Why Was Racism Introduced Following the Shooting Death of Trayvon Martin?

August 12, 2013 at 6:27 PM 2 comments

Why Was Racism Introduced Following the Shooting Death of Trayvon Martin?Attorney Arthur Weinreb discusses the facts of the case

I would like to believe that I look at facts before making a decision. I would hope that this is the case. I realize that in this particular case, facts are few and testimony is largely from Zimmerman. It’s not as if this rarely happens. Many situations involving crimes rely on the testimony of one person and any corroborating evidence either supports or negates that testimony.

What is most troubling (aside from the fact that a young man was killed) is that racism was introduced into the picture soon after it became a news item. It seems apparent that this case was portrayed as racist from the beginning. One network went so far as to edit the police call from Zimmerman to make him appear to be a racist in what he said. Another network introduced Zimmerman as a “white/Hispanic,” in spite of the fact that Zimmerman sees himself as a Hispanic. He’s also a Democrat and voted for Obama in 2008, but that wasn’t newsworthy.

It was important for the media to portray Zimmerman as a white man vs. an unarmed black man. This allowed race-baiters like Sharpton to claim racism and to once again use politically correct methods to assign guilt to the white race as a whole. It’s his favorite card to play and he gets a lot of mileage out of it. In politically correct terms, whites (and especially white males) are seen as the oppressors and everyone else is the victim. This is why Zimmerman’s skin was emphasized as being white. Hispanics are considered victims as well so it wouldn’t have worked (as well) to have one victim against another victim.

Eventually, Sharpton stopped referring to Zimmerman as a “white/Hispanic” and simply called him “white.” Wonder what he would say if we referred to Mr. Obama (whose mother is white) in such a way? The race card would be played quicker than a minion can say “WHAT?”

There is a new book out, written by a criminal lawyer named Arthur Weinreb, from Canada, called “Racism and the Death of Trayvon Martin.” He has something to say about the case that I think is a worthwhile read. Cost is $4.99 and it’s 33 pages as an immediate download.

Weinreb notes, “Zimmerman, the Sanford Police Department, Angela Corey, Bernie De La Rionda, the rest of the prosecution team and the jury all have one thing in common. They agree that events that occurred in the early evening of February 26, 2012, had absolutely nothing to do with race. To believe the killing of Trayvon Martin was a racist act, one would have to believe that the Sanford police, the state prosecutors and the jury were themselves racist and conspired to cover up any evidence of Zimmerman shooting Martin because he was an African-American.” [1] Unfortunately, I believe that’s easy for some to do, based on political correctness.

Weinreb has a lot to say about the situation. He breaks it down for us and offers his legal analysis. He delves into the Stand Your Ground law in Florida as well as the self-defense laws. He discusses the specific charges against Zimmerman and what the jury had to deal with in order to arrive at a conclusion. In eleven chapters and thirty-three pages, Weinreb breaks down the situation leading up to the time of the shooting until the jury verdict. He also even discusses facts about Zimmerman that the media never discussed, most likely because it did not serve their agenda.

This is the major problem with political correctness. It too often sets facts aside making decisions based on emotional virtue. If your heart goes out to Trayvon Martin more than you feel anything for Zimmerman, then you are likely to believe the media’s claim that racism played a part in this tragedy from start to finish. Political correctness uses emotion to bring people to conclusions.

The so-called news bureaus long ago stopped reporting the news. Now, they make it. They decide how everything is reported based on the type of reaction they want to have from listeners and viewers. I don’t watch any news channel. I obtain my news from alternative sources on the Internet. I ignore ALL mainstream news sources.

For the left, it’s all about political correctness. They believe only what they strikes the heart of their emotions. They make decisions based on how the information grabs them. Politically correct thinkers can ignore actual facts. That’s not a problem. They latch onto things that create emotional impressions. Yet, it is amazing that the prosecution in Zimmerman’s trial never argued that Zimmerman used racial epithets to describe blacks. They never indicated or implied that what Zimmerman did was based on race. Yet, there are people today – thanks to Al Sharpton and the media – who firmly believe that Zimmerman stalked, hunted, and killed Martin because he was black. Why didn’t the prosecution bring that up? After all, they charged him with 2nd Degree Murder.

It’s gotten so bad that a 100 foot mural depicting George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin in the back of the head is being praised by many. Unfortunately, it does not represent what we know about the case. Yet, it appeals to the way people feel about it, so therefore, to them, this mural is truth. It’s actually representative of emotional virtue, not truth.

Arthur Weinreb puts forth some answers. If you choose to read his short book, you of course, will either accept or reject his logic. It’s up to you. The one thing I would ask is that you try to set aside your emotions in the matter and simply look at what can be determined. If you can’t support your emotions with facts, then shouldn’t you toss our your emotions as the means of arriving at conclusions?

[1] Arthur Weinreb. Racism and the Death of Trayvon Martin (Kindle Locations 777-782). Decoded Science.

Entry filed under: Gun Control, Political Correctness, Politically Correct, Racism. Tags: , , .

Jesus, the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 Each New Generation Must Learn the Difference Between Relativism and Absolute Truth

2 Comments

  • 1. Sherry  |  August 17, 2013 at 6:02 PM

    But then there are those like myself who was on Trayvon’s side because of the evidence-particularly the gunshot location in both of the shirts Trayvon was wearing and which was testified to by Dr. DiMaio in the trial (which the state didn’t pick up on! grr!). Zimmerman held Trayvon down and those were defense punches he was wailing on Zimmerman with to get away from him (also verified in the phone transcripts with Trayvon’s friend).

    I, and a few others, had “shoes thrown at us” from both sides. It wasn’t about racism and I think those who got stuck on that meme, both pro and con, decided the case without thoroughly looking over the evidence. So much misinfo all around! 😮

    • 2. modres  |  August 17, 2013 at 6:09 PM

      I know, Sherry. I wish this whole situation could have been judged on the facts of the case itself. Unfortunately, the race-baiters wanted this to be about race from the beginning and are now trying to pretend that’s not what they meant. Of course, now people are calling to lynch the jurors because they are racists for finding Zimmerman innocent. It never ends.

      If you are inclined to buy and download that book, it’s worth the read. I appreciate it because it comes from a strictly legal perspective.


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 6,213 other followers

Donate to Study-Grow-Know 501 (3)(c) Non-Profit)

Study-Grow-Know Archives

Blog Stats

  • 724,527 hits

%d bloggers like this: