Now let's assume that many of the accounts are accurate. Here's how the situation seems to have come together. Zimmerman knew there was a history of break ins in the neighborhood. He sees a guy he does not recognize, and believes this might be a party responsible for said break ins. Now I'm not going to get in to any idea of racial profiling, because there is no HARD EVIDENCE to suggest he was profiling. Yes Zimmerman did identify Martin as black, BUT ONLY WHEN THE OPERATOR ASKED HIM WHAT RACE HE WAS. He was only answering a question. Now you can argue in his mind he was profiling just not saying it... well actually you can't, BECAUSE THERE IS NO HARD EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT. Regardless, Zimmerman follows Martin, who becomes aware of this fact. Martin is now scared that he is being followed, and tries to get away. When Zimmerman leaves his car in search of Martin, Martin surprises him, and after the two fight, Zimmerman shoots and kills Martin.
Ok, here's the deal. I can definitely see Martin being afraid. If I was just walking around in the rain and noticed someone following me at night (and maybe Martin is aware of the recent crimes in the area too and is now even more frightened) I'd be kinda freaked out. However, I would not attack the person, I would call the cops myself, and gee... maybe the two 911 operators (or at least the cops that would show up) would figure out the idiocy of the current situation and no one would be shot.
Ok, now here's the big moment. Did Martin attack Zimmerman? Or was it the other way around? Ok guys... this is the part that you have to understand. It doesn't matter. Now before you condemn me to death over that comment, hear me out. Where are the hard facts that PROVE Zimmerman started the fight with Martin? Here's the thing with the American legal system, all people are innocent until PROVEN guilty. Yes the prosecution danced around whether or not Zimmerman's statements were accurate or not... but when it comes right down to it, they were unable to actually prove it. Yes this system does let some guilty men slip through the cracks, but the reverse is far worse. If people are guilty until proven innocent, you would have the worst society on earth. Tyranny is the result from that kind of thinking. "Oh you spoke out against the government? You're now accused of some murder you have no connection to but are unable to prove your innocence. Have fun rotting in jail."
What angers me the most about the outcry on this verdict are the reactions from people I used to think were good thinkers. I hear some people crying out racial profiling. I saw one status that said, "You shot him just because he's black, do you feel macho with your gun?" Which leads me to believe we have an issue of "gun profiling." I am now seeing a wave of idiots on my facebook who now equate gun ownership with being a murderer. They profile that if someone owns a gun, they must be violent... yet they yell and scream at racial profiling... hypocrites. Saying "Tom owns a gun, he must be violent" makes even less sense than saying "Bob owns a guitar, he must be a rock sensation."
So if this post made you hate me and unfriend me, then fine. If the fact that I disagree with you is something you just can't handle, then I hope you enjoy your sheltered little life. If you attack me for my thoughts regarding innocent until proven guilty, then I hope you stay the hell away from politics. Finally, if you now hate me because of one little blog, dear merciful lord, how do you still have friends?
No comments:
Post a Comment