Friday, March 23, 2012

The Best Summary of the Trayvon Martin Case

http://destructure.wordpress.com/2012/03/20/trayvon-martin-faq/

Honestly, this case shouldn't be news at the national or frankly, even the state level.  But because of the false narrative that the MSM is hell-bent on pushing, it is.  Therefore I link to the best summary I've found.

Some key points that should not be in serious dispute:
Trayvon was not some tiny preteen.  He was a 17 year old football player at minimum 6' tall.  The picture most circulated is 3 years or more old.
Zimmerman is a Hispanic man, most specifically, a Mestizo
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2012/03/missing-m-word-in-george-zimmerman.html
He's not the Aryan Avenger Vigilante that he's portrayed as.
The police on the scene and the witnesses interviewed tell a story consistent with Zimmerman engaging in self-defense, not some racially-motivated cold-blooded execution.  Most likely because of the credibility of this self-defense narrative, they didn't arrest him.

It is pretty disgusting how the MSM is slanting the presentation.  My guess is after the smoke clears and Zimmerman is exonerated by the legal system, and the ensuing riots and double jeopardy by Holder's civil wrongs department, there will be hell to pay for slander in the civil courts. 

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

How is that you know details about the deceased that no one else seems to know? I'd like to see a source and proof that the picture is 3 years old.

Hail said...

GZ was wrong to confront what-appeared-to-be a Black thug. That is the implied moral lesson in all this, even for those who concede the points you raise.

As we know, in our Multicultacracy, a 'White' is supposed to cower away in such cases.

(Everyone seems to think Zimmerman is White, so for the purposes of the narrative, he is).

That is the truly disturbing thing in all this.

VA said...

There is a whole series of links on the Destructure blog, with a set of FAQs about the incident. The issue of his picture being several years old is covered, as is the issue of his size and description.
The police report listing his height, etc. is here.
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Twin%20Lakes%20Shooting%20Initial%20Report.pdf

Hail said...

Can someone get a firm answer on who GZ's father was? Was he Jewish? Or was he only adopted by a Jewish family?

If the father is Jewish, then we have had two major 'killing' stories in the Western world in the past week that involved ten people or so in total, with not even one being of even partial-European-descent: An Arab in France killed seven(?) people, Arabs, a Black, and a Jewish family; a Mestizo with a putative Jewish connection killed a Black thug who was attacking him.

Notice that, despite no persons of European ancestry being involved in either case, 'White Racists' were blamed. Immediately and vigorously.

These two cases are instructive, not to mention blatant -- I think they can be used to convince any even-close-to-impartial observer that our Multicultacracies are fundamentally animated by anti-White radicalism.

Hail said...

Jehu, Destructure has a link to the audio of GZ's 911 call, at the bottom of the page.

GZ does not sound Hispanic. He sounds calm but a little frightened. He describes 'Trayvon', looking like a thug, apparently scoping out houses, at nighttime and in the rain. 'Trayvon' spots GZ and approaches him, realizes he is being watched. 'Trayvon' starts running. GZ follows, not wanting another burglar to escape. (GZ had told the dispatcher that there had been "some break-ins in my neighborhood", hence his concern).

Why did 'Trayvon' run?

Jehu said...

Anonymous and Hail,
Destructure's links cover the police reports, the 911 calls, etc. Zimmerman's ancestry is discussed on the link from Steve Sailer. I understand he's Catholic. I don't fault Zimmerman for trying to prevent the degradation of his neighborhood.

Hail said...

Zimmerman's involvement in the Catholic Church does not exclude the possibility of Jewish ancestry.

Everywhere I look, I see only speculation on this matter. Some seem under the impression that his father (or adopted father?) is of Jewish background.

Hail said...

To expand on my comment above, marked Mar 24 2012 02:10 AM ("Why did 'Trayvon' run?"):

Commenter Karissa at Destructure establishes that [Barack Hussein Obama's postmortemly-adopted son] almost certainly came back to the scene to confront Zimmerman. Z did not follow [Barack Hussein Obama's postmortemly-adopted son] and hunt him down, like Black ethnic activists and their supporters have been hysterically asserting.

He ran off, but came back.

Why run? If one runs off, why return? 'Trayvon' does sound like he was on drugs, or at least in a rage for some reason.

Jehu said...

Hail,
If you look Mestizo and you're a reasonably active Catholic, that's likely how you're going to be pigeonholed by a reasonable observer (i.e., anyone but a motivated MSM).

Anonymous said...

How could you defend this man he had no right to shoot this defend less and helpless kid, he might have been 17 but according to the law he is still a minor. No where in the constitution does it justify murdering a kid who didn't even have a single weapon on him. This poor child was just walking home... there is nothing suspicious about that. That could have been anyone who was coming home and all of a sudden a random guy is following you. Zimmerman is the one who held up the gun and pulled the trigger and he should be sent to jail because what he did was extremely wrong and highly unconstitutional. Zimmerman should have to live with the moral decision of taking the life of a kid who hadn't even lived yet. Terrible watchman if you ask me... RIP Trayvon Martin

Jehu said...

Anonymous,
You're allowed to defend yourself from someone who attacks you with fists with a weapon. Besides, a 17 year old football player hardly counts as defenseless. His age is not at issue, and I don't understand how the hell you drag the US constitution into the matter.

Hail said...

The Dead Black Thug was suspended from school. We learn today that they found drugs in his possession at his school.

There is reasonable suspicion that he was thus dealing drugs.

Anonymous said...

And to put the lie to the claim that if a black man were to shoot a white man he would be in jail, we have this.

Hillbilly Fairy said...

Last I heard dealing drugs isnt punishable by death in any court. But judging by the tone of this Klan blog ( which I fell into via Google ) I don't expect you to feel any compassion. No matter who is "guilty" and who is the "victim" this is a sad story. If GZ is indeed innocent, he will nevertheless have this child's blood on his hands and he will have to live with that. And Trayvon will still be dead. What is important are the lessons we could learn. Are you open to that?

Jehu said...

Hillbilly,
The Klan hasn't been a serious force since at least the 60s. Random black criminals kill way more white people than the Klan (even if we sweep up all other pro-white groups of a militant bent under that umbrella) has ever killed of black people and insanely more if you just want to compare year to year. Yet you persist in bringing them up. Why is that?
Most likely GZ acted in self-defense. Any post-traumatic stress he experiences is unfortunate, but shared with thousands of US soldiers who also have to kill from time to time.
Hopefully there are others in a similar boat to TM who will realize that attacking someone can get you shot, even if they did 'disrespect' you. That would be a valuable lesson.
Hopefully at least some in the media have learned the consequences of deliberately getting a story wrong.

Anonymous said...

Hey Al Sharpton, what about Zachary Marco. Wasn't he hunted down like a dog and killed. All for a laptop and cell phone.

My bad, he was white and the alleged killers were black. Never mind.

Anonymous said...

Because its how are justice system works? And a mans rights are only stated in the Constitution...brush up on your social studies!

Jehu said...

Anonymous, re: the Constitution (Anonymous commenters---it would be easier if you'd adopt a psuedonym of some sort).

The Constitution of the US isn't in the business of granting rights. You're probably thinking of the Bill of Rights anyway. The Constitution and Bill of Rights was intended pretty much solely as a constraint on what government was allowed to do. The Bill of Rights granted no rights, it simply recognized that rights were believed to exist. The US Supreme Court used to recognize this, as in the quote below from Cruikshank

The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.