The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 36.6: Ignoring Fact, and Messaging

The civil rights movement was one of the greatest success stories in American history.  Like the feminist movement–yes, I know they’re not exactly parallel in importance–it achieved, in a very real and practical sense, all of its objectives.  Circa 2013, actual racists are, rightly, social pariahs, unwelcome anywhere in decent society,

Credit: Biography.com

and as Dr. Martin Luther King hoped, people are judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

Unfortunately, what we’ve seen since the advent of the “post-racial president” is an unprecedented resurgence of the black grievance industry, and of racist hate-mongers, latching onto any slight, real or imagined, to enrich themselves, deflect attention from their own political scandals, and to keep the pot of racial hatred stirred.  The Ebony covers are a sad reflection of that vile and hateful usurpation of the civil rights movement, and of using symbolism not for racial understanding, but for the destruction of racial harmony.

The Zimmerman trial is a case in point.  Most Americans are far from cowards, as AG Erik Holder, one of the worst and most blatantly partisan political racists in our history, alleged.  They feel no need to have a “national conversation” about race because in their world, as they go about their daily lives, working and interacting with people of all races, nationalities and creeds, they see the fruits of the civil rights movement all around them, and it feels–normal and right.  They see no need for a conversation about a non-existent problem.

But the Sharptons, Jacksons, Obamas and Holders aren’t alone.  Where progressive values are at risk, they have reflexive, multi-racial support.

MSNBC: PREDICTABLE

Regular readers know that George Zimmerman’s suspicions of Trayvon Martin were not in the least racially based; they had to do with the circumstances and Martin’s behavior.   However, some elements of The Narrative will never die, particularly when the media insists on perpetuating falsehoods.  From Prof. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection: 

Yet that [the falsity of the assertion] has not stopped Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC — who once disputed Zimmerman had a bloody nose – from continuing to claim otherwise.

On July 23, 2013, after the verdict, O’Donnell responded to comments by Bill O’Reilly by making the following statement:

‘There was plenty of evidence that Trayvon Martin’s skin color is what aroused George Zimmerman’s suspicions of him,’ O’Donnell said. ‘It was indeed Trayvon Martin’s skin color that made him – in O’Reilly’s words – ‘a stranger to Zimmerman.

Actually, O’Reilly has helped to perpetuate misconceptions about the case, but surely not to the extent of O’Donnell and others like him, and surely not with the same goals in mind.  I hope, someday, to be able to stop writing about this case, but if people continue to lie about it, this might turn into a career.

THE DUMBEST DEMOCRAT? VERY POSSIBLY, BUT THERE IS SOOO MUCH COMPETITION…

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-ILL) continues to cause real damage to America, in large part due to stupidity.  Roll Call reports:  

In preparation for a previously announced hearing on controversial “stand your ground” laws announced after the acquittal of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, Sen. Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill., sent letters to more than 300 possible corporate backers of the American Legislative Exchange Council, requesting their position on such policies in states across the country.

Durbin may have a hard time getting Anheuser-Busch, BP, Comcast or the Koch Industries to file formal responses to Durbin about laws like the one that gained notoriety in the case of killed Florida teen Trayvon Martin, but Durbin’s going to try nonetheless, given that those companies back ALEC, which in turn pushed ‘stand your ground’ laws. The letter, released by Durbin’s office, says the following:

‘I write to seek information regarding your company’s position on ‘stand your ground’ legislation that was adopted as a national model by an organization called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC),” Durbin wrote. ‘In 2005, ALEC approved the adoption of model ‘stand your ground’ legislation entitled the ‘Castle Doctrine Act.’ This model legislation was based on Florida’s ‘stand your ground’ law, and it changes the criminal law regarding self-defense and provides immunity for certain uses of deadly force.

Although ALEC does not maintain a public list of corporate members or donors, other public documents indicate that your company funded ALEC at some point during the period between ALEC’s adoption of model ‘stand your ground’ legislation in 2005 and the present day. I acknowledge your company’s right to actively participate in the debate of important political issues, regardless of your position, and I recognize that a company’s involvement with ALEC does not necessarily mean that the company endorses all positions taken by the organization. Therefore I am seeking clarification whether companies that have funded ALEC’s operations in the past currently support ALEC and the model ‘stand your ground’ legislation.

The folks at Powerline note:

1) Self-defense is a matter of state, not federal, law. Why is Durbin’s Judiciary Subcommittee holding a hearing on a topic that cannot, and will not, result in federal legislation?

2) ‘Stand your ground’ had nothing to do with the Trayvon Martin case, as both prosecutors and defense lawyers said, and as we and many others have explained countless times. Is Dick Durbin really one of the few who don’t get this?

3) As Durbin’s own press release states, around 30 states have some sort of stand your ground legislation. That is a clear majority. There is a reason for this. Most people think such laws are a good idea, as shown by, for example, a strong 45%-32% plurality in this Rasmussen survey. It is not necessary to investigate the influence of some nefarious ‘lobby’ to explain why popular legislation is enacted in 30 states.

To this I would add, who does Durbin think he is, anyway?  What business is it of a US Senator what position any business takes on a given law or policy?  This smacks of intimidation, which of course, is what progressives these days are best at.  Powerline continues:

The left’s attack on ALEC was largely a front in its war against the Koch brothers. MSNBC bizarrely accused the Kochs of being responsible for Trayvon Martin’s death, via Koch Industries’ participation in ALEC–seriously–which led to an explosive appearance on MSNBC by Koch Industries’ general counsel, Mark Holden. We covered it in detail here, including video and a first-hand account by Holden.

Despite MSNBC’s having been completely humiliated in that exchange, Durbin is happy to pick up where they left off. It it’s a dumb theory and a complete waste of time, Dick Durbin is your man. Here is a suggestion: if Durbin wants to do something useful with his Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights, how about looking into Barack Obama’s and Eric Holder’s politicization of the Department of Justice? Unlike state laws on self-defense, that would be an appropriate topic for Senate oversight.

Wouldn’t it, though?

NOTE:  Here’s an interesting infographic on stand your ground laws.  I can’t vouch for the absolute accuracy of the information, but it’s food for thought and discussion in any case.

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THEM IN CLEVELAND ANYWAY?

As I’ve noted repeatedly, George Zimmerman did not commit murder, hence, by definition and in every practical application of the English language, he is not a murderer.  The state of Florida spent a great deal of time and an enormous amount of taxpayer money conclusively proving his innocence.  Not that such niggling details bother the Cleveland Plain Dealer, as Paula Bolyard at PJ Media explains:

Obama wanted to explain to those Americans who have never been followed, suspected or singled out because of the color of their skins [sic] why those who have took [sic] the murder of an unarmed 17-year-old black high school student so personally and viscerally, [sic] The president was not criticizing the jury. “That’s how our system works,” he said.

[Plain Dealer Editor’s note: This editorial was updated Aug. 4, 2013 at 2:15 pm to correct a grammatical error in the fourth paragraph.]

Sloppy editing and grammar crimes aside, the fact that the editors chose to use the word murder in reference to the charges for which George Zimmerman was acquitted by a jury of his peers demonstrates more than a lack of journalistic responsibility in their apparent quest to continue to stir up racial tensions in the community. It also exemplifies the reason the Plain Dealer and other so-called legacy media outlets barely have a pulse in the year 2013.

 Quite so Ms. Bolyard, quite so.

CONTINUING THREATS AND POLITICAL HYPOCRISY…

Some thoughtless talking heads and pundits continue to suggest that George Zimmerman suffered no consequences.  Not so.  He, and his family, will suffer for his lawful use of self-defense for the rest of their lives.  Consider these excerpts from a Brietbart.com interview with Robert Zimmerman Jr., George Zimmerman’s brother:

No one has really asked us to get into the psychological aspect of this,” said Zimmerman. “You don’t know if some one stops you in public and says, ‘excuse me sir,’ you don’t know if you dropped your wallet or if someone recognizes you and wants to kill you.’

‘It taxes everyone’s mind, knowing you have to stay in touch and in constant communication because of the threats.’

‘Anytime anyone goes out for anything, we all know about it. If my phone died, my family would be in a panic that they didn’t hear from me. It happened one time when my phone died and I fell asleep. My family really got worried and immediately started looking for me.’

‘After the verdict, we all have the same concerns as before. We are all concerned about our safety. Are we doing everything to stay alive at home, and if any of us have to leave, are we doing everything we can to support each other.’

‘We have to monitor social media and the internet to see if there are any rallies nearby that pose a specific threat and we avoid them.  The death threats usually come on social media, some are emailed. There’s a lot of ‘you better watch your back, I know where u are, I’m going to get you.’

‘Social media is a lot more bold. ‘I’m in Florida, I’m going to find you, I’m going to kill you, get you, we know where you are, etc.’ and ‘Say hi to Trayvon Martin when I kill you.’

‘Someone was very ugly to me at a Starbucks. I was with an infant and her mother while her husband pulled the car around. Someone thought I was George Zimmerman. I said, no, George is in jail. They started saying, ‘we know you’re Zimmerman; it’s right here on the receipt…”

They pulled out their phones and started texting people and calling people. Someone finally noticed the receipt said Robert instead of George, or R instead of G, and they said ‘Oh, it’s not George Zimmerman’ and they all calmed down. Someone then said ‘Yeah, but you look like that Mother f***er and if you were anyone of the Zimmerman’s we were going to take you outside and beat the sh*t out of you.’ They were both Starbucks employees.”

 Of course, many deep thinkers are outraged that George Zimmerman–and presumably his family–might be able to be armed.  Notice how rational and intellectual Robert Zimmerman is, particularly when compared with those who wish the Zimmermans harm:

Zimmerman discussed his thoughts on the future. ‘There’s a psychological toll for living in isolation for as long as we have. I’m not sure how to learn to trust or interact with people or how to break out of that,” he said. “My concern is that there will never be a return to normal. At best, there will be a new normal, but that will always be plagued by concern over everyone we encounter.

But it’s the Tea Party and conservatives that are dangerous and violent.  Right.

NEVER LET A TRAGEDY GO TO WASTE!

Progressives and race-baiters–but I repeat myself–would never exploit a tragedy for political gains, would they?  Paul Bedard at the Washington Examiner provides enlightenment:

Newly uncovered Democratic anti-NRA talking points urge anti-gun advocates and politicians to hype high-profile gun incidents like the Florida slaying of Trayvon Martin to win support for new gun control laws.

In talking points likely followed by top Democratic leaders including President Obama after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in December, the anti-gun ‘guide’ urged gun foes to speak out when a shooting ‘creates a unique climate’ to shout down the National Rifle Association.

‘The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak,’ said the 80-page document titled ‘Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging,’ and produced by three Democratic firms led by the polling and research outfit Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research.

The guide was produced in 2012, before the Sandy Hook shootings. According to a report posted on NRA News from Examiner.com, not connected to the Washington Examiner, it was developed to help anti-gun advocates in Washington State’s effort to control gun purchases, though it clearly has national overtones and uses, especially as groups like Mayors Against Illegal Guns — a Greenberg Quinlan Rosner client — expand their fight for gun control.

The guide spells out how to talk about gun control and when to press the issue, the best time being in the wake of a publicized shooting. For example, it calls on gun control advocates to speak out, ‘don’t wait’ for the facts, after a shooting like Martin’s heightens awareness of the issue.

‘The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora, and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts,’ said the guide.

‘A high-profile gun violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence,’ added the talking points. ‘We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence,’ said the guide, which also urged advocates use images of scary looking guns and shooting scenes to make their point.

Why should we wait for the facts before going off half-cocked?  Ooops!  That’s a gun analogy, isn’t it?  How politically incorrect of me.  I’ll try again: Why should we shoot off our mouths before getting the facts…darn!  Did it again!  Once more: If we don’t get the facts, our arguments are going to be off-target….arggggh!

Sound familiar, gentle readers?  It’s standard progressive tactics, and they have been applied to the Zimmerman case from day one: ignore the facts and it’s all about the messaging–the narrative.  Nothing makes for good public policy and law like that formula.  Talk about a misfire!  Blast it!  Ooops!

GOOD GUYS AND STRAIGHT SHOOTERS:

The Buckeye Firearms Foundation recently sent a check to George Zimmerman in the amount of $12, 150.37 for firearms and security systems.  Bless them.  Here’s Mark O’Mara’s letter in response to their generosity:  

“July 2, 2013

Ken Hanson, Esquire
Buckeye Firearms Foundation
15 West Winter Street
Delaware, Ohio 43015

Re: Donations

Dear Mr. Hanson:

This is to acknowledge and thank you very much for the donations made to my client, George Zimmerman, on behalf of the Buckeye Firearms Foundation. We have received a check in the amount of $12,150.37 and this will be forwarded directly to Mr. Zimmerman to assist him in accomplishing the purpose of the donations. That is Mr. Zimmerman will be able to replace items necessary for him to protect himself and also to accomplish security systems for his residence. George wants to express his sincere appreciation for all of the efforts made on his behalf by members of your Foundation.

Thank you very much or your time and consideration in this matter and I would ask you to please thank those members of the Buckeye Firearms Foundation for their generosity and their focus.

Sincerely,

Mark O’Mara”

A GOOD GIRL AND A STRAIGHT SHOOTER:

Have you ever heard of Carol Swain?  She is a professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University (Nashville, TN). She recently posted a Facebook comment that did not depict Sybrina Fulton, Trayvon Martin’s mother, as June Cleaver.  Gregory Kane at the Washington Examiner reports:

Trayvon Martin’s mother is missing an opportunity to lead a social movement. America needs a conversation about the unfortunate plight of thousands of young black men who have adopted unhealthy lifestyles.’

‘High unemployment, black-on-black crime, and hopelessness are factors that must be addressed. Individual choices and wrong internalized messages have led to the devaluation of human life in the black community at every stage of development.’

‘The devaluation in human life is reflected in our abortion rates and the willingness ‘to accept high black-on-black murder rates. We can do better!’

Fulton, and Tracy Martin, Trayvon Martin’s father, seem more interested in becoming bona fide left-wingers – under the misguidance of the Revvum Al Sharpton – than in steering young black men away from ‘unhealthy lifestyles.

Kane closed with this sentiment:

Swain is one black American who’s faced the nasty truth that the average black homicide victim didn’t die like Trayvon Martin, at the hands of a half-white and half- Latino volunteer neighborhood watch captain.

The average black homicide victim met his fate at the hands of another black man. But don’t expect Sybrina Fulton to ever admit that.

I don’t expect any progressive to admit that.  They’d have to rely on fact rather than feelings, and on the truth rather than “messaging.”  As I asked earlier: have you ever heard of Carol Swain?  You’ve certainly heard of Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson.  Who is most worthy of the public’s attention?  Discuss.

ps: did you happen to notice the pin Swain was wearing?  Hmmm.

IT’S NOT OVER UNTIL IT’S OVER!

Many readers have asked about consequencse for Angela Cory and her assistants for their malfeasance and statements.  Mark O’Mara had something to say about that at a recent appearance at a Florida luncheon–something encouraging to those that love justice.  From WFTCV.com:  

On Friday, at a Tiger Bay Club luncheon in Orlando, O’Mara detailed the case that garnered national attention.

Mark O’Mara described the struggle he said he went through to get evidence from the prosecution team of Bernie De La Rionda and State Attorney Angela Corey.

He cited the picture of a bloodied Zimmerman, taken the night Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin, as an example.

‘It is undeniable that they had a plan in mind, with the 15 months that we had to get ready, of keeping information from us, and I don’t say that lightly, I really don’t,’ O’Mara told the group.

A member of Corey’s own team was fired and is now suing her office after he testified that prosecutors had kept evidence from O’Mara.

‘You have this type of gamesmanship for the sole purpose of trying to deny a fair trial and, as it turned out, try to convict an innocent man,’ said O’Mara.

And what does O’Mara have in mind?

Angela Corey

I am not done with that motion. I’m not done with Angela Corey. And we are going to be seeing more of each other. We’ll see how that turns out,’ said O’Mara. This is because this is not supposed to be how we practice as lawyers.

Virtually nothing the prosecutors did in the Zimmerman case is how the law is supposed to be practiced or justice upheld.  It will surprise readers not at all to learn that WFTV’s call to Corey’s office for comment was not returned.  It will be interesting indeed to see what consequences follow.  I’ll keep you informed.