UPDATE: Of course, Huffington Post is back
this morning using that same, years old picture of a "child" Martin (the point being that this is nothing more than manipulation - why isn't a recent picture shown?) in an article suggesting 6 "decisions" that could have averted this tragedy. Sadly, if not unexpectedly, all ignore any possibility that Martin could have avoided it and exclusively prescribe actions Zimmerman could have taken. Then, in a kind of a throw away final sentence, they acknowledge their bias by noting that "
Trayvon Martin could have chosen to not defend himself" which was, apparently, not worthy of mention in the top 6.
 |
Looking at this picture of a 12 year-old Martin it is hard to imagine him acting violently.
Is that why the liberal media use it so much - to fit their narrative? |
It would be great if someone would point out the data (not the speculation or wishful thinking) that show that Zimmerman was physically aggressive toward Martin, as pre-supposed in saying that Martin "could have chosen not to defend himself". The evidence the jury saw suggested that Martin initiated the physical altercation, which is never justified to "defend" against verbal provocation. Martin was not "defending himself". For some reason (I shan't speculate), people with a certain agenda
must believe that it could not have happened that way, that Zimmerman
must be lying and that no teenager, black or white, would ever commit felonious and deadly assault on another human being with no more than verbal provocation (ever watch the news?). They seem invested, beyond all reason, in Martin being an angel and Zimmerman being evil.
Why, in all the possible scenarios one can imagine, is it out of bounds to consider the possibility that Martin had a chip on his shoulder, did not like getting challenged by a pudgy "white" guy, and decided, in an act that contributed to his own death, to sucker punch him when he turned his back, leap on top of him and beat his face in? Why is
that considered impossible? He would not be the first teenager, white or black, to act in such a way. Again, it seems that all would be well to these people if Zimmerman had allowed himself to be killed. It is a certainty that we would never have watched this trial on TV had that happened. Move along, nothing to see here.
The article begins by noting that: "It's impossible to know whether it was
Trayvon Martin or
George Zimmerman who threw the first punch in the confrontation that ended Martin’s life. The jury apparently relied on that ambiguity to
acquit Zimmerman of murdering Martin, because he said he killed the 17-year-old in self defense." No agenda there! Start with an assumption - because one party is a teen and black and the other is armed, adult and Hispanic it must be that the young black male was profiled and assaulted for "walking while being black". With that assumption faithfully and unswervingly held, it is easy to ignore anything that does not agree with it. They jury relied on the evidence available, not on ambiguity.
Once upon a time, liberals at least tried to make a pretense of being intellectuals - even to the point of calling Obama a "smart president". It was one of their more endearing qualities - as an intellectual I even thought so. But they, including Obama, have sadly turned into nothing more than emotional crazies with an agenda who happen to live at the other end of the political spectrum from another group of emotion-focused crazies. Obama's suggestion that this is a "gun violence" issue and not simply a "violence" issue - and an issue of violence that potentially started with an aggressive teenager - is more than enough evidence of this. Never let a good tragedy go to waste.
It is illuminating (and demoralizing) to see all of their assumptions in action.
No comments:
Post a Comment