Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Bob Owens

Bio

July 11, 2013 - 9:42 am

The mainstream media has done their usual disgraceful best to mislead, misdirect and misinform on the case of State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman, but once the defense rested their case this Wednesday afternoon, anyone who actually watched the trial with even a modicum of rationality could be clear on the results.

The only eyewitness to any part of the fight, John Good, definitively put Trayvon Martin on top of George Zimmerman from a vantage just 17 feet away.

The Sanford Police Department’s chief investigator in the case, Chris Serino, said he thought George Zimmerman told the truth in his numerous interviews and recreation.

Noted forensic pathologist Dr. Vincent Di Maio declared the case very simple “101″ from a forensic perspective, and agreed with Serino: Zimmerman’s story comported with both Zimmerman’s testimony and the evidence in the case.

Dennis Root, a police officer trainer in nondeadly and deadly force and the use of force continuum, examined every witness statement and bit of evidence collected before the trial, accounted for Zimmerman’s docile personality, his inability to defend himself (physically or psychologically), the extreme length of the attack (forty seconds, the average fight length he’s record is five seconds), and concluded that George Zimmerman had no choice but to draw and fire his gun to prevent what he reasonably felt was his immediately impending death.

40 prosecution witnesses and 19 defense witnesses have done nothing to taint George Zimmerman’s very reasonable claim that he was in fear for his life when he drew his gun and fired one shot to stop the relentless assault by Trayvon Martin. Two men made bad decisions that night, but the only crime that took place was a violent attack by Trayvon Martin that sought to use a cold slab of concrete as a deadly weapon. Trayvon Martin used that weapon, and forced George Zimmerman to chose between using his weapon to defend his life when his neighbors refused to intervene, or possibly die. George Zimmerman chose to safe his life.

Regardless of the eventual verdict in this politically charged trial, that truth did come out.

Many of us have postulated that if the trial verdict comes back and George Zimmerman is acquitted, then there may be social unrest, up to and including rioting, looting, and arson. And tensions are indeed high.

Two very smart men have me convinced, however, that it won’t come to that.

Danield Greenfield wrote a brilliantly observant piece called Wrong Side of the Street that I won’t even begin to paraphrase or quote. I encourage your read, and really digest, what he has to say.

The other is outspoken Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, in an interview he recorded just today.

YouTube Preview Image

Starting at about the 8:11 mark, Dershowitz was asked about the possibility of riots, and noted this simply isn’t a Rodney King-type case. Rodney King’s beating was brutal, obvious, and televised to millions. It was the obvious miscarriage justice that caused those riots.

Even the most vocal and strident of Trayvon Martin’s supporters know they don’t know what happened that night, and if they were honest with themselves at any point, they know that this simply isn’t a remotely similar case.

In Greenfield’s article—which I hope you’ve read by now—he notes that what underlies this case at the deepest levels isn’t race, as the media attempts to portray it, but basic views about how men and women view their role in this society.

George Zimmerman, for all his flaws, imperfections, and questionable decisions, was a constitutionally meek and generally honorable man with idealistic goals about the role good men should play in protecting their communities.

Trayvon Martin, for all his cherubic photos, and media whitewashing, was a very troubled young man who believed very strongly in impulsively trying to get whatever he wanted, and did not care if others were hurt if it made him feel better. He was likely incapable of caring about society as a whole. His social media accounts—which were not allowed into evidence in a very questionable decision by a Cliff’s Notes reading Judge—reveal his as violent young man wrapped up in culture of ” Imma get me mine’s” self-gratification at any cost, no matter what others must suffer for a temporary feeling of self gratification. Trayon Martin was a predator of the very society George Zimmerman so desperately felt drawn to protect.

There very well make be some loud protests, and minor crimes if George Zimmerman is found not guilty, for a very simple reason. The overwhelming majority of us are still good people who don’t want to hurt others, and there is nothing in this trial that suggests that society itself is as broken as it was in 1992, despite the worst efforts of Barack Obama’s Justice Department.

Bob Owens blogs at Bob-Owens.com.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
There will be no peaceful division of the Country. It is as impossible today as it was in 1861. The Northeast had spent many millions, mostly from duties and tariffs raised in The South to orient the trade with the Old Northwest and the developing western territories to the East rather than down the Ohio and Missouri Rivers to the Mississippi and New Orleans. Canals, improved roads, and railroads were bringing that vital trade to and through New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Baltimore. At first even New York was saying "Let our erring sisters go" and then they thought about a free trade port of New Orleans in a seceded Confederate state.

The natural resources and agriculture that the Ecotopians on the coasts live off come from the hated Red States of flyover country. They hate us but would attempt to subjugate us in order to keep the resources.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Since I don't consider Alan Dershowitz anything but a fraud and self-aggrandizer, I hold absolutely no stock in anything he says. None. He's s a snake in the grass, a showboat and not to be trusted.

If Zimmerman is acquitted and assuming there are no large scale riots, what you will see beyond a shadow of a doubt are assaults in the name of Trayvon. And that won't be limited to Florida.

Anyone that makes such statements has little understanding of the intense hatred in the black community at large of White America. Blacks are without doubt the most racist demographic in America.

And if blacks don't get their pound of flesh in the verdict, they will coming seeking it one way or another. And the crime will remain mostly silent.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"Even the most vocal and strident of Trayvon Martin’s supporters know they don’t know what happened that night, and if they were honest with themselves at any point, they know that this simply isn’t a remotely similar case."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Honest? Really? The Sharptons and Jacksons of the world don't know the meaning of the word.

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (33)
All Comments   (33)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
The facts are not seriously in dispute in spite of lies, misrepresentation, and speculation, the trial is all about interpretation: a man lies dead, what do we do with the killer?

It will be a travesty if he is found guilty of so much as manslaughter. I don't think you can get more than a dozen people together in most jurisdictions to "riot" about this, and they would be rioting for the sake of rioting, not because of Martin or Zimmerman. At least, it would never have happened even one year ago. Today ... if it comes, bring it on.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
George Zimmerman's predicament serves as a partial answer to the Kitty Genovese question, in that someone crying for help with no one coming to their aid does better when they are armed.

I'm not sure there was time for anyone to directly come to Zimmerman's aid, 40 seconds is not a lot of time to orient yourself to the sound of a crime in progress, convince yourself that this is indeed someone screaming for their life outside your window, and then decide what you need to do to prepare to intervene if you choose to do so. Getting shoes on, for example. Finding a weapon to defend yourself (if need be) is another. Simply making the decision to step out into the gloom into what sounds like a life-and-death struggle is not an easy one in this legal climate. Differentiating between aggressor and victim is not always easy when you've missed the opening festivities, there are incidents on record of well-meaning armed citizens shooting entirely the wrong person (a retired police officer shot an undercover cop in one such incident) with all the attendant civil and criminal liability. Zimmerman's name and character have been excoriated by the paid employees of the state in court for attempting to intervene in a property crime.

They tell us we're supposed to be a community, then punish people when they act like one. Go figure.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There was actually one civilian who saw the crime as it was taking place. He saw Trayvon beating Zimmerman and did ask for Trayvon to stop. He didn't.

Your original comparison to the crime against Kitty Genovese is still very much valid. Kitty Genovese is dead. George Zimmerman is still alive.

Let's hope George stays free.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I must respectfully disagree, Mr. Owens. "These" people WANT insurrection, mayhem and violence and will go to almost any extreme to achieve that. The only reason holding them back is the recent exposure of the DOJ's involvement in pro-prosecution protests which squarely places future violent episodes squarely at Dear Leader's feet...unless he tries the "rogue employee" fiasco once again. I feel its important for the public at large to recognize this will NOT be a regionally confined event; prepare yourselves now. Remember what happened to Reginald Denny....

Remember BENGHAZI!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Mr. Owens forgot that the whole Jussiss fo' Twayvon movement was ginned up months after the incident. A riotous Jussiss fo' Twayvon can again be ginned up by Obama and his fellow community organizing race baiters months from now.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I respectfully agree.

Let us remember Reginald Denny and vow to do our best to not be victims of such violence.

Let us remember those who attacked him as a reminder that evil is very much possible in the hearts of those we would otherwise call neighbors.

Let us also remember his rescuers, who also remind us that heroism is also possible in the hearts of those we call strangers (and I indeed call it heroism--they saved him when the cops and paramedics would not).

Remember Remember.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It has probably slipped the author's radar, but since Trayvon was killed there have been many racially motivated attacks against whites but these don't get reported in the MSM.

If there is rioting, the best we can hope for is that it will primarily affect Democrat Districts.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I lived in the Los Angeles area during both trials of the Rodney King LAPD officers. And the reality is that its not the video, it is the overwhelming media cheerleading that got the mob worked up.

I don't know that we would see rioting if an acquittal comes down, but I'm making sure not to be downtown when a jury verdict is announced.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I hope the author is really on the same planet I am, but I am skeptical. During the Baltimore-Washington pogrom - sorry, the King riots - there were plenty of good, decent Black people walking the streets trying to calm people down - but the rabble-rousers held sway.

How many people saw the trial? Most people have the falsified reports of the MSM, or worse. And I can tell you from talking to people that this is racial litmus test like OJ, maybe worse. Can you blame your average good, decent African American for believing the lies sold to the public by white reporters?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"if they were honest with themselves at any point"

but there's the rub, they aren't.... there WILL be riots if GZ is found not guilty.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Gang members are always the ones who start the riots and riots are bad for the gang leaders business. Zimmerman isn't "the Man" like the LA cops in the Rodney King case. There is know need for them to make a statement.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Alright everyone. Should Zimmerman be convicted and end up in jail, then would you all agree its time to peacefully divide the country? And if not at that point, when? Is there no point at which you would begin to work to do so?

I've written about it so many times I'm sick of rephrasing myself concerning why and how to do it, its practicality, etc., but I am more than happy to answer all questions and comments.

Over the past few years that I've been periodically including it in my comments, I've noticed far less objection, more agreement but mostly a general silence. Are you all afraid to say you're ready? Its a serious question and, no, its not illegal to propose--especially when its an advocation of PEACEFUL secession.

So, please, do speak up!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There will be no peaceful division of the Country. It is as impossible today as it was in 1861. The Northeast had spent many millions, mostly from duties and tariffs raised in The South to orient the trade with the Old Northwest and the developing western territories to the East rather than down the Ohio and Missouri Rivers to the Mississippi and New Orleans. Canals, improved roads, and railroads were bringing that vital trade to and through New York, Philadelphia, Boston, and Baltimore. At first even New York was saying "Let our erring sisters go" and then they thought about a free trade port of New Orleans in a seceded Confederate state.

The natural resources and agriculture that the Ecotopians on the coasts live off come from the hated Red States of flyover country. They hate us but would attempt to subjugate us in order to keep the resources.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
They have in fact subjugated the western states and our resources by withholding the land that should have went to the states. How can Alaska even think we are a state and be on any kind of equal footing with the eastern state, when we have had our land and resources withheld? The eastern states collect property taxes from virtually all their land, and income and trade from their resources, but the federal government owns SEVENTY percent of the land in Alaska and prevents us from harvesting our bountiful resources and developing a booming economy and trade that would make us prosperous and independent, instead keeping us on the welfare of the federal government and dependent on them. The federal government should be compelled to release or sell all the land to the state of Alaska so we the citizens of this state could decide what we wanted to develop and what we wanted for public forest and parks, and have equal standing with all the states east of the Mississippi river, or the state of Alaska should impose a property tax on all the federal land and use eminent domain to seize the release of other lands important to the development of Alaska. It is unconstitutional and UNFAIR for the federal government to own/withhold all this land and resources from the states.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Actually, the same phenomenon has happen in the Northwestern mountain states. Although not quite to the same degree.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Of course the division would need to be at the old Mason Dixon Line, but an argument could be made that the ideological home and current balance of resident ideology would lean toward the Southeast being the home of, at least, the social conservatives.

For the same reasons, the libertarian conservatives would probably be moving to the Northwest while Liberal-land would extend from the Northeast to the Southwest with a corridor of states connecting the two.

I'm not quite seeing where violent conflict would be necessary.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It probably would be close though. Except for the abscesses of big cities and the suburbs full of Democrats fleeing the results of their beloved policies, much of the South and Midwest is Red. Most likely the division would fall along those lines with a liberals having their own new nations on the West Coast and Northeast.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Even though the left seems pretty lock-step in their policies, perhaps a divide amongst their ideology (perhaps extremists v. moderates) might make it conducive to a separate Northeast and Southwest divide. I just think the new nations being contiguous is the way to go.

At any rate, where the exact lines are drawn would be determined by many elements--populations, property values, etc.-- all, hopefully, negotiated in good-faith.

Keep in mind what the left gets out of the current arrangement: a country that is inevitably headed to deeper degrees of socialism and income derived to great extend by those who would be looking to leave. The positive to division of the country from their perspective would be the immediate (though, I suspect, short-term) goody-bag that socialism would offer to at least satisfy their immediate gratification.

But, on balance, the right-leaning states would probably need to make some serious concessions to get the left on board. The degree of compromises will be determined by the strength in number of people looking to leave. But as time goes by, the power of our negotiating position will continue to go downhill. I just wish people would recognize that and not be waiting until our numbers become so weak, we could barely secure any land or even be looked at as consequential.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Sorry, that's "would NOT need to be at the old Mason-Dixon Line.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
With or without an acquittal, I've been practically begging my clan to consider your recommendation for at least three years, mostly on deaf ears because most apparently haven't reached the irreconcilable point, my own wife included.

I reached that conclusion three years ago. Amicably, peacefully if possible without threat - but I'm done with attempting to reason or rationalize with "progressives" and no longer wish to be under their sway. Period. They are my real enemy - and enemy that has made a mockery of Constitution.

I wish I could convince folks progressives/leftists/liberals, take your pick of description, are far more destructive and dangerous to country than any threat of radical jihad. And for the well being of your children and grandchildren, it is time to part ways - the difference irreconcilable, the country hopelessly broken.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Well said, Tex.

I just posted the same question in Andrew McCarthy's column. I hate to do a duplicate, but I've been desperate for feedback--even negative. For all the opinionated people offering up their two-cents worth on this site, there seems to be a real disconnect on this issue.

So I've decided to pose the question as a hypothetical hoping more people will comment. So far, nothing on McCarthy's column.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Since I don't consider Alan Dershowitz anything but a fraud and self-aggrandizer, I hold absolutely no stock in anything he says. None. He's s a snake in the grass, a showboat and not to be trusted.

If Zimmerman is acquitted and assuming there are no large scale riots, what you will see beyond a shadow of a doubt are assaults in the name of Trayvon. And that won't be limited to Florida.

Anyone that makes such statements has little understanding of the intense hatred in the black community at large of White America. Blacks are without doubt the most racist demographic in America.

And if blacks don't get their pound of flesh in the verdict, they will coming seeking it one way or another. And the crime will remain mostly silent.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I find this hard to believe because I come from the same community he came from, even know one of his relatives. He didn't even intend to get involved in trials at all, rather he was asked to by the family of a Jewish Defense League police informant. Then he defended Bernard Bergman, who was made the scapegoat of the NYC Nursing home scandal.

What possible gain is there in defending Orthodox Jews against whom there is a serious press campaign in a city (NYC) where the press is heavily anti-Semitic (especially the Jewish reporters)?

Now I can't tell you if he has changed since. (PS - Don't believe anything he says about his religious education; he always exaggerates it.)
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All