(I preface this post with the following statement: a young man was shot and killed, and that in and of itself is a tragedy. Trayvon's parents have lost a son and, as a father of two young children, I empathize with them and regret what they are currently going thru and hope that I never have to experience the same.)
On the evening of February, 23, 2012, Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman. Over the course of the past month - and most intensely in the past 2 weeks - the media has directed it's attention, almost non-stop, in the direction of Sanford, FL where the shooting took place. In the past few weeks, facts have begun to surface, not only about the shooting itself, but also about both Martin and Zimmerman. Trayvon "supporters" say that the facts emerging about the 17 year old victim amount nothing more than smears from "the other side".
I disagree, and here's why: Yesterday, I took some time to ponder what, exactly, a smear is. My initial answer was, a smear is a lie intentionally told to cast a negative light on someone. Then I began to wonder if a truth could also constitute a smear. I began to think about the things I'd done in my past, and whether or not I would consider someone bringing those things up now, in a public forum, to be a smear against me. Case in point: I'm coming up on the 20 year anniversary of a teenage/high school prank that I and several others committed. It was 1992, I had just recently graduated, and the only reason I say it was a high school prank is because that's where it was done...at my alma mater. Me and the others had to pay restitution for some minor damage that was done inadvertently, and I was sentenced to a year of probation which was commuted after 4 months when I entered the USAF. I found myself thinking, "Yeah, that would be a smear because that's not who I am today". I'm a law abiding citizen now, with no other run-ins with the law. I have two beautiful daughters that I support with the job that I've been employed at for almost 9 years now. Bringing up something like that from my pastr, which has nothing to do with who I am today, would constitute a smear in my eyes. Unfortunately, this logic doesn't apply for Trayvon Martin, whose supporters believe that a smear is anything that cast a negative, true or not, relevant or not, regardless of when the incident(s) occured. The facts that have come out aren't old. I'd happily discount anything that's come out about Trayvon that's before him reaching high school. However, what we are learning is recent and therefore, I conntend, are all we have in an attempt to define his character.
When the media finally jumped on this story, the picture of Trayvon that was used was that of a shorter, near pre-pubescent kid... you know, the one of Trayvon in the crimson colored Hollister tee (I'll come back to this). The pictures that have surfaced in the past several days show a much taller, older looking Trayvon with tattoos and a gold plated grill. We've also learned that Trayvon was serving his third suspension of the current school year - for being caught with trace amounts of marijauana - when he was visiting his dad Sanford. We know the other 2 suspensions were for truancy and vadalism. We know that he had a twitter account with the screen name NO_LIMIT_NIGGA. All of these facts have been attacked by the likes of Al Sharpton as being smears and have nothing to do with incident that took place just over a month ago. But don't they? When I first heard of this shooting while driving through Orlando nearly three weeks ago, I had made up my mind that Zimmerman had followed Trayvon, initiated contact with him and ended up shooting Trayvon after Trayvon started getting the better of him. I made a comment on a friend's facebook post that there was no way that the "Stand Your Ground" defense would hold up and that Zimmerman would end up serving time in prison for manslaughter, at the very least.
But, with new facts of both Trayvon and Zimmerman arising on an alomost daily occurance, we are beginning to see a different picture of both. Perhaps Zimmerman isn't the racist profiler that was first portrayed. Appparently he and his wife both mentored minority children on the weekends. Perhaps Trayvon isn't the innocent child that the media initially tried to portray him as. The media did their dead level best to make sure that Trayvon would be seen as the innocent victim by showing for weeks the older picture. The media knew that showing a picture of Trayvon with tats and a grill wouldn't conjure up near the sentiment and/or outrage over a shooting that it wanted desperately to be seen as senseless and unwarranted.
In Zimmerman's statement, http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/report-says-police-reveal-details-of-george-zimmermans-account-of-trayvon/1222087 he claims that Trayvon approached him as he was on his way back to his SUV after loosing sight of the 17 year old. According to the statement, Trayvon then asked him if he had a problem, punched him in the nose and then jumped on top of Zimmerman after he'd fallen, and began slamming his head into the ground. Zimmerman claims that the cries for help heard on the 911 tapes are his and that he shot Trayvon in self defense, and in accordance with Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. I submit that the facts that have come out about Trayvon show a young man who could easily be seen as the aggressor. As a potentially angry young man who felt disrespected by a "white" man following him. A young man who felt he needed to confront Zimmerman and let him know what he thought about being followed as though he had done something wrong. But, then he did do something wrong, if we are to believe Zimmerman's statement. He attacked Zimmerman and forced him to defend himself with his lawfully concealed weapon that he was carrying at the time.
This just my hypothesis, and I'm open to any and all facts as they emerge that might prove otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment