Ah, Nancy, some things never change...and some Zimmerman/Martin stuff

During an interview last night Nancy Grace (ever a font of foolishness - remembering back to the Chris Benoit case and how ignorant she was), after cutting the microphone of someone who did not agree with her, asserted that: 

 

"Yes, everyone has a right to carry a gun but it it's still extraordinary that you think it's so normal that [Zimmerman] carries a loaded gun—with ammo, no safety—to walk his dog."

 

So:  It is one's right, it was Zimmerman's right, but she reserves her right to consider it extraordinary that one might exercise that right.  With ammo! (Oh, so he should carry it without ammunition?).  With no safety? (As if it will go off all on its own?).

 

I do not think I have said much, if anything, about this case.  But I would not have done what Zimmerman did - followed someone who was not a direct threat to me, to my life or the life of a loved one, personally.  I would have, as he did, call 911, reporting what I saw and being a good witness.  But I would not have followed the potential criminal, the suspicious person.  I know that some people think that not doing so, not defending one's neighborhood from potential crime is an abdication of responsibility, whether neighborhood watch or just everyday citizen resident.

I personally would not have done so simply because I would have known it might end up just where Zimmerman has found himself.  Even an innocent man - one who seemingly committed a justified act of self-defense homicide - can be punished for it by being dragged over the coals and having to defend himself in court.  Stopping a potential thief in my neighborhood - one who has yet to commit a crime I know of or present a lethal threat - would simply not be worth that possible outcome.  It is unfortunate that our society has created a situation where citizens will not challenge others' behavior (and where those who might be asked what they are doing feel it necessary for ego purposes, to respond with violence) because even if innocent they will be punished.  Had Zimmerman not followed, he could have avoided this - even if he did not break any laws in doing so.  Had Martin not "bowed up" and decided to fight, he could have avoided his own tragic death.

 

There is seemingly no evidence available to convict Zimmerman.  The only "evidence" is the emotional evidence, the racial animus, fear of race-based retribution, and the seeming assumption that Martin could not have been a bad actor and that when a white, Hispanic male kills a black teen aged male, it must be murder, it must be racially motivated.  It seems that any possible Zimmerman conviction will be based on emotion, based on race, not based on the data.  It is a tragedy that anyone died in this incident; sadly it seems clear that someone was going to once both initiated the event.  The available evidence seems to clearly suggest it happened as described by Zimmerman.  Again, would I have ever put myself in that situation?  No.  Was Zimmerman unwise to do so?  Yes, I think so.  Does that justify the beating he may have taken?  No.  Did he shoot in self-defense, in fear for his life?  Likely so.  Would any reasonable person in his position have done so?  Yes, if they could - if they valued their own life.

So I might not ever have decided to do as he did, but if I somehow found myself in his predicament, being beaten down, fearing for my life, I would act in similar fashion.  There is a well-known, if seemingly crass, saying in the armed citizen community; "It is better to be judged by 12 (6 in this case), than carried by 6".  In the end, it is clear both outcomes suck, but Zimmerman seemingly did as any reasonable person would; it seems definitional of a lack of reason if one is willing to allow themselves to be beaten into unconsciousness and potential death rather than defend themselves.

Both men made foolish decisions that lead to this tragedy - I have detailed what I see as Zimmerman's mistake; Martin's was to think he was invulnerable, too tough, too much a gangster.  Too much ego, too much "bad ass".  He was too ready to go to blows and assume that he was facing someone who could not defend themselves against him.  He, too, made a decision I would never make; "I am going to kick the MFs ass".  It is good to remember - all you young men out there - that you never know who you are facing and what they can or will do if you put them in a corner, if you threaten their life.  Think twice.

Speaking of which:

 

Sadly, as shown above, there have been numerous race-based threats posted on the internet, twitter and so on about retribution that will be attempted if Zimmerman is found innocent (I do not normally read The Blaze, but have no reason to doubt the veracity of these statements).  Of course, Nancy is implicitly supporting this - as are so many others - by suggesting that Zimmerman and any one else who carries a firearm (exercising their right) is doing something "extraordinary" and abnormal.  The state has proved nothing of the charges, but their approach has inadvertently (I hope) justified this anger and any misbehavior that follows.  Sharpton, Crump, Herbert and others have also used this case to justify racial animus. 

Sure, some of these threats are bravado, but here's a group of young people who seem to be thinking of making the same mistake that Martin made - "I am impervious to harm, I can do what I want, I'm bad, blah, blah, blah".  It cannot end well, no matter how it goes.

When (I wish I could say "if") something does happen, the next big trial will emerge.  If it is a case wherein an innocent "cracka" is killed, I am sure some will justify it by talking about this trial, the injustice done, the long history of racial injustice.  Foolish!  If it is a case where the young revenge-seeking "gangsta" is killed, then Nancy Grace will further indict those who wish to defend themselves, but it will be, as this case appears to be, a lawful case of self-defense.  Sad!

And, thus, the sad saga will continue.