I did not plan to post on this case; but I keep reading comments by conservatives, trying to take advantage of this by pointing out that it is national news while murders of whites by blacks barely get a mention.
Ninety-Nine per cent of all murders, whether by whites against blacks, blacks against whites, blacks against blacks or whites against whites never get mentioned beyond local coverage. This story did NOT make the national news because a white man killed a black boy.
It made the national news because a neighborhood watch volunteer decided to play vigilante, killing a black unarmed boy while breaking every rule of a neighborhood watch volunteer in the process. Yet, he did not get arrested.Â
Let me state right now that I do NOT think this was a hate crime. Mr. Zimmerman had every right to be suspicious when he saw a hooded individual in his community. There had been several robberies in that vicinity.
However, I read a piece in the Dallas Morning News last week in which several neighborhood watch volunteers from a suburb similar to the one in Florida spoke out about this. EVERY single one of them said that they were told repeatedly NEVER to follow or approach a suspect but immediately to notify the police. They also stated that they had been instructed NEVER to carry a weapon, even in their vehicles. Finally, they added that they all had to pass a background check before they could be a neighborhood watch volunteer.
Mr. Zimmerman was guilty of all three of these. He did call the police; yet, he followed the victim, approached him, and allegedly fought with him; he had a weapon and he had a previous record for assaulting a policeman. Why was he EVEN allowed to be a neighborhood watch volunteer with a previous assault record? Somebody dropped the ball!
The police wanted to charge him the night they brought him in; but the district attorney said there was not enough evidence. My question is this....WHAT does it take? The man had a weapon; he knew he was not to approach the suspect; yet, he did, and he killed an unarmed minor.Â
I'm not buying the self-defense excuse. I've seen the man. He's big; he's burly; he looks perfectly capable of defending himself. Also, where are the scrapes on his face if Martin slammed it into the concrete? And where is the broken nose? This man's nose was no more broken than mine. I saw the videos too. Finally, I'm fairly certain just pulling the gun would have got the kid off him if, in fact, Travon was winning the fight, assuming indeed there even was a fight.
He needs to answer in court! Let a jury decide and get it out of the court of public opinion--both black and white--who are only exacerbating
the situation by exploiting it to their advantage.
There will be more violence as a result of this if the district attorney keeps dragging his feet.