Update: August 27th, 2013.
A great deal has happened in my part of the world since the terribly sad outcome of the George Zimmerman trial.
I wrote about Zimmerman in the past, the article below I wrote in April, 2012. I wanted to write about the Zimmerman case, as I had written about the Casey Anthony trial, but couldn’t bring myself to do it – knowing that once I started, I wouldn’t be able to stop.
That may sound odd, but the truth is, the horribleness of this case, and now its outcome, is terribly depressing. Life is hard enough, I thought then, why go down that road of despair? How could I write everything that needs to be said about the case and the verdict?
It’s too important to be taken lightly or to simply “blog” about.
I feel that writing about this moment in history is so serious and would take such devotion on my part, that I’d need to give it my full, undivided, attention – to do it justice.
So, instead of writing about it, I let it simmer in me.
The simmer – what I feel is not exactly “rage”, but its cousin.
I think of this case and its outcome every single day and now, today, Mark O’Mara, Zimmerman’s lead defense attorney, is asking the state of Florida to cover Zimmerman’s bill! Yes, a million would cover it, thank-you-very-much-Florida.
So, I’m outraged more. Paying Zimmerman’s legal bill????
It’s UNFAIR. At least on moral ground. As for legal ground, I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer. It must be legal for O’Mara to ask, and I don’t blame him for asking – that’s what lawyers do. But, shouldn’t O’Mara at least try to walk on a higher ground? Couldn’t he let the people of Florida get over this before pouring salt into this still bleeding wound? Haven’t we suffered enough over this terrible tragedy?
Makes me angry. Really angry.
Zimmerman never apologized, as far as I know. And during the trial, he never showed one ounce of remorse for the murder (it will always be murder no matter what the verdict of 6 people.) of a defenseless young teenager.
A child with loving parents. Strong parents. Good parents.
The jury didn’t see Trayvon the child. They didn’t see him for the child he was; they saw him as a young hoodie-wearing-soon-to-be-hoodlum-because-they-knew-that’s-what-all-young-black-men-are.
Had the jury thought of Trayvon as THEIR son, as THEIR child, I don’t think they could have let Zimmerman walk away, get away, with murder.
No. The jury didn’t see their child. They didn’t see their duty to protect this child – their child.
The jury saw a young black man, probably up to no good, and a good, upstanding man with a license to kill, doing what good white men do – stand their ground because they have a gun to do it with.
What does this say to young men today? It says: Beware – you are targets in Florida. Don’t drink your Arizona Ice Tea or your Skittles while black.
I have friends who, over the years, have referred to their status as a citizen behind the wheel of an automobile (especially an expensive car), as “Driving While Black.” They have to be hyper-vigilant and it’s incredibly sad – beyond the beyond of disgusting.
It’s a given that young black men are racially targeted; it’s a given they are profiled; it’s a given they are increasingly disadvantaged economically and socially, but must we pour more money to the Gun-toting Southern white man’s sense of superiority?
Let’s give more money to the cracker-ass white men like Zimmerman who think nothing of starving their beast.
But, don’t get me started.
April 2, 2012: In Richard III, one of Shakespeare’s greatest tragedies, the character of Richard – who will do anything to be King of England – accuses Lord Hastings of all things foul, and thus Hastings is murdered.
In a video revealed today by ABC News, George Zimmerman’s head (as he’s being led out of a police car), appears injured and red. Does the fact that Zimmerman appears to have an injured head make any difference?
No. No. A thousand times, no.
However, it IS important insofar as it supports Zimmerman’s claim to have acted in self-defense, claiming he’d been attacked by Trayvon Martin.
Yeah. And, so what?
As we know, Zimmerman claims he shot Trayvon Martin in self defense, stating that the young man, armed with a very dangerous bag of Skittles, pounded his head into the ground and bloodied his nose……
Wait. Back up. We don’t know if that is true or not! And even if it is true, so what?!
Like the sign the guy in the above photo is holding – “They never stop & frisk old white guys like me.” (I love that he’s wearing a blindfold like Lady Justice in the photo.)
It’s true. We live in the land of the free, where people, no matter who they are, should be able to walk down any street while eating candy as it rains.
Just My Opinion:
Here’s what I think may have happened that night:
- Zimmerman sees a young man in his neighborhood that he does not recognize and calls the police. Why? Because Zimmerman realizes that the boy is black. Strike one against Trayvon, he’s walking while black. Clearly in Zimmerman’s mind that spells trouble.
- While Zimmerman is talking to the police operator, during his first call, it sounds like he’s walking. Was he following Trayvon? (Oh, he’s following in self-defense – that’s right, I forgot that detail.)
- Trayvon surely must sense that he’s being followed, or stalked by a man he doesn’t recognize.
- Does Trayvon fear Zimmerman because he’s white? Possibly. But more likely, he’s afraid because he’s being watched and followed. I would be terrified.
- Zimmerman hangs up with the dispatch, talks to the Police who tell him NOT to take action.
- Does Zimmerman continue to stalk / follow Trayvon? Does Zimmerman get too close? Does he purposely appear threatening? Does he brandish his gun?
- If Zimmerman brandished his gun, Trayvon may have, in a fight for his life, attempted to disable Zimmerman – separate him from his gun, to save his young life.
- Did Zimmerman lay hands on Trayvon maybe to question him? Why? He’s not a police-person.
- Common sense tells me Zimmerman was likely holding his gun. People who carry guns do so because they want to use them. That’s just common sense, right?
- Did Trayvon see that gun and try to save his life by jumping on Zimmerman to try to disarm him?
- Was Zimmerman too strong for Trayvon?
- Did Trayvon, realizing he is no match against Zimmerman, now try to run away to save his life? Or did he fall, screaming out and afraid of the man and the gun?
These things we may never really know, but we do know that Trayvon was crying out, afraid that he was going to be shot. Who shoots to kill someone who’s unarmed and crying?
I will not go so far as to say Zimmerman murdered the young Trayvon because I do not know what really happened. I only know there is something very wrong and a young man with an Ice Tea and a bag of candy should not be gunned down.
Florida and it’s NRA – written, Jeb Bush backed “Stand Your Ground” law is horrifying, senseless, and unconstitutional as far as I am concerned. The Second Amendment to the Constitution did not want a bunch of Zimmerman’s running around, in my opinion.
So, I won’t say “Off with his head,” about Zimmerman. If he’s guilty of manslaughter or murder, he’ll have his day in court. He’ll face Florida laws, which is what I’m afraid of.
Today in South Florida, while a gunman made his way into the Broward County Courthouse (read story), and while a golfer was shot and killed in the back, on the golf course, our lawmakers in Tallahassee are pushing a new gun bill that is backed / written by the National Rifle Association (NRA).
The purpose of the bill? To loosen current regulations on the use of gun and ammunition ownership, and to prohibit lawmakers in Florida from fashioning stricter gun laws that would change or supersede the law.
Senator Joe Negron (R), has been working with the NRA for six months to craft this bill. Negron said it’s entirely coincidental that this bill was filed this week while the tragedy in Tuscon was unfolding.
As if that is not bad enough, Senator Greg Evers (R), and Rep. Jason Brodeur (R) filed identical bills that would make it a felony for health care professionals (doctors or any medical provider), to inquire about whether a patient has access to firearms.
Currently in Broward County, a three day waiting period (a “cooling off” period) is in place, and has been law since 2001. Negron’s bill would do away with the cooling off period entirely. In addition, the law would prohibit all lawmakers from making changes to the gun laws once this bill is in effect. All of Florida would have to abide by one state gun law, one standard as opposed to variations from county to county.
The second amendment says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
I interpret the second amendment this way: A member of a MILITIA, who is protecting the state, has the right to bear arms. Do you read it this way, too?
The founders were not giving all people the right to bear arms.
Is the NRA so powerful, mighty, and rich, they purchased the second amendment? I feel they have. They own it.
Therefore, the second amendment should read: A well regulated NRA, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Incidentally, why do we need high-powered guns? Well, of course we need to add assault weapons to the second amendment, too!
How’s this: A well regulated NRA, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear assault weapons, shall not be infringed.
Oh, and Glocks, like the one used by the Tuscon madman, are very common now. And Uzi’s they’re popular, too.
So, we need to change the amendment again. It should read: A well regulated NRA, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Glocks, Uzi machine guns and other assault weapons, shall not be infringed.
Yes. That makes better sense, and it fits the reality of our neighborhoods with greater accuracy. As a matter of fact, in Massachusetts, a trial just concluded that involved an Uzi and an 8 year old. The Sherriff in charge of the gun show was on trial, facing manslaughter for putting on a gun fair in which an 8 year old boy was killed. The Sherriff was found not guilty.
An 8 year old boy used an Uzi submachine gun at a gun fair.
Correction: This incident happened at a gun range that was connected to the gun fair. The father of the 8 year boy wanted his son to have his first experience using a gun – an Uzi. Although workers at the gun show attempted to dissuade the father from allowing his son to use the Uzi, as they felt it inappropriate for a boy his age, the father insisted. The father signed a waiver allowing his son to use the assault weapon, and set about videotaping his son using the gun. That is when the gun went off.
The Sheriff was found not guilty and the father was not charged. Asked why the father was not charged, the DA explained that the father will feel guilty the rest of his life.
Now the second amendment looks like this: A well regulated NRA, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of children and adults to keep and bear Glocks, Uzi machine guns and other assault weapons, shall not be infringed.
There are so many guns in our communities; the second amendment has come true.
Our neighbors are the militia now. But, here’s the rub: No one regulates this militia of madmen but the madmen themselves, as we have seen in Tuscon, and as we see all across the country every single day.
A well regulated NRA, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of madmen, children and adults to keep and bear Glocks, Uzi machine guns and other assault weapons, shall not be infringed.
That’s more like it.