Saturday, May 19, 2012
So now we know, through evidence released by prosecutors this past week, that George Zimmerman, the 28-year-old superhero-wannabe who shot and killed an unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, FL on February 26th, had wounds on his head and a broken nose. And as expected, ignorant racists nationwide rushed forward with disingenuous cries of "See!?...that proves the kid had attacked him!" But Zimmerman's wounds suggest one thing: that Trayvon fought like an animal to save his life.
Ever since this story hit the press I've been mortified about how Trayvon has been vilified as the aggressor when all evidence points to him being the one who desperately needed to exercise his state's Draconian 'Stand Your Ground' law. For the life of me I don't understand why the media has not explored this angle more than it has. The simple fact remains here: that a grown man with a gun, safe in his locked car, against the implicit instruction of a 911 police operator, left that car to pursue, confront and kill a child (yes, racists, under the age of eighteen one is legally considered a child) who was holding nothing more than a bag of Skittles and an iced tea.
What exactly does 'stand your ground' mean if not to fight like an animal to save your life when you believe it's being threatened with deadly force? Why does the fact that Zimmerman suffered wounds serve as evidence that Trayvon initiated the scuffle? To the contrary, Zimmerman's wounds reinforce that the kid bravely came at his attacker with everything he had. That after screaming for help seventeen times in a desolate area he fought furiously to save himself from being shot dead...something he unfortunately failed to do. Why is no one talking about how it was Trayvon who 'stood his ground?' Why does it seem that this law is only being discussed as it applies to Zimmerman?
As for Zimmerman's claim of self-defense? Bullshit. That defense went out the window the second he stepped from his locked car with a loaded semi-automatic weapon.