Jump to content

The Legend of Trayvon Martin


AUFAN78

Recommended Posts

Good article revisiting the Trayvon Martin death, the initial narrative, the truth, the media culpability, etc.

Comments post article are excellent.

https://glennloury.substack.com/p/the-legend-of-trayvon-martin?s=r

Edited by AUFAN78
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites





8 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Cue the comments attacking both Loury and McWhorter by the usual suspects.

Oh yes. When you can't attack the message, bring in the cult. But I'm hopeful.

And those first few comments post article were spot on! 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that psycho has beaten his wife along with death threats and he has gotten into it with others slinging threats but he was a hero cus the kid was in the wrong hood taking a shortcut eating skittles. the guy was a security guard and not law enforcement. jesus i was a security guard in the service because i had a top secret clearance. i had a badge and a pistol and i can assure you it did not make me a cop. you know the dude was even on the run from law enforcement at one time right? oh but he wore a hoody so that made him{Martin} guilty as hell along with his skin color..................

Edited by aubiefifty
  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wont dispute the claim that the media went too far in pushing a narrative that there was an 'obvious' racial element to this case. There was a lot of coverage that was probably more biased in one narrative than was appropriate. I liked that news outfits were called out and in many times apologized and corrected themselves like when NBC was caught selectively editing the 911 phone call and the media outlets that called Zimmerman "white" when he was in reality more Hispanic.

 

I don't think the "counter-coverage" from Right wing media was fully accurate or appropriate either. The concentrated effort to portray Martin as an evil, aggressive, thug wasn't any better than the left's attempt to portray Zimmerman as a white racist hunting down a defenseless little black kid. Neither Martin nor Zimmerman are perfect characters. Zimmerman himself has a past that show a propensity for deception, and aggression/domestic violence.

 

It was a tragedy. Zimmerman shouldn't have been following around a teenager like he was. Through the phone call Martin was making before the shooting it was clear that Zimmerman was being pretty 'obvious' in that he was following and stalking Martin...which in Martins view could reasonably be viewed as suspicious and threatening. Martin shouldn't have jumped on and attacked Zimmerman...it would have been better for him to just try to run away or get to safety. Zimmerman made himself a threat to Martin by following him around the neighborhood and then Martin became a threat to Zimmerman when he jumped on him and started punching him. It's basically impossible for us to know who was being the "greatest" threat in this situation. 

 

Ultimately, the continued take away for me is how "Stand your ground" laws can lead people to take risks and to create dangerous and aggressive situations for themselves because they believe they can legally shoot someone if things go wrong or turn against them. It creates an attitude of "I can be like police..I can approach anyone...I can threaten anyone. I can basically do anything...and if someone tries to hurt me I can shoot them in self defense and be protected by the law. "

 

I ultimately agree with the jury outcome that he wasn't guilty of murder, but I also don't believe that Zimmerman is a completely innocent party in the events that took place. He knowingly and willingly portrayed himself as a threatening character to Martin and played a big part in creating the situation that caused the shooting to take place. 
 

Edited by CoffeeTiger
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will say i find this portion of the article funny:

---------------------------------------------------

And you know what else—I'm very done—but it's also frustrating that Joel Gilbert, whose book and documentary makes it painfully clear what actually happened and how different it was from what we've been told, including that one of the main witnesses was a plant. Unfortunately, he has those associations that are unsavory to many. Because, you know, he has hosted the kind of radio shows he has and kept the kind of company he's kept, unfortunately a certain kind of person simply shuts down upon hearing that. So the messenger is unlistenable to what we might think of as the left. And so that also keeps the truth from being actually out there.

I wish, for the sake of truth and for the sake of real racial healing, that it had been someone else who was that interested in the truth. But nobody who wasn't him would have wanted to find those things. No “enlightened”—but I'm not calling him unenlightened—no person on the left, no normal liberal would want to go to the trouble to find those things. And if they started to find them, they would turn away.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

lol....

No...Joel Gilbert isn't listened to nor taken seriously..not just because of the 'unsavory' company he keeps or because he's politicly incorrect...but because he's a known conspiracist and has made several different documentaries through his career that have all been full of complete made up bull****. If his Treyvon Martin documentary is in fact based on full truths and evidence like the author claims(i don't know..I've never seen it and have no desire to ever see it) then it would be the first truthful evidence based film that Gilbert's ever done in his life. The Last "documentary" Gilberth did was on the Obama Birther nonsense and claimed some conspiracy about Obama's father being an American Communist that indoctrinated Obama, and that Obama's mother did nude/pornographic photo shoots. ( The photos Gilberth provided as evidence were eventually found to come from a magazine that stopped publication years before Obama's mother ever came to Hawaii) 

And if you're frustrated that no "liberal" would find the truth like Gilberth supposedly did then why didn't any other conservatives or right wing media research or find all this "truth"" why didn't the author of this article find it? Why was the "only" person able to dig up all this  happen to be a habitual liar and fraud that's made a career out of bullshitting people, making up evidence for his claims, and peddling conspiracies? 

I like that the author is at least somewhat genuine in admitting that the source of this documentary is looked at as 'untrustworthy' but he's glossing over big time the reasons why this person and his work is considered untrustworthy, and seems to just believe that we should ignore his past and now take everything he says and presents as absolute truth because...reasons?  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

when you are a security guard you are told not to engage with anyone if they become mouthy or physical. your job is to call the popo. this is what we were told over and over. why we have a pistol along with that i have no idea. we were warned not to travel in uniform because ours looked a lot like the DC popo's and they were targeting cops way back then. that is a true story. but my point is why do you have to end someone life for stealing something? you can find yourself in prison re4ally quick if you are not careful and that was also my bosses point and on up. hell i was seventeen at the time as well..................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

that psycho has beaten his wife

Those charges were dropped after police found no evidence of an assault. The dispute "was between him and his wife and her father,'' Morgan said. "There were some allegations that there had been an assault, but we could not confirm any of it.''

10 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

he was a hero

Zimmerman was never a hero.

10 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

the guy was a security guard

 Zimmerman was part of a neighborhood watch program, not a security guard per Wiki.

10 hours ago, aubiefifty said:

oh but he wore a hoody so that made him{Martin} guilty as hell along with his skin color..................

At the time of the incident Martin was suspicious, not guilty of anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I wish, for the sake of truth and for the sake of real racial healing, that it had been someone else who was that interested in the truth. But nobody who wasn't him would have wanted to find those things. No “enlightened”—but I'm not calling him unenlightened—no person on the left, no normal liberal would want to go to the trouble to find those things. And if they started to find them, they would turn away.

Yes, I found that sad and unfortunate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real tragedy in this case is that Trayvon wasn't armed. 

If he had been packing, he could have shot Zimmerman and justice would have been served. Well, assuming Trayvon wasn't convicted for practicing self-defense, which isn't a given.

Edited by homersapien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

The real tragedy in this case is that Trayvon wasn't armed. 

If he had been packing, he could have shot Zimmerman and justice would have been served. Well, assuming Trayvon wasn't convicted for practicing self-defense, which isn't a given.

I don't know how often one can miss the point entirely, but damn you must be the forum record holder. 

hall of fame game missed the point GIF

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/23/2022 at 7:56 PM, AUFAN78 said:

I don't know how often one can miss the point entirely, but damn you must be the forum record holder. 

hall of fame game missed the point GIF

Well, how about explaining the "point" in a sentence or two?

The essence of this tragedy is that an armed man took it upon himself to interject his presence into a situation which ultimately resulted in the death of an innocent teen. That's what the facts showed.

All the resulting racist "narratives"  as well as the rationalizations or justifications of exactly what happened are irrelevant to Zimmerman's fundamental mistake of interjecting himself in the first place when he had no valid reason to do so. 

He should have remained in his car and called the police, regardless of what "narratives" resulted from any source.

One's perceived need to arm themselves comes with a responsibility to not let something like this happen.

Carrying a gun does not bestow a right or duty to interpose yourself into a situation that ultimately resulted in an unjustified death of an innocent boy.  Period.

 

 

Edited by homersapien
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

Well, how about explaining the "point" in a sentence or two?

Happy to oblige. Maybe not in a couple sentences.

The article is about the false narrative, not the tragedy of the event. (the point)

The article points out the consequences of the Trayvon Martin shooting and the narratives that developed around it. How much destruction could have been avoided if those with the power to change the narrative—journalists, academics, presidents—had had the guts to simply state truth? 

So that begins a whole era in American race relations. It starts in 2012. And yet what actually happened is vastly different from what many people would like to think.

The encounter with Martin happened, and Martin is dead. That's a tragedy, without any question, that that young man lost his life out there. On the other hand, a jury deliberated over all the evidence and corroborated the decision at the time that the authorities made not to arrest Zimmerman, because they came to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence, including eye witness testimony, that Zimmerman's account of what happened—he was in danger of his life, and he defended himself, as he had every right to—was in fact the correct account of what happened.

But again, the narrative about it has entered into the pantheon of the accounts of African American mistreatment, such as it has done. And that becomes almost impossible to move, especially if ten years after, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., Former President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama, and leading civil rights activist Al Sharpton with the assistance of prominent columnist Charles Blow—all of these are black people—are prepared to endorse the storybook narrative.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Trayvon was doing fine until he went all ufc on George.

This is exactly the sort of comment that propagates the idea of a racist elements in this tragedy.  It's similar to the sort of thing you hear after most unarmed black people are gunned down, only in this case it wasn't a LEO that was involved.

'If only Trayvon had laid down and simply submitted to a stranger who was threatening him, everything would have been fine.'   In other words, it was Trayvon's fault for minding his own business until he was confronted.

Apparently, Trayvon had no right to self-defense. It was all his fault.  Why is that?  Does simply having a gun allow any civilian to assume the right to stop and apprehend a kid.  Or is it just black kids that need to avoid going "UFC" when they are threatened by someone? 

You'd feel differently if the same thing happened to your son.

 

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Happy to oblige. Maybe not in a couple sentences.

The article is about the false narrative, not the tragedy of the event. (the point)

The article points out the consequences of the Trayvon Martin shooting and the narratives that developed around it. How much destruction could have been avoided if those with the power to change the narrative—journalists, academics, presidents—had had the guts to simply state truth? 

So that begins a whole era in American race relations. It starts in 2012. And yet what actually happened is vastly different from what many people would like to think.

The encounter with Martin happened, and Martin is dead. That's a tragedy, without any question, that that young man lost his life out there. On the other hand, a jury deliberated over all the evidence and corroborated the decision at the time that the authorities made not to arrest Zimmerman, because they came to the conclusion on the basis of the evidence, including eye witness testimony, that Zimmerman's account of what happened—he was in danger of his life, and he defended himself, as he had every right to—was in fact the correct account of what happened.

But again, the narrative about it has entered into the pantheon of the accounts of African American mistreatment, such as it has done. And that becomes almost impossible to move, especially if ten years after, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., Former President of the United States Barack Hussein Obama, and leading civil rights activist Al Sharpton with the assistance of prominent columnist Charles Blow—all of these are black people—are prepared to endorse the storybook narrative.

BS.

The only reason he "feared for his life" is the fact he went out of his way to confront Trayvon when he had no right, responsibility or obligation to do so.  He could have stayed in his car and called the police. 

But he had a gun. So he felt comfortable confronting an innocent black kid.

You are bending over backwards to defend Zimmerman's actions (after the fact of his mistake) and somehow make this Travon's fault for what was Zimmerman's mistake.

And the irony is that YOU are now the one who is trying to make this purely about race.  Why is that?

The reaction by black people is fully understandable - yet another unarmed black kid is gunned down - only this time by a civilian - and people are blaming the black kid for not submitting.

 

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

BS.

The only reason he "feared for his life" is the fact he went out of his way to confront Trayvon when he had no right, responsibility or obligation to do so.  He could have stayed in his car and called the police. Not what the story is about

But he had a gun. So he felt comfortable confronting an innocent black kid. Not what the story is about 

You are bending over backwards to defend Zimmerman's actions (after the fact of his mistake) and somehow make this Travon's fault for what was Zimmerman's mistake. Not what the story is about 

And the irony is that YOU are now the one who is trying to make this purely about race.  Why is that? No, the story clearly lays out who made this about race and continues to do so 10 years later and the effect it has had and continues to have on race relations simply because these people in power cannot tell the true narrative.

The reaction by black people is fully understandable - yet another unarmed black kid is gunned down - only this time by a civilian - and people are blaming the black kid for not submitting. Not what the story is about 

 

The only BS is being spewed by you. You continue to deflect the point because you cannot argue against it. Your a laughable joke, just know that.

Why do you feel the need to be complicit in this lie? This false narrative?

 

Edited by AUFAN78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

This is exactly the sort of comment that propagates the idea of a racist elements in this tragedy.  It's similar to the sort of thing you hear after most unarmed black people are gunned down, only in this case it wasn't a LEO that was involved.

'If only Trayvon had laid down and simply submitted to a stranger who was threatening him, everything would have been fine.'   In other words, it was Trayvon's fault for minding his own business until he was confronted.

Apparently, Trayvon had no right to self-defense. It was all his fault.  Why is that?  Does simply having a gun allow any civilian to assume the right to stop and apprehend a kid.  Or is it just black kids that need to avoid going "UFC" when they are threatened by someone? 

You'd feel differently if the same thing happened to your son.

 

Not racist at all. Black vs hispanic. Who is the racist? I did not identify either one. One guy pushed the attack got the other one to the ground and started pummeling him. Thats when he got shot. Not before. Not because he was black.

Who wanted Trayvon to lay down? All he had to do was say I live here, my dads apt is number whatever, that's where I am going. But did he do that? No. He was on the phone with his girl talking smack and getting all fired up to beat up George.

Trayvon had every right to self defense, but he wasn't attacked. He was the attacker. If a white/asian/italian/cuban/peurto rican/indian/israeli kid attacked George in the same manner George would have shot him too. And no you don't get to go all ufc on someone just because you feel "threatened". That's too loose a term. Trayvon would feel "threatened" if the cops showed up and frisked him and George and found Georges legal firearm and Trayvon's illegal bag of pot. So to prevent that he goes all ufc thinking George will leave him alone if he is unconscious. 

I am not excusing George or approving of his behavior in any way. He never should have even been involved. Trayvon got shot because Trayvon attacked a guy who had a gun.

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...