Posted on 07/02/2013 11:34:23 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Yesterday, the jury in the George Zimmerman murder trial heard, at length, Zimmerman describe in his own words what happened the night he shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. He didnt take the stand, but the prosecution played for the court three separate audio and video recordings of Zimmermans interviews with the police and read aloud his written statement from the night of February 26, 2012. His description of the events were generally consistent with the story he has repeatedly told. But to my mind, the case really comes down to what the jury will believe happened in one specific moment.
Zimmerman says that after the 911 dispatcher told him he did not need to follow Trayvon, he continued walking to find an address so that he could be more specific regarding his whereabouts. Then he got off the phone. Its during this time that Zimmerman claims that Trayvon came out of either the bushes, or the darkness, and said something to the effect of, Whats your problem, homie? to which Zimmerman responded, I dont have a problem. Says Zimmerman, Trayvon replied, Youve got a problem now and proceeded to punch Zimmerman in the face. Zimmermans version of the story is contradicted by the states key witness, 19-year-old Rachel Jeantel, who took the stand last week. Jeantel, who was one the phone with Trayvon that night for the duration of this event, says Trayvon was attempting to elude Zimmerman, whom he had described as a creepy ass cracker. Trayvon, according to Jeantel, believed he had lost Zimmerman, only to then notice that he hadnt, at which point he told Jeantel, The nigga is following me. Jeantel says she then heard Trayvon say, Why you following me for? to which Zimmerman replied What are you doing out here? She then heard what she described as a bump and wet grass before the call was lost.
Jeantels testimony is key because it directly refutes Zimmermans version of the event and calls into question who was the aggressor in the resulting tussle. Its clear that Zimmerman sustained some injuries, while not necessarily consistent with his assertion that Trayvon punched him twenty-five to thirty times and slammed his head on the concrete. Its likely that a fight took place. But who started it?
On her show Sunday morning, Melissa Harris-Perry asked a question that gets at the heart of why this case is of national importance. Talking with Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman, Harris-Perry said: It does seem like part of what hinges here is whether or not Trayvon Martin hit George Zimmerman and whether or not he did so first but why is it that if this person hit someone who was prepared to use lethal force against him why wouldnt he have a right to stand his ground? Is that not racialized? Do black boys get to defend themselves?
(VIDEO-AT-LINK)
Because its clear that, whoever instigated the altercation, Zimmerman followed Trayvon that night. He was instructed not to, but he did anyway. That Zimmerman fumbled for an answer when the lead investigator asked whether he thought Trayvon was afraid of him is emblematic of the way society has trained us to think about black manhood. Of course he didnt think Trayvon could be scared. Young black men never are. They are the danger. Which is also why, for some, Zimmermans story, even with the cartoonish language he ascribes to Trayvon, doesnt sound far-fetched. A black man jumping from behind the bushes to sucker-punch someone they dont know and attempt to kill them only a short distance from their home. It makes perfect sense if you believe that black men are preternaturally violent.
The jury will have to decide who they believe in this instance, Jeantel or Zimmerman, and it is this that has me concerned. Brittney Cooper, writing for Salon, captured it succinctly: black womanhood, black manhood and urban adolescence are always on trial in the American imaginary.
Zimmermans innocence rests on the notion of Trayvons criminality. And in this country, its not that difficult to convince six people of the criminality of a 17-year-old black boy.
********
Want more from the Zimmerman trial? Read Mychal Denzel Smiths defense of Rachel Jeantel.
That’s funny stuff right there. I’m going to use that.
BS
Shows you how twisted the mind of a liberal is.
“The nigga is following me.”
Wait a minute.... I thought he was a “crazy A$$ Cracker”?
If you say a lie often enough, it becomes true?
“We don't need you to do that” is what he said and then several times, asked George questions only answered by following Trayvon.
Zimmerman lawyer: “ Now, Rachel, in your own words, tell the court: When you referred to my client as a ‘white a** cracker’ ....did you mean that as a compliment?”
A black man sucker punching someone, come on how often does that happen?
Some people are able to draw conclusions simply not supported by testimony or evidence. They hear only what they want to hear.
The grass appears to be a St. Augustine variety, it is like a sponge.
"Dam dose crazy racist a** crackers----how long do it take to
gets a double cheeseburger, two large fries and a diet Big Gulp."
And don't be abusive or use cursive {she thinks cursive is calling someone a moff*#####}.
It’s 3:30 AM in CA and I am in fact typing this in my sleep, it’s so easy:
- “dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Martin”, blah blah, always the same lie
- “if this person hit someone who was prepared to use lethal force against him why wouldnt he have a right to stand his ground?” First, “prepared to use lethal force” is another way of describing anybody anywhere who is carrying a gun for any reason. The answer to that self-righteous statement posing as a question is, because he assumed that Zimmerman did NOT have a gun, and would therefore be an easy beat-down, i.e. TM was “someone who was prepared to use lethal force”.
- you have to be either lazy or biased (it is a certainty of course that somebody named “Mychal” writing in “The Nation” is both) at this point not to know that Rachel’s testimony in fact proves that TM doubled back with the express intention of ambushing GZ.
- “Zimmerman fumbled for an answer” because it’s really impossible for GZ to know if some guy he had glimpsed for 20 seconds was afraid of him or not, and whether it was fear or hate or drugs or TM’s known and demonstrated criminal mentality that drove TM to try to murder GZ.
- “cartoonish language he ascribes to Trayvon”? a quick look at TM’s grunts and squawks on Twitter shows how many levels below “cartoonish” TM’s thought processes actually were.
- “criminality of 17 year old black boy”. the very last thing in the world this guy wants to happen in this case is to let the jury to find out how much of a criminal this “boy” actually was. he’s a recruitment poster for white supremacists.
“Because its clear that, whoever instigated the altercation, Zimmerman followed Trayvon that night. He was instructed not to, but he did anyway”
I read, hear this over and over again. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and when told ‘we don’t need you to do that’ apparently stopped right there. Theres absolutely no evidence anywhere showing he continued to follow.
I have idiots tell me over and over he shouldn’t have followed. But he stopped when asked to. We can’t go to a moment before he was told not to.
A chris rock clone... racist and ignorant.
LLS
You’re allowed to follow people anyway. GZ was on his phone it’s not like he was going to attack, he was telling the 911 operator where TM was heading and what address TM was near. Look, the black people who are all riled up know damn well that out of shape, older Zimmerman didn’t chase down a 17 year old in shape teen male. They know TM was the stereotypical aggressor who was gonna knock out the cracka for staring at him. TM was to safety, he was close to his dads gf apt. Instead he doubled back and confronted GZ with a punch in the face, and it was done IMO so that Jabba Da Hut illiterate girl who took the stand could get a good ear full of TM giving a beat down. As others stated she probably encouraged it and that’s why she went MIA until tracked down by Crump.
That is funny! Sad, but funny.
Don’t read fecal matter in The Nation. It will rot your brain.
Very good, except you misspelled ‘crackas’...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.