterfactual conclusions have inspired shameless race mongering, exploitation and calls for lawless vigilantism by some of the same race hucksters who charge Mr. Zimmerman with acting as a vigilante, absent any proof. Aspersions of race hatred against Hispanic Zimmerman, who selflessly helped young, African American children with his time and heart, and who counted African Americans among his relatives and friends, have been hatefully and maliciously hurled at him, Sanford’s police, prosecutors and leaders.

Sheer blood lust motivates some being led by such frauds and race-mongers as Al Sharpton (promoted racist lies over Tawany Brawley), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (quoted expressing his relief that the approaching footsteps behind him in Washington, DC, were those of a white man), and the racist New Black Panthers (“kill the crackers”). Hey, don’t take my word for it. An article, “Former NAACP leader accuses Sharpton and Jackson of ‘exploiting’ Trayvon Martin,” from the Daily Caller, 3/16, quotes “the conservative black pastor who was once the chapter president of the Garlan, Texas NAACP (who) called Jackson and Sharpton ‘race hustlers’ and said they are ‘acting as though they are buzzards circling the carcass of this young boy’ (to) racially divide this country.” He goes on to state “The epidemic is truly black on black crime. The greatest danger to the lives of young black men are young black men.”

Let’s check off the rights people have, shall we? Young Mr. Martin had every right to travel on foot from a convenience store to his father’s home, newly arrived at after being suspended for having an empty marijuana baggie, among other minor offences. Reports surfacing so far fail to suggest any criminal mischief; however, the mixed-race neighborhood had suffered from numerous break-ins and crime. Martin had every right not to be molested or accosted although if, in fact, he was wandering off of sidewalks, residents like Zimmerman had every right to take note and inquire what he was doing in the middle of the night.

We’ll never know the nature of the interactions between the two in their initial encounter absent witnesses or cameras, but Zimmerman described his actions in a way that seems reasonable. Although he failed to follow the advice of the non-emergency responder to discontinue following the young man, he proceeded to where he could at least ascertain a street name to provide to police.

Here’s where it gets murky, leaving us to speculate how they became physically involved. Both men – the 6 foot 3 inch football player in prime condition, reactions and aggressiveness, as well as the 5 foot 9 inch out of shape couch potato – had an inherent right to self-defense. We all do; only fools and pacifists would deny the obvious. If Zimmerman started something, he couldn’t complain about being on the losing end, but I don’t think it went that way. Young Martin certainly had a right to object to being followed but not to assault; his right to take a swing stopped short of Zimmerman’s face.

There is nothing but ignorant, disgusting supposition to support the outrageous conclusion of Martin being hunted down in cold-blooded murder. Witnesses, injuries and police reports support the narrative that Zimmerman was at a disadvantage and was mercilessly, unrelentingly pummeled by Martin. Zimmerman felt it would not stop short of unconsciousness, major injury and/or death. Therefore, Zimmerman exercised his inherent right to defend himself while he could, with the only weapon he had, his handgun. It doesn’t help when lawyers for the distraught family try to spin and lie about police video of Zimmerman, saying that it didn’t show the gash to his head; likewise, when ABC deceitfully hid that same gash with an overlay, or NBC edited the 911 call to make Zimmerman seem to be profiling.

I subscribe to the tenet that it is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six; the legal examination may or may not support further action against Zimmerman. Both he and Trayvon Martin could well have acted differently at various points in that series of events, leaving Martin alive, and Zimmerman unaccused. However, recently 1) a 17-year-old black man murdered two British tourist/students in Sarasota, Florida; 2) three African-American suspects fled a Mississippi State University dorm after a white student was shot and killed, and 3) in Congressman Bobby Rush’s Chicago district (he of the “hoodie” stunt in Congress), “hoodie-wearing” gunmen killed 1 and wounded 5 (6 hour total of 13 shot, 2 dead in Chicago). Anything to say, Sharpton or Jackson?