We’re supposed to accept that Zimmerman was a hater of blacks despite all the evidence to the contrary * – meanwhile, Saint Trayvon (and his acolytes) can openly refer to non-blacks as “crackers” – on live TV! – and receive polite attention from the likes of Piers Morgan, et al.
We’re supposed to be “concerned” that Zimmerman would “profile” a young black guy dressed in a hoodie wandering through his neighborhood… even though the odds of any given young black guy dressed in a hoodie (and so on) actually being a criminal are very high given that this demographic is disproportionately involved in criminal activity relative to its numbers. In other words, it is not “racist” (mindless, irrational prejudice) to be more suspicious of a young black male who looks and acts a certain way.
It is rational – and reasonable.
Just as it is rational and reasonable (i.e., to make inferences based on evidence) when one “profiles” two well-scrubbed young white guys in white dress shirts and black slacks riding their bicycles up your driveway. It’s a good bet they’re Mormon missionaries.
There is no malignant intent involved in such (or similar) evaluations. Certainly no harm done (hurt feelings don’t count). No aggression has been committed – and so, no one’s rights have been violated.
Yes, it is unfortunate that decent young black men are caught up in this, but that fact in no way impugns the legitimate fear based on actual facts that people have of young black men – especially when they fit the profile. And Saint Trayvon – not the cute kid in the dated photo endlessly recycled by a viciously dishonest news media, but Saint Trayvon as he actually appeared that night – fit the profile. Thug clothes. Thug gold teeth and tats. But most of all, thug attitude and responses. He physically assaulted Zimmerman – probably because he felt “disrespected” (odious ghetto malaprop). This is what led to the tragedy. Not Zimmerman’s entirely reasonable “profiling” of Saint Trayvon. That entailed no violence – a critical point. Zimmerman was simply checking out a person he had reason to believe might be up to no good.
Saint Trayvon may have found this insulting. I sympathize with that. He certainly had every right to ask Zimmerman why he was following him. Even to curse him. Ideally, he should have just walked away. But until Zimmerman laid hands on him – and there is no evidence that happened – Saint Trayvon had no right to do anything more. Because no one has the right to initiate physical violence against another person.
Yet his defenders (for example, the creator of The Wire; see here) believe, apparently, that it is an acceptable thing for a “disrespected” young black to physically lash out – to beat a man who has not attacked him to a bloody pulp – and that it is not acceptable for the object of this abuse to physically defend himself.
Zimmerman is supposed to have accepted his earned (as Saint Trayvon’s defenders see it) beat-down for even thinking that a young black man wandering through the neighborhood might be up to something and looking into it . . . and meanwhile, Zimmerman is not entitled to assume the worst about the unknown man assaulting him (as if, in mid-scuffle, Zimmerman could possibly discern the difference between 17-year-old but athletic and 6ft 3 Saint Trayvon on his chest, pounding his face in, and an 18-year-old doing the pounding in). That his life could not possibly be in danger from the unknown, but gold-toothed, thug-dressed and (obviously) thug-acting 6ft 3 young man bashing his head into the concrete… that his unknown assailant would never kill him… never find his gun and use it to shoot him… oh no. To even think such thoughts is – cue cards up – racist.
Lying there on the ground, with a physically superior man on top of him and wailing away, Zimmerman – as Saint Trayon’s defenders view things – had no cause (much less right) to resort to using that gun to defend himself. He was the aggressor. For daring to think that a young black man wandering through the neighborhood might possibly be up to no good – because it is thought-crime to allow the datum that young black men are disproportionately involved in criminal acts to enter into any judgment, even something as harmless as heightened suspicion. That was – and is – Zimmerman’s crime most of all – in the view of post-racial racists. Unfortunate – and yes, ugly – facts (but facts nonetheless) must be suppressed. We are all supposed to pretend that – kumbaya – young black men who dress and act a certain way are no more worthy of suspicion or fear than old white ladies pruning petunias.
Saint Trayvon is dead not because George Zimmerman was an itchy-triggered racist but because Saint Trayvon was a belligerent thug with a hair-trigger temper and flying fists. Kids on a Skittles run don’t cold-cock adults who’ve done them no physical harm – much less bash their heads into the concrete.
That’s what thugs do.
People aren’t out to get blacks. They’re just getting sick of black thugs and their enablers and apologists. Tired of the idiot demagoguery of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, who feed off human misery – and human ignorance – like maggots off a corpse.
Throw it in the Woods?
* Zimmerman mentored young blacks; he also publicly protested what he considered to be the maltreatment of a black man at the hands of the police. There is not only no evidence that Zimmerman bore race-hatred toward blacks, there is much evidence to the contrary. The vile Al Sharpton – a person who should have been excommunicated from civil society 20 years ago – knew all this before he began his vicious campaign of race-baiting against Zimmerman.
* Zimmerman was a mentor to young black kids; he led a protest against the police after a homeless black man was the object of excessive use of force by police.