Even after the verdict, the media continues to inflame passions while the truth about Martin lay undisturbed.

I’ve stated many times here that nothing draws my ire more than hypocrisy, and the Trayvon Martin bandwagon continues to be fueled almost exclusively on its toxic fumes. Last night Rachel Jeantel appeared on CNN, and provided listeners a somewhat more coherent account of her conversation with Martin that night. Following the conversation, various news media personalities opined that if this was the Jeantel that testified in the court, the verdict would have been “different.” The problem, of course, is the Jeantel still would have been required to testify under oath, and “opinion” is not evidence, as the judge ruled when Det. Christopher Serino stated that in his “opinion,” Zimmerman’s story was credible. 

Jeantel had over a year to get her story “straight,” and most of it seemed concocted for the benefit of the Martin family’s sensitivities. But between the fabrications, probably coached by Benjamin Crump who is representing the Martin family in civil suit, some truth slipped out. When Morgan played a clip from an earlier conversation between Anderson Cooper and juror B37 in which the latter stated that she didn’t take the “crazy-ass cracker” comment as anything other street talk, Jeantel displayed the malice and bigotry in her heart by deriding the juror as “old school” who didn’t understand “new school” lingo, which frankly suggests an unsettling course for this country, where--to use Jeantel's own words--"whup-ass" is the accepted form of settling differences in her "community." Jeantel also reminded us just how far removed the majority of Americans are from "new school" by  “correcting” the juror that the term wasn’t “cracker” but “cracka.” She went further, explaining that “cracka” referred to a “cop” or a “cop wannabe” or security guard. Much has been made by the media and law experts that Zimmerman should have identified himself; but here, Jeantel is telling us that Martin was aware of the basis for Zimmerman’s actions.

It gets “better.” Jeantel went on to say that she told Martin that the man he saw was probably a “rapist” and to “run, run, run”—which of course he did. Now, was Jeantel suggesting that Zimmerman was “gay”? She goes on to explain that Martin didn’t go straight home because his “little´ brother was home, and he was afraid that if he led Zimmerman to his house, Zimmerman would “rape” him too. It is clear that this latter is fabrication, but it suggests that not only should the Latino community be outraged by the continuing racist demonizing of Zimmerman, but the gay community should also be concerned about the suggestion of Jeantel’s homophobia and the injection of it as a motivation for Martin’s violent action that night.

But back to the media proper. After two weeks of providing either no or censored coverage of the Zimmerman trial—mainly because most of the information coming out it was “bad” from its perspective—the Seattle Times finally acknowledged this “national” news story with front page treatment on Sunday following the not guilty verdict. The Times didn’t exactly conceal its opinion of the verdict in its headline—that the jury “let” Zimmerman be “free.” This suggests that there was a “reluctance” to allow a “guilty” man free. But when the jurors were asked to confirm their votes, there was no “reluctance” in their voices, there was no “doubts”—but firmness and resoluteness in the belief that justice had been served based on the evidence. 

On Monday, the Times then proclaimed that this acquittal didn’t “end” the debate on “race.” That is true. The problem is that the media won’t discuss what this debate should be about. Zimmerman is not a racist; he tutored black children in his home, had a black partner in a real estate agency venture, and was involved in a protest after a black homeless man was beaten by the son of a white police officer. The 911 call—not the doctored version originally aired by MSNBC—in which Zimmerman mentions Martin’s race only after being asked by the dispatcher, he is speaking in a calm, matter-of-fact manner. He wasn’t expecting “trouble,” just passing on information; his use of terms like “punks” after Martin started running was obviously used in the generality that could have been used against anyone who acts in a manner the term suggests. It was only when Martin started running was Zimmerman’s “suspicion” translated into “action.” And according to Jeantel, it was Martin who used what can be more accurately described as racial slur. 

From the very beginning of this case I was angered by the way Zimmerman was being portrayed, and the way he (and Martin) was being used by different entities to further their own agendas. As Mark O’Mara noted after the trial, Zimmerman was a helpless patient being operated on by mad scientists. There is no doubt in my mind then and now that the fact that Zimmerman was Latino (as I’ve said before, I dislike the term “Hispanic” because it tends to suggest “white” in most people’s minds) caused him to be caught in an atmosphere of ugly stereotyping and scapegoating which ensnared Latinos both legal and illegal. While the general public eventually moderated its opinion of Zimmerman as he told anyone who would listen the same story with only minor variations—understandable after the traumatic events that night that ended the life of Martin—the media was unwilling to alter the narrative it had chosen to follow. The media coverage was literally black and white; as a Latino, there was no one in the media who would see his side of the story.

That night altered Zimmerman’s life in way he never could have envisioned before he first laid eyes on Martin in his neighborhood. Martin in fact had just arrived from Miami Gardens, more than 200 miles from Sanford. He had just been suspended for the second time in six months from Krop High School, upon which his mother shipped him off to his father’s fiancée, who happened to live in Zimmerman’s neighborhood.  One might suggest that Martin’s untimely and unfortunate demise meant that he never had a chance to turn his life around. The prosecution had, after all, told the jury that Zimmerman made “false assumptions” about Martin. But the reality is that while Zimmerman couldn’t have known Martin’s past, his “instincts” were correct.

Information never made public by the “mainstream” media suggests that Martin not only had no intention of being a  “model,” productive citizen, his attitude was in part shaped by the fact that he had been given a free pass by law enforcement when it should have taught him a “lesson” about civilized behavior. In October 2011, Martin was observed spraying graffiti, hiding and “acting suspicious” in an unauthorized area at school; when detained, it was discovered that his backpack contained a flathead screwdriver and numerous items of jewelry. When asked where he obtained them, he told police that it was from a “friend.” It was obviously stolen, but police did not arrest Martin, and listed the jewelry on their report as “found property.”

But the story gets “better.” While it could be assumed that Martin was using the screwdriver to pry into school lockers, the police had just received a report from a homeowner a few blocks away from the school, who discovered personal jewelry missing and presumed stolen. The description of Martin’s “found property” and the jewelry reported stolen from the home were nearly identical. But Martin was suspended at the time merely for the graffiti infraction; the stolen jewelry was not “officially” reported at all, but was turned over to police and stored in their evidence room as “found property.” Amazingly, the owner of the jewelry was never told of its recovery until after the Miami Herald broke the story and an internal police investigation "discovered" their existence.

The following February, Martin was detained for the discovery of a marijuana pipe and marijuana residue in a baggie on his person. Again he was not arrested as a juvenile offender, but merely suspended. Martin clearly felt that he had “immunity” to commit any illegal act he pleased; what was being suspended from school to him? He obviously didn’t act as if he had any use for school. 

Why was Martin never arrested for his crimes? His name came-up in that internal investigation of the Miami-Dade School Police Department, which exposed a department that was involved in a systematic effort, with the connivance of school superintendent Alberto Carvalho, to reduce reported crime in the school district—and  that committed by black male students in particular. In this spirit, Police Chief Charles Hurley instituted the “policy” in order to demonstrate that under his “leadership” there was a decrease in crime in the district—in fact, by as much as 60 percent by the time of Martin’s last school suspension. But it was revealed that police officers were pressured to report crimes by students as school “disciplinary issues.” When the Herald first reported Martin’s criminal past, Hurley launched an investigation to discover who leaked this information; unfortunately for him, his officers unmasked the policy of underreporting crime by students. 

Since the truth is impossible to gather from newspapers like the Times, where in the mainstream media can I find it? CNN?  MSNBC? NPR? The networks? It’s like the Greek philosopher Diogenes using a lantern in the middle of the day to assist in a futile search for the “honest man.” Even in places where shards of the truth are exposed, it is merely right-wing eye-poking of the left. I don’t want to hear that Rush Limbaugh actually understands the facts of the Zimmerman case, because he’s no “friend” of Latinos; later on he asserts that the country can’t give legal status of 11 million immigrants because they have no desire to “assimilate” into American culture. What is he talking about? Has he ever watched the Spanish-language Univision, which receives its programming from Mexico? If he did, he would see that it is almost indistinguishable from what you see on American television. The only “difference” is the language and the fact that the large majority of Mexican immigrants to this country are either mestizo or indigenous peoples, and what they see on television is the lifestyle of Euro-elites; because of the de facto race-based caste system in the country, this life virtually unattainable for them. They come to the U.S. in the hope that this life will be open to them now.  

Anyways, some “theories” about the case I have heard go beyond bizarre. On one late night right-wing freak show, the host suggested that there was a conspiracy between the prosecution and the defense to “fix” the verdict. “Proof” of this came in the way a guest who claimed to be a “consultant” to medical examiners. His story, which he claimed was completely accurate, suggested that Zimmerman was not only in “control” of the fight from first to last, but that his injuries were “self-inflicted.” His description of the encounter seemed to require that Zimmerman contort himself like Gumby in order to somehow fit his injuries into the scenario suggested. The guest claimed that he gave his scenario—which no witness supported—to the prosecution, but was rejected for the purpose of continuing to create an atmosphere of racial unrest, which is what the powers-that-be desire.

Although more plausible but hardly more relevant are the views of Rev. Wayne Perryman. Perryman is actually one of that rare breed, the black conservative. But his rants decrying the Zimmerman’s acquittal reveals that being black trumps all other considerations, including personally responsibility. He surprised conservative radio personality Michael Medved with his stance. But when Medved asked him to provide a scenario of what he believed happened the night that led to Martin’s death, even he could not ignore the evidence and testimony; his “scenario” only differed in detail from Zimmerman’s story. The difference was that Perryman seemed to think that Zimmerman should have “understood” the lingo of the “hood”—as if Martin is so defective in the English language that he is going to communicate in that way to person he knows doesn’t  understand what he is talking about—and that he should have “anticipated” Martin’s breaking off of the encounter when John Good yelled out that he was going to call the police. 

It is hard not to feel frustration with views like Perryman’s—and we are not even talking about death threats. Perryman did not address the fact that Zimmerman is Latino, and he was not obliged to explain the ugly racism expressed by blacks against Latinos during a community meeting discussing the placement of a day labor facility in south Seattle. I asked myself “Where are the Latino community leaders in all of this, demanding Zimmerman’s right to a fair and unbiased hearing?  

I admit that I don’t know much about the “hood,” and nor do I wish to. But I haven’t been “immune” from its existence. I was once mugged on my way to work, in the early hours of the morning. I saw a man who looked like a shorter version of Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson loitering in the middle of the road. I thought he was drunk, but as I came closer he moved over to the sidewalk and stood in front of me. He asked where I was going, and trying to keep calm I told him I was catching a bus. I tried to get past him, but he wouldn’t allow me to. He then asked me what music I listened to, but when I answered it was clear it wasn’t a serious question. The “conversation” soon ended when he sucker-punched me on the side of the head, and pushed me to the ground. He told me to “stay down” and grabbed the cord around my neck (which had a quick release) and my headphones. He then ran off to a side street where there was a car waiting in a dark area under a tree, and then it drove away with its headlights turned off. The man probably thought he just obtained an I-pod; instead, he stole something much more valuable to me—my airport identification card, which I needed to have access to my work area. 

But for the purposes of this post, I want to discuss the punch. The man punched me hard; in fact I thought he was surprised that I wasn’t knocked out or in a complete daze. I was a little dazed but still had control of my senses; I suppose I was more incapacitated by shock than the actual blow.  I did eventually develop a bruise from the punch, but I had no other visible injury, like a cut. In fact, you wouldn’t have known I had a bruise unless I told you, but I certainly felt it. Nevertheless, had the man intended to continue to pummel me, I was in no position to stop him. How did I feel at the time of the attack? Helpless.  I wasn’t a “fighter,” I don’t have that “killer instinct” that some people seem to have. Yes, I can express an opinion in a not always tactful way, but it does not come from malice but from behavior I believe is contrary to fairness and good order. But using physical means to get a “point” across? I’m short and small-boned; I’m not that stupid. I still have things I want to get done, and life is short enough anyways. 

I think the man I encountered that night was a “gangsta” recruit on a “training” trip. He and his “handler” were driving around lonely industrial park streets where there is no traffic and no police, and they were “lucky” enough to spot a lone person on a lone road. What if he had continued to strike me? Since I wasn’t physically or temperamentally able to defend myself in hand-to-hand combat, my only option was to run. But that was only an option if I had sufficient preparation to act as such. Once he struck me in the head,  he was entirely in control of the situation; there is no doubt in my mind that Zimmerman—who his “fight” instructor said was “soft”—was in a similar situation. Once Martin started, what was his end game? He apparently had Zimmerman in a ground-and-pound for at least 45 seconds and only stopped after he was shot. Remember what Zimmerman told Officer Smith: “I called for help, but no one would help me.” Recall the murder of Luis Ramirez I mentioned in the last post; he was kicked in the head repeatedly by at least two white teens, and later died from his head injuries. He didn’t have a weapon to defend himself with; Zimmerman did.

In regard to the racial “profiling” issue, I  have often been “profiled” and followed by police and “rent-a-cops,” often when it should have been clear to them about why I was at a particular place, and where I was going. However, I’ve limited my “reaction” to such attention to gestures and commentary. I know that running only draws suspicion and subsequent pursuit. If they want to follow me while I’m walking, my attitude is to just let them follow me, and when they see where I’m going, they can mull over their own stupidity afterwards. Now, Zimmerman claimed he saw Martin snooping into homes as he entered the neighborhood. Remember that Martin had only arrived in the neighborhood that day, and it was probable he was a complete stranger to Zimmerman, who would naturally suspicious of lone people late in the evening who did. As I mentioned in the last post, the video of Martin in the 7-Eleven gave the appearance of someone who was loitering just a little too much for comfort. Did he have anything else on his mind about doing?

I don’t wish to seem “insensitive” to the reality that a young black male died. But there is too much lying, deceptiveness, manipulation and misinformation surrounding this case. The NAACP continues to deliberately inflame violent passions. Herein  lay the appeal to racism against a Latino.