So for the past couple of months I've been watching and reading the commentary on various, shall we say, Pro-White, websites as it regards the Trayvon Martin case. Today, one of them, VDare decided to run a piece by Ann Coulter (the one allegedly involved with JJ from Good Times), in which she defends Zimmerman. Before I get into her piece I'm going to re-iterate my oft stated position that the state did
not prove murder 2, nor do I think that Zimmerman is in fact guilty of murder 2. This does not mean I don't think Zimemrman is not responsible for the killing, nor that he shouldn't have been charged with something, but that it was IMO a mistake to charge Zimmerman with murder 2. Now onto Ann.
One of the things you will note with many "pro-white" websites is a focus on black crime. I'm not going to get into a debate about black crime. Relative to other US populations black crime, particularly assault and homicide (usually but not always linked) are ridiculously high. Yes, in certain locations practically all assaults on the books have a black face, usually male. Discussing the reasons for this phenomenon is beyond the scope of this post. What is within the scope of this post is that even with the way out of proportion levels of crime committed by black men, it
still represents a small minority of the overall black male population.
Using NYC as an example, there were maybe 300 murders in the city last year. I'm rounding, probably up. Most of which were committed by black males. There are 8 million people in NY. A good 2 million or so are black. If we assume, wrongly, that both the victim and the perpetrator of these crimes were criminals it still wouldn't even be 1% of the total black population. If we were to throw in burglaries and other forms of violent crime, you STILL wouldn't hit 1%. As a matter of fact, the majority of records that black males have are for non-violent offenses, number one being drug possession (with or without intent to sell).
Furthermore, when we look at cross racial crimes, they are but a fraction of the amounts of intra-racial crimes. That is, for a white person to proxy their chances of being a victim of a black criminal by the number of crimes blacks commit against each other, they would need to drop that chance to 10% (usually). Not to say it cannot happen. We know it can and does, but the fact of the matter is that the vast majority black people you see on the street isn't paying you any attention. Just like Trayvon was doing when he was minding his business walking from the store.
Which brings us to Ann:
There were at least eight burglaries in the 14 months before Zimmerman's encounter with Martin. Numerous media accounts admit that "most" of these were committed by black males. I'm waiting to hear about a single crime at Twin Lakes that was not committed by a black male.
Lets take that point at face value. There are about 17,000 black persons in Sanford Fl. According to Ann around 8 of them committed burglaries.
Eight.
Ocho.
So according to Ann, if 8 persons who look a certain way have committed crimes in a given location, it is OK to stalk everyone else who "fits the description" on the chance that they too 'might" be number 9?
ust six months before Zimmerman's encounter with Martin, two men had broken into the home of a neighbor, Olivia Bertalan, while she was alone with her infant son. She had just enough time to call 911 before running upstairs and locking herself in a room. The burglars knew she was home, but proceeded to rob the place anyway, even trying to enter the locked room where she held her crying child.
Bertalan had seen the burglars just before they broke into her house—one at the front door and one at the back. They were young black males. They lived in the Retreat by Twin Lakes.
In another case, a black teenager strode up to Zimmerman's house and, in broad daylight, stole a bicycle off the front porch. The bike was never recovered.
Weeks before Zimmerman saw Martin, he witnessed another young black male peering into the window of a neighbor's house. He called the cops, but by the time they arrived, the suspect was gone.
A few days later, another house was burglarized. The thieves made off with jewelry and a new laptop. Roofers working across the street had seen two black teenagers near the house at the time of the robbery. When they spotted one of the teens the next day, they called the police.
This time, the roofers followed the suspect so he wouldn't get away. The cops arrived and found the stolen laptop in his backpack. This was the same black teenager Zimmerman had seen looking in a neighbor's window.
An interesting rundown of prior events. Here's the kicker though, these were actual crimes. Had Zimmerman (or anyone else) ran into the two men (one was actually a minor)
in the act Zimmerman could have blasted them to kingdom come and be sitting on his porch with a beer and no one would have said a thing.
Had Zimmerman caught the kid who stole his property from off his property and put a bullet in his head, I'd have nothing to say. Nothing at all. I wouldn't even care if the bike thief was unarmed. You steal you take the chance on having things go very wrong. Oh well.
In the case of the roofers they saw the same men who had committed a crime and followed them. Two points here:
1) As I've pointed out in many writings, it is often a small group of people who are responsible for numerous crimes, rather than a one to one to one relationship between a crime and a new perp.
2) The roofers followed the perpetrators of an actual crime. Had they gotten into an altercation they would have the legal upper hand in anything that happened because a crime had
already been committed.
The last point is
the point missed by all of the "pro-white" writings I have seen. Not a single one of them, in the months that I have read their commentary has once said:
"Trayvon was committing no crime."
"Walking down the street is not a crime."
For all their talk, I seriously wonder what these "pro-white" commentators would do if they had been stalked by a strange man (cracker or not) in a car, who then exited said car and perhaps showed a gun. Would they lead him to their house? I mean really, if you are in a neighborhood that is "rife" with burglaries, would you allow a strange man to follow you to the "safety of your home" knowing full well that if he really wants to kill you, he now knows where you lay your head to rest?
Really?
Ann goes on to make a comparison with John White who shot a kid who was menacing his family and threatening to kill his son. Let's make quick minced meat of this laughable comparison.
John White was sleeping in his house. Zimmerman was driving along a "public" street.
John White's son had been threatened by the teenager(s) in question. Zimmerman had no prior contact with Trayvon.
The teenagers came to John White's property and were on his property. Zimmerman was not on his property. Trayvon was not on Zimmerman's property.
The teenagers threatened John White, His family and his property. Zimmerman posed a threat to Trayvon and confronted him.
John White showed his weapon and warned the teenagers. Zimmerman claims that he made no confrontation nor did he warn Trayvon that he was armed (by his own testimony).
John White discharged his weapon. Zimmerman discharged his weapon. This is the only thing they have in common. Clearly though the "long story" explains why John White was fully within his rights, while Zimmerman was clearly reckless in his behavior.
What it boils down to with these folk is that since black men commit so much crime then every black male is to be seen as a criminal
until proven otherwise. That Trayvon, by dint of being black, must have had criminal intent against Zimmerman "The Cracker" and was simply waiting to beat up on Zimmerman (supposedly with his free hand while talking to his lady friend, cause you know how athletic and coordinated black men are).What they hope is that the jurors in this case will agree with such a sentiment. The state in levying a charge they cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt, may have provided the means to confirm such an idea. Hopefully they are bright enough to include lesser charges for consideration and the jury rejects this ideology.
