Top 5 Zimmerman Supporters Arguments’ against Trayvon Martin Outrage – And how to Rebut Each!
Heated discussions on race, equality and the criminal justice system continue to percolate in the wake of the George Zimmerman not-guilty verdict for the killing of 17 year old Sanford, Florida teen Trayvon Martin.
Many, especially African American, have found themselves frustrated by the response of Zimmerman supporters to public outcry, demonstrations and protests over the verdict the consider unjust.
A full week after the verdict, there have been the same essentially 5 recycled responses to the outcry for justice.
Here they are below, followed by an examination of the underlining messages behind each response and a rebuttal.
1. Why are people upset over this case when they do not get upset or protest or riot over black-on-black crime or white on black crime? Where is Obama or Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson or the protestors over is [insert random unrelated murder or crime, or stats regarding “Black-on-Black” crime in Chicago or other areas]
- First, Mention of other cases or “Black-on-Black” crime is a classic deflection technique used to avoid discussion of the issue at hand-the general inequity in convictions when a victim is black.
- Second, there is no such thing as Black-on-Black crime per se, over 90% of homicides are committed by persons of the same race as their victim. Despite false propaganda stats saying Whites are killed more by blacks, the TRUTH per the FBI is that 90% of whites are killed by Whites.
- Third, if one examines every single example of a crime that got no Al Sharpton or media attention proffered by Zimmerman supporters, one will note that in each case, the crime or killing’s perpetrator(s), when discovered are immediately arrested, charged and usually convicted (or acquitted).
- They may be blissfully unaware or forgetting that this case only caught national spotlight because Sanford police let a killer walk with no arrest after a substandard investigation and even though Sanford police itself acknowledged that Zimmerman’s version of events had several inconsistencies.
- The Outrage is over the thought that he was permitted to walk because he killed a black teen, and if he had killed a white kid, he would have been promptly arrested, thrown in jail and not given all the sympathetic support he is receiving now.
- When Police let Zimmerman walk with no charge, they had no idea if Martin was a straight A Honors student or a kid who smoked weed and had a little problem in school. He was just another dead black teen. The absence of value to his life is troublesome to many, especially to blacks themselves or those who are parents to black teens.
- Fourth, noone has the right to tell anyone what they should or should not care or rally over especially when many of those making this assertion ordinarily wouldn’t give a hoot about so called “black-on-black” crime. Many only ever mention urban crime in context of being critical of it or when suggesting why OTHERS should do something about it INSTEAD of bothering to cry over the death of a boy they do not think is worthy or sympathy, was a bad thug and who some believed was up to no good that night.
- This statement also suggests that only blacks or liberals should do something and that conservatives, Whites, Republicans or pro-Zimmerman supporters have no duty to care about what is going on in urban cities. So-called Patriots’ interest in promoting the best America stops at only those who fit squarely within a pre-defined notion of America. Everyone else is the scapegoat for what’s wrong with the country, who are destroying it and as far as many are concerned can “go back to where they came from.”
- And finally, why are people assuming that because there are no protests that they don’t care about crime among blacks. People can care about more than one thing at a time. If they are upset about this case, that doesn’t mean they have to remove another social ill from their “care” bank. There’s room in people’s hearts to be concerned over more than one injustice at a time.
2. They will provide facts based on George Zimmerman’s version of events: “Trayvon Martin shouldn’t have thrown the first punch. …They both should have walked away. …Why didn’t Martin call police? …Why didn’t he just run home? … Trayvon Martin was up to no good and was peering into windows…. He went around and snuck up on Zimmerman from the back…. Zimmerman had the right to defend himself from getting beat up…. Trayvon Martin asked to get killed when he decided to jump Zimmerman” etc.
- First, all of the above are “facts” upon which the courtroom case was built or defended. These “facts” are but the sole word of a man with a violent criminal background with a history of assaulting an officer and a woman, who has a pending child molestation claim against him, who Sanford police said had inconsistent accounts of the night’s events, who lied when he didn’t know anything about Florida’s defense laws when his criminal law instructor said he was an eager student who got an A in a class that focused extensively on criminal defenses in Florida, and who had called the police 46 times in 2 years including against a skinny 7 or 8 year old little black boy he told cops was “suspicious”.
- Second, many Trayvon Martin supporters will not and do not think Zimmerman’s version of events is credible or truthful and thus, even though these are the “facts” as known, will not and should not argue with Zimmerman supporters based on that version of what happened. It’ s a non-starter because as far as can be determined, it all could be one big lie, made up by a man who knew the law and how to escape a prison sentence for his unjust killing.
- Third, Zimmerman most likely knew that all he had to do to use Stand Your Ground (which was his original defense) was tell the police he felt threatened. There is no proof that Trayvon Martin told Zimmerman “You’re going to die tonight”! Zimmerman could have made that up to meet the standards required to kill an unarmed boy and save himself a jail term for doing so.
- Fourth, any defense on Zimmerman based on words Zimmerman said happened lack all credibility and should not form the basis of arguments because Martin is not around to give his version of events.
3. But Zimmerman was Hispanic and Not WHITE!
- But Aside the Fact that the Police Arrest and Incident Reports after the shooting indicated Zimmerman as a White Male (See it HERE and HERE)
- First, you can be ethnically Hispanic and racially white at the same time. Consider these images of people born in Peru where Zimmerman’s mom is from:Top: , Opera singer Juan Diego Florez, Soccer player Jefferson Farfan; Bottom: Surfer Sofia Mulanovich and Champion boxer Cecilia Tait are from Peru.
- Second, while most Peruvians are a mix of different races, there are more people of pure European ancestry (18%) than African (1%) in Peru, hence you’re more likely to see a White Peruvian before a Black one.
- Third, even if one is culturally unaware of the various racial mixtures among the Hispanic and Latino population, they need only consider the US Census forms and HR applications which ask if one is White, non-Hispanic or Black, non-Hispanic, denoting that you can be a White Hispanic.
- Fourth, nonetheless, even if Zimmerman identifies himself as Hispanic, the crux of the outcome really hinges on the race of the victim and the perceived lack of diligence or interest to arrest, charge and prosecute cases when the victim is black. The outrage isn’t about the killer more so that it is about the victim in THIS case.
- Fifth, the test for those who are so die-hard in support of Zimmerman, his version of events and for those who believe Zimmerman should not even have been arrested or charged is for them to answer that if Zimmerman looked like Jefferson above, would they still be so die-hard defending this case? Despite the fact that had Zimmerman looked like Jefferson he more likely than not would have been promptly arrested, therefore skirting public outcry, Zimmerman supporters more likely would not be creating anonymous Twitter accounts and so passionate defending his right to kill and walk away with no arrest or charge.
- Further, those who are supporting him are more likely to believe his story because they see themselves more in Z’s shoes and could imagine that TM is a thug. They will point out the TM’s weed usage, hoax social media photos and minor problems in school and not think about the happy teen who enjoyed horseback riding, skiing, going to Nasa space camp, talking long hours with his friend, being the only person who would treat her nicely, being helpful and being a great big brother to his little brother. Had Trayvon looked like them as teens, or their sons, they’d be more apt to think of Martin’s humanity as a teen than just the caricature of a threatening and menacing black figure in the night. That they would suggest a 158 pound 5’8 teen is a 200 pound 6 foot 3 hulk capable of going toe to toe with a 200 lbs Zimmerman who has had martial arts training gives some clue into how warped their perceptions are and why they are willing to swallow everything Zimmerman spun to police – even it did change often and was inconsistent. They choose the word of a man with a criminal history over a teen without one.
- Finally, Zimmerman is being perceived White also because he is given the privilege of the benefit of the doubt and that his word is truthful. Had he been a black Hispanic or Black, there would have been an arrest and charge, no protests, and definitely he would not have had so many White supporters.
4. This is all because of Main Stream Media, Al Sharpton and Obama saying “if I had a son, he would’ve looked like Trayvon Martin”
- First, See above: This case only got mainstream attention because of the absence of an arrest and proper investigation and charge. Had Zimmerman been ARRESTED as he should have after killing a kid and just coming up with a story, this would never have made news
- And so WHAT if the media made people aware of this case. That is how most people get their news but media shares all sorts of news. Not all people pay attention to but this one did because people are intelligent enough to know if something is NEWSWORTHY and decide for themselves it is an injustice. Those who don’t, have no opinion on it but they too saw the same news story and decided they didn’t care about it. Don’t insult intelligence of those who find it worth getting angry about it beause they got it from the news.
- Second, by the time Obama, got around to that statement, there had been dozens of blog posts and other parents’ nationwide saying the same thing. No one needed him to say what they were already saying among themselves to get upset. If anything, it may have woken up the politically agnostics who had been ignoring the case before.
- Anyone blaming MSM or Al Sharpton is essentially admitting they do not want, nor value any discussions of America’s race problem, especially within the Criminal Justice system or that they live in a world where they don’t have to deal with it and prefer those who do have to deal with it shut up about it. Race makes people uncomfortable. Many would rather take an Ostrich head-in-the-sand, Horse-blinders, or Monkey – hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil approach to race and race discussions.
5. You didn’t see us riot when OJ Simpson got off!
- First, the mention of “us” rioting is a race-based statement which most times will come from the mouth of someone who had previously asserted that this case has nothing to do with race. These are the same ones who would shout down a white person for supporting Trayvon Martin, as many have done during this case’s life and post-verdict because early on they latched on to the “White” side and have hence since looked at this as an us v. them situation. White supporters are “race traitors” or dismissed as liberals with liberal White guilt. It’s not that they think this was an injustice.
The images do not look like black rioting at all. See HERE.
- Second, anyone who equates the fires, looting and lawlessness following the acquittal of the police officers caught on video brutally beating motorist Rodney King with Billy clubs in the 1980s to the mainly peaceful demonstrations, is arguing with a false reality created and conjured up by media outlets, perhaps. A few scuffles with cops, and even annoying shutting down of bridges in some cities do not constitute a riot. Using the word riot instantly discredits anyone using this term to describe the demonstrations. Just because one calls a peaceful protest a riot doesn’t make it so.
- Third, both the OJ and Zimmerman acquittals are examples of the problem with the justice system. Back then, many people elated OJ got off were cheering not necessarily because a murderer was set free but because it was a collective “a ha! We told you the system is broken!” And again here, Zimmerman’s acquittal is that too. Justice is uneven and not color-blind.
Finally, this case is not just about one case, but is symbolic of a larger problem.
Some Zimmerman supporters see the protests as an assault on 2nd Amendment rights.
However, notice that many of them are not willing to defend a black woman’s use of a gun to protect herself in another recent and controversial case, and in some cases, will go out of their way to distinguish her case from Zimmerman’s even without knowing all the facts.
Marissa Alexander, a married Masters’ degree mother and domestic violence victim tried to escape her husband through a garage but upon finding the door jammed grabbed the gun she was licensed and authorized to carry and fired two shots in the air to scare off her abuser. Those finding excuses for why Alexander cannot use Self-Defense or Stand Your Ground are undermining themselves and their credibility, and bolstering the claim that they are only willing to extend the benefit in cases when they can empathize with the shooter.
Finally, in another Florida case up for trial in September, some 2nd Amendment advocates are already choosing to side with a man, Mike Dunn, with a very violent history that includes holding two ex wives at gunpoint. Dunn fired his rifle into the window of a car full of black teens he said were playing their music too loud. He killed Jordan Davis and his attorney says he plans to claim to rely on Florida’s Stand your Ground laws to get him off. Dunn’s first attorney tried to paint the kids as gangs and his second attorney Cory Stroller has already said, “I don’t have to prove Jordan Davis was a threat just that Dunn thought he was.”
And one wonders why so many are fearful that people can just shoot and kill their sons in the dead of the night and make up any story about how the dead threatened them… and get to walk home free.
…Just like George Zimmerman did.