"Justice" not the point in Zimmerman trial

As promised, I’m going to offer a few thoughts on the upcoming George Zimmerman trial that may be described as foolhardy as trying to swim up the Niagara Falls. Frankly, I believe that Zimmerman is serving as a proxy for all the resentment that many blacks feel toward Latinos; the white media naturally has been all too obliging (for purely self-serving reasons), while the fact that Latinos have no voice in the mainstream media is all too evident. The obsession with denial in the case, the farcical attempt to paint this as a “black and white” issue with no hint of gray, and the transparent attempt to use the tragedy for publicity, profit and political gain requires that the narrative follows a line that does not deviate from one that leads straight to a second degree murder conviction—on the insistence that Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin for no other motivation save that he was “black.” 

I frankly have my doubts that Zimmerman will receive a fair trial, for that would require a dispassionate examination of the facts. Although the witness who first claimed he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman pummeling him in an “MMA” fashion now says he’s not “sure,” the other witnesses are only “guessing” about what they saw from a distance and in the dark, and none saw what precipitated the incident. The only direct evidence we know of what precipitated the shooting is Zimmerman’s 9-1-1 call and the injuries to his head; Martin’s girlfriend’s recollections as to what he told her during a brief cellphone conversation are vague and suspect. 

And how can there be a fair trial when both the “mainstream” media and outside agitators have poisoned the atmosphere by demonizing Zimmerman as a racist monster, which will put pressure on the jury pool to accept only their version of the “truth”? Several of the so-called witnesses have succumbed to the direction of the political winds, attempting to be media “darlings” by stationing themselves on the “right” side of the case. This, of course, requires them to “see” what they believe the Martin camp wants them to see. Confronted by all of this, what jury could ignore the prevailing winds and not fear “retribution” from the “mob” if they don’t give them what they want?

Before I started this blog, I used to comment on self-styled “Number One” progressive Thom Hartmann’s website—until I was blocked from accessing his site after engaging in lengthy and heated discussions on his daily comment page with people who agreed with his frequent efforts to scapegoat Latinos for the problems of “working people.” That is one of the Achilles’ Heels in the ideology of “liberals”—one of the few social issues that the right and left can find “common ground.”  It was only to be expected that once the Trayvon Martin shooting became 24-hour news, Hartmann and the rest of the “progressive” media was ready and eager to jump on the bandwagon, “proving” their social issues “cred”—despite the fact that Hartmann’s claim that we live in a “post racial” world insured their own attitudes were not too closely scrutinized (it is always “someone else”).  

There was so much material that was not properly disseminated that could have provided  not a “justification” for Zimmerman’s actions, but at least a context to understand why something like this could have occurred. Zimmerman did not “volunteer” but was asked to be his neighborhood watch captain. His community was one of many in Sanford racked by crime; only months previously, police recommended in a city council meeting that citizens help them by establishing neighborhood watches. One individual in Zimmerman’s neighborhood admitted in a Reuters story that newly-arrived “transients”—mostly young black males like Martin—had been engaged in home invasions and theft; in one incident, a Latina mother could be heard on a chilling 9-1-1 call attempting to calm her infant son as they hid in a closet while two black males broke into her apartment to steal a television. 

According to the Reuters’ story, a few weeks before the shooting Zimmerman had followed the police dispatcher’s suggestion not to follow a black male “suspect”; a week later the same man was caught in possession of items stolen from the home Zimmerman had seen him “peering” into. This obviously explains his subsequent “interest” in regard to Martin’s actions on that fatal night. I can easily see a scenario involving a paranoid “rent-a-cop” and a “suspect” who out of feelings of “disrespect” or hooliganism deliberately invites further “attention” to himself by running, then reappears to demand an “explanation” for the attention he is being given, and when there is the suggestion that the police would be called on the scene—after the “suspect” had been given every break in life to avoid crossing the line between “delinquency” and an actual criminal record—physical force was used to “dissuade” such action. The problem was that Martin did not realize that Zimmerman had a gun. 

In the midst of this it was quite by accident that I encountered on the Internet the story of the Daniel Adkins shooting case in Arizona—regarded as the “reverse” of the Martin case, in that the races of the shooter and the victim were reversed in a “stand your ground” shooting. The “mainstream” media—save in two instances in which it was only mentioned in stories about other “stand your ground” cases—completely ignored the Adkins case, since reporting it would have undermined the racial politics at the heart of the Martin case. The Adkins story only survived because it was kept on life support by a few bloggers (such as myself). A website-only report by an intern on the belated charging of Adkins' killer, Cordell Jude, appeared four months after the shooting—and was the only mention of the case that appeared in the Arizona Republic. 

Now, while CNN, ABC and the other mainstream media are gearing-up for daily coverage of the Zimmerman trial, I’ve searched in vain for any update on Jude’s adjudication, and have found nothing since he was charged last summer. I’ve emailed the only people in the Phoenix media who mentioned the case last year, hoping that they can furnish an update. I have yet to hear from them, and frankly it isn’t likely that I will.

One thing I did find was one old link to Hartmann’s website, featuring a post written by a troublemaker who questioned the disparity in the reporting of the Martin and Adkins cases. Now, what I would have written is something like “How can you compare Adkins, a developmentally-disabled  Latino who was out walking his dog and was nearly struck by Jude’s car as he was pulling out of a Taco Bell—and a ‘boy’ just a few months  short of being an official adult, who according to a text message on his cell phone preferred to call himself a “gangsta” rather than a ‘hoodlum,’ had pictures of a gun, marijuana plants, himself smoking weed, and most interestingly, a shot of himself apparently “refereeing” a confrontation between another black male and a Caucasian male? What about that incident where school security found him roaming the halls between classes with a screw driver and jewelry he claimed were ‘his’?  What about the indications that he assaulted a gym teacher and a bus driver? What about the admission to a friend that his mother had just kicked him out of the house for his ‘behavior’ issues?” 

Alright, not being a model citizen is not a capital offense, but we are still being asked not to consider the fact that Martin was entirely capable both physically and temperamentally of assaulting someone in the middle of the night. On the other hand, witnesses only saw Adkins shouting and “air-punching” in the direction of Jude’s car—a not “unnatural” response to be nearly hit by a car; Jude and his girlfriend both who claimed that Adkins was “armed” with a bat or metal pipe, but subsequently admitted when confronted by investigators that this was a lie, that Adkins was in fact only “armed” with a dog leash. This was enough for Jude to pull out the gun that his girlfriend admitted was always on his lap when he went out driving, and shoot Adkins in cold blood from the safety of his car. While “justice” moved rapidly in the Martin case—hurried along by the decision of the prosecutor to bypass the grand jury when it threatened to recommend the “wrong” charge based on the knowable facts—Jude was charged with murder only following his arrest for providing a “lift” in his car for two people he claims he did not know had just engaged in a drive-by shooting; at that point, the special “stand your ground” investigative panel that had delayed a decision in the case for four months had no choice then but to face reality.

Unfortunately, the person who was causing problems for Hartmann’s readers dispensed with reason and chose to be deliberately offensive:

Thom Hartmann and the rest of the liberal/media complex have totally ignored the recent reverse Trayvon case  in Phoenix Arizona, where the mentally handicapped Hispanic Daniel Adkins was ruthlessly gunned down by a lucky guy of privileged pigmentation named Cordell Lamar Jude… his is the opposite from the illegal drug peddler to children Trayvon Martin, not only because the ethnicities are reversed, but because Adkins was hardly bashing Jude’s head against the sidewalk, as the sociopathic thug Trayvon Martin was doing to the much smaller George Zimmerman. It is also the opposite in that the innocent Zimmerman was arrested; the guilty Jude walked free.

OK, it is not that hard to be “offensive” to the target audience here. I understand this is not the way to penetrate the ideologically-impenetrable consciousness of a so-called “progressive.” Furthermore, his use of terms like “Hispanic” and “ethnicity” did not make the proper point, and allowed readers to engage in their own flights from logic. But frankly, I don’t think it would have make the least bit of difference how Thom’s crew would have reacted when confronted with their hypocrisy. The following is a fairly representative sampling of the kind of “intelligent” discussion you can expect from “progressives” whose ideological parameters do not extend beyond the tips of their noses:

Hi Cal, How do we make you go away? In truth, you are the most obnoxious, ugly person that I have ever seen on this forum. Please go away, to the rock you crawled out from under.

It is obvious that you somehow enjoy causing conflict by stating the things that you do. Some would say it is Borderline Personality Disorder. Personality Disorders have no cure. So please, find another place to be a flaming….

Up to the jackassness again?  Oh let me count the ways....

Ignore the clown!

Enough for the introductions. What about some “logical” thought patterns?

Hispanic is not a race.  Hispanic is not a race.  Hispanic is not a race.  Look at your damn census.  There is a category for race and then there is a whole section on "Hispanic origins" and then they select country of origins or lineage, etc.  Why is hispanic not a race?  Because it covers a large number of different racial categories.  You can have Black Hispanics, Latino Hispanics, Native American Hispanics - like those in Central America, and you can have White Hispanics (Spaniards, for example).  So, it is possible for Zimmerman and Adkins to both be Hispanic and for one to be white and the other not be white.  Really what this comes down to is that conservatives really don't understand much beyond "us" and "them" when it comes to racial politics.  Wake the hell up.

Actually, it is people like this who are in a social fantasy world who should “wake the hell up.” Zimmerman has been referred as either “white” or a “white Hispanic” when these terms do not accurately reflect the way people actually see him; ditto for Adkins. The media has used these terms to falsely make the racial issues more stark. The mind of the person above is in such a lather that he/she deliberately confuses the issue. Anti-Latino bigots are reacting to skin color and physical features associated with the non-white—just as Barack Obama is labeled “black” because people don’t see the side of him that is “white.”  It is time that we stop this “ethnicity” farce and face the fact that “race” is the major factor in how many people view Latinos. Repeating the same misinformed line three times does not change the fact that the media and race “experts” have allowed racists to comfort themselves that their hatred, xenophobia, scapegoatism etc. against Latinos isn’t “racism.” 

I prefer to use the term “Latino” over “Hispanic,” since the latter is too suggestive of “white” in the minds of most people. “Ethnicity” is more accurately applied within a particular race; Latinos are of multiple races, and it is quite clear that the separate races are treated substantially differently. Latinos who are of European stock cannot be “confused” with those who are indigenous Indian, black or mixed-race (Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas looks 100 percent “Anglo” to me) and certainly face considerably less prejudice and stereotyping.  

So, here we go round again.  First, Trayvon was high, then he had smoked in the last 24 hours, then he had smoked in the last 2-3 days, and now he is a drug peddler to kids?  What in the FUCK is the matter with you?

The evidence does suggests that Martin was not only a “peddler” in weed, but cultivated his own stash; on his Facebook page there was at least on one person who was unhappy because he could not get in touch with Martin about a “sale.”  His autopsy did reveal indications of marijuana in his body, although we cannot know what effect it had on his actions the fatal night. The reaction of the above individual is again has the unmistakable imprint of a mind incapable of countenancing any thought that Martin had any culpability whatever in the tragic denouement. To do so would destroy the carefully constructed story that Martin was merely an innocent “boy” killed by a “racist” Latino thug. 

Go f**k yourself Cal. The unmistakable injuries to Zimmerman’s nose and head obviously came before he shot Martin. But when confronted with this fact, you get responses like this.

So let me see if I understand your "logic", such as it is. YOU are free to post that Zimmerman did not mumble an racial slur even though the so-called experts disagree. But if others go by what they actually hear or do their own analysis and come to the conclusion Zimmerman DID utter that slur... they should just remain quiet? Translation: only those opinions that aid Zimmerman are allowed. OK, now I get it. Actually, it was over-eager persons in the media who “heard” these “slurs,” but were subsequently forced to recant the claim when actual audio experts could not discern any “slur” being uttered. It also should be pointed out that Zimmerman did not volunteer a description of Martin’s race or attire; his use of these terms came when the police dispatcher asked him for a description. 

But what about the Adkins case—which was, after all, the initial point of contention? 

Did Cordell stalk Adkins? Did Cordell call 911 first, scream some racial term about Adkins and then minutes later Adkins was dead? At that Taco Bell, are there video cameras? If a crime was committed, then hook and book'em. Based on the story so far, Adkins was yelling at the car, and then swinging what the people in the car thought was a pipe, but turned out to be a leash. According to our local laws, at that point Cordell had a right to defend himself.  But at no point did Cordell stalk Adkins…The only element that even makes this news item or the 'Trayvon in reverse' case  in any way remarkable is the Stand Your Ground law. 

Well, first of all, Zimmerman did not “stalk” Martin. As clearly indicated in his 9-1-1 call, he watched Martin walk toward him in an intimidating manner while he sat in his vehicle; if anyone was “stalking,” one could reasonably argue that Martin’s actions could be described thus. Zimmerman then he states that Martin started running as he passed his vehicle. Unfortunately we can’t ask Martin—who Zimmerman likely had never seen in the neighborhood before—why he acted in manner clearly designed to provoke a reaction. Zimmerman’s reaction should be regarded as typical of that of a security guard with no other authority than to “observe and report,” but felt it necessary to continue his “observation” on foot. Why is that illegal? It would be like he wasn’t doing what he was tasked to do, like a sleeping watch dog.  After he reports that Martin is running, the opening of the door of Zimmerman’s vehicle can be heard The last thing we can gather from the 9-1-1 call is that Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin; Zimmerman claims that he was returning to his vehicle to contact police when he was confronted from behind by Martin.

But back to the Adkins case. The above comments were the only “evidence” that anyone actually considered the “possibility” of a double standard, and as we can see the determination was that there was none. It is even suggested that Adkins was “guilty” of forcing “Cordell” to act in “self-defense.” For the logically-minded person, the mendacity is difficult to stomach. “Cordell” is actually defended for not calling 9-1-1 before shooting Adkins! He just shot him first and then called police with the lie about being threatened by a bat. Side-by-side, there is indeed no comparison of these two incidents; the problem is that the facts in the Adkins case are clearly knowable and more damning of Jude’s actions—while that in the Martin case the evidence has been allowed to be clouded by political considerations. 

Unlike some people, I prefer truth over enslavement to an ideology that causes one to be blinded to reality. But worst of all is that these quoted persons refused to address the point: Why is Adkins’ life so much less important than Martin’s, especially given their situations—one a disabled person, the other a self-described “gangsta” who proved it numerous times? And why is a Latino man who was asked to be the watch captain in a crime-ridden neighborhood more despicable than a man who apparently always rode around with a gun on his lap, as if he was looking for an opportunity to use it at the slightest provocation?