For you students of history looking back on this post eons in the future, I will bring you up to speed about a news item that was receiving copious amounts of coverage at the time of this writing:
In February of 2012 a man named George Zimmerman was driving home one rainy night in central Florida and saw a hooded person acting suspiciously around his neighbors houses where there had been several robberies so he called 911. The suspect ran away, so Zimmerman followed him but either stopped or lost track of him. The suspect, a 17 year old named Trayvon Martin, had continued to the home he was a guest in, talking to his girlfriend on the phone about the “creepy ass cracker” that had been watching him outside and then went back out to jump Zimmerman and beat the shazbot out of him. While getting his face mercilessly boxed by Martin in what one eye witness described as “MMA style ground and pound” Zimmerman used the gun he had on him and shot in self defense. Martin died as police finally arrived. Since the only crime that was committed that night was Martin attacking Zimmerman for having followed him, charges were not filed against Zimmerman. A significant enough outrage however, stoked by race baiters in the media calling for “justice” initiated a trial after all, which was just proved to be a huge waste of time, money and grief for the neighborhood watch volunteer as the jury unanimously ruled that Zimmerman was Not Guilty on all counts. This enraged the people who were told to be enraged if the evidence didn’t support the ruling they wanted and thus rage ensued.
All up to speed? Great. Here’s where I come in: On the night of the verdict, I posted the following moral-of-the-story that anyone anywhere can and should glean from the unfortunate incident in a sort of “DUH” style that illustrates how painfully obvious the conclusion is:
Lesson from the George Zimmerman trial: Don’t attack a stranger on the street just because you think they’re a “creepy ass cracker” or at some point while you’re slamming their bloodied skull against the concrete, they might just use their legal firearm to shoot you and you might die as a result. Dumbasses.
On that status, a few friends debated and opined accordingly as well as some friends-of-friends (my posts are public and open to all to comment and engage with on) who were less articulate and classy in voicing their views of the situation…
Paula Medard, pictured above, later removed the declaration of violence and Pamela le Seur is the one who Liked Medard’s comment threatening me so that’s why she’s included.
Still searching for answers, I asked a question to someone else on my friends list who had posted eloquent and insightful commentary on the subject and this was the reply…
She indeed deleted (or more specifically: blocked) me for asking the question and I have yet to get an answer to it. It’s not rhetorical. Obviously there is a significant amount of people out there who think that it is effed up to not get charged with murder when you don’t murder someone (shots fired in defense of an attack is not murder), so I would greatly like to understand the logic of their impassioned opinions.
Sadly, my calls for non-violence were only met with more threats of violence and being shunned. Only 1 other person publicly announced “I’m deleting you” while 3 others did so silently.
My question remains unanswered and my caution remains the same: Don’t violently attack people just because they annoy you.
Leave a Reply