- Chicken pox outbreak puts illegal immigrant facility on lockdown
- Obama to Republicans: ‘Stop just hatin’ all the time’
- U.S. chemical sites vulnerable despite millions spent on security: Congress
- Driverless cars to hit the British streets by 2015
- GOP presses to scrap IRS commissioner position — but put in panel
- New bill would make sure women in military can get free birth control
- Trafficking bust reveals worries over missing kids; minors as young as 11 found
- Catholic League slams Obama: ‘Do Christian lives mean so little to you?’
- National laboratory cancels ‘Southern Accent Reduction’ classes after outcry
- U.S. woman with Ebola is stable, improving, son says
WILLIAMS: The Zimmerman/Martin impasse and unasked questions
Question of the Day
What more can be said about the George Zimmerman trial that has not been said? It seems that two sides have staked out their territory and are not budging.
On one side, we have those who are looking at the case purely through a lawyerly lens. The evidence did not rise to beyond a reasonable doubt; therefore the verdict of not guilty was correct. On the other side, we have those representing Trayvon Martin as the avatar of racial problems in America. Trayvon’s blackness was the catalyst for the “white” Mr. Zimmerman’s actions and acquittal.
Both sides talk past each other without listening.
So many times I hear or read inaccurate accounts of the trial and evidence. Very few people listened to all seven hours of closing arguments, much less tracked down coroner reports, read through the entire Zimmerman call to police, or listened to Rachel Jeantel’s recollection of Trayvon’s last phone conversation. So whenever someone complains about the trial by brandishing a blatant error, one side perceives the other to lose all credibility. No amount of explaining the facts of the case, as known, will move the other person.
On the other hand, when President Obama tried to explain why so many in the black community were moved by this case, that they saw themselves or their sons as Trayvon, many shouted that Mr. Obama was trying to incite a race war. They claim race does not matter, but by not listening to people’s concerns, they shut themselves off from understanding and the ability to help overcome prejudice.
There will be a civil suit against Mr. Zimmerman by Trayvon’s family. The American Civil Liberties Union has recommended that the Department of Justice not try Mr. Zimmerman for federal civil rights violation or hate crimes, and Justice likely will not have the evidence to convict. However, whatever the department decides will thrust the case back into the spotlight and reignite the same tired arguments.
We have entertainers and celebrities calling for a boycott of Florida. I am at a loss to figure out how taking income away from citizens of Florida — no matter their race, creed or color — equals justice for Trayvon. The NAACP, the Rev. Al Sharpton, and the Rev. Jesse Jackson have all called for protests and vigils on Trayvon’s behalf.
Youths have shouted “This is for Trayvon” while committing crimes. In Baltimore, 10 black youths were videotaped mercilessly beating a white kid to avenge the injustice of Trayvon. A similar incident happened this past weekend in the District’s Adams Morgan neighborhood. Where is the outcry from the mainstream media? Do we have one standard of justice for black victims and couldn’t care less if whites are beaten to a pulp or killed?
The first posttrial sighting of Mr. Zimmerman happens when he helped a family of four out of their overturned vehicle. Both sides waiting with bated breath to hear if the family was white or black.
The left has decided to crusade against “stand your ground laws” despite the statute not being used as a defense in the Zimmerman trial.
Obviously, this case hits at something deeper and has become a catch-all for other issues. What I find interesting are the questions no one is asking.
First, does this case tell us how the black and white communities view Hispanics? Mr. Zimmerman was quickly identified as “white” or “white Hispanic.” I notice white people tend to quickly note his Peruvian heritage, even going so far as to ask if this would make Mr. Obama a “white African-American?”
The “white” conservatives seem quick to defend Mr. Zimmerman (a registered Democrat and Obama voter), but won’t claim him. If Republicans dislike Hispanics, why do they insist on defending one? Is it because of the rule of law or because of the leftist meme that “they just hate blacks more”? Do blacks now see all Hispanics as “white”? If Mr. Zimmerman were more “brown,” would that have made a difference?
About the Author
TWT Video Picks
- Geraldo Rivera: Matt Drudge 'doing his best to stir up a civil war'
- Lois Lerner hated conservatives, new emails show
- Catholic League slams Obama: 'Do Christian lives mean so little to you?'
- CARSON: Rudderless U.S. foreign policy
- Patent workers paid to exercise, shop, do chores: report
- Fla. mom arrested for allowing 7-year-old son to walk to park alone
- Obama thanks Muslims for 'building the very fabric of our nation'
- Obama mum on where illegal immigrant children are sheltered
- National laboratory cancels 'Southern Accent Reduction' classes after outcry
- Federal judge grants 90-day stay in D.C. gun case
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world