Trayvon Watch Part 10: Until Proven Otherwise

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.

Trayvon Watch Part 8: Mind How You Walk....Niggas.

Today the jury got to listen to the unedited tapes of Zimmerman's statement to the police after he shot Trayvon. In the interview he stated why Trayvon caught his attention:

In the recording, Mr. Zimmerman waived his right to a lawyer and said that his concern was piqued that night by the sight of Mr. Martin walking in the rain. Burglaries had been rampant in the neighborhood, he said, prompting him to start a Neighborhood Watch. “These guys always get away,” he told Officer Singleton, a statement that prosecutors would later seize upon. “It was raining out, and he was leisurely walking, taking his time, looking at all the houses. When I drove by he stopped and looked at me.”

Not that Trayvon was trying car doors, house doors or maybe using a flashlight to see if any home was empty.

Trayvon was suspicious because he was leisurely walking. Shit I see people in my neighborhood do every day.

At the time of the confrontation between Zimmerman and Trayvon, ~7:09 PM, Feb 26, 2012, it was slightly raining. What we would call a "light drizzle".

6:53 PM 63.0 °F 60.1 °F 90% 30.30 in 7.0 mi NE 6.9 mph - 0.00 in Rain Light Rain 7:53 PM 63.0 °F 60.1 °F 90% 30.30 in 10.0 mi East 5.8 mph - 0.03in Overcast

It wasn't pouring. It wasn't sleeting, snowing. Nor was there a hurricane blowing through the town. It was lightly raining which means if you're covered you're unlikely to be running (which probably would have made Zimmerman suspicious as well), or in any particular rush to get home (particularly if you're talking to a female on the phone before you get back under parental supervision).

So basically Zimmerman's opinion was that Trayvon was suspicious because he was walking to leisurely [for a negro].

Zimmerman is letting us know that in his opinion, black males aren't supposed to be walking "leisurely" in weather HE thinks warrants non-leisurely walking.

Straight face.

So now you know my fellow Negroes: If it's raining outside, you make damn sure you don't walk to "leisurely" lest you arouse the suspicions of some random "creepy ass cracker" with a gun.

Trayvon Watch Part 6: "Creepy Ass Cracker"

This is how Trayvon described George Zimmerman to his friend Rachel Jeantel. In testimony that cements the fact that Trayvon saw Zimmerman has a threat Jeantel testified:

She said she heard Trayvon say "Why you following me for?" Then she said she heard a "hard-breathing man" say, "what are you doing around here?" Then, she said, she heard Trayvon say "get off, get off."

Ultimately it will be up to Zimmerman to refute the statement of Ms. Jeantel. Zimmerman has claimed that he was returning to his vehicle and not confronting Trayvon. This testimony contradicts his statement.

Even if the voice on the tape was Zimmerman, this testimony would make a reasonable case that the ensuing fight was the result of Zimmerman's stalking and then confrontation with Trayvon with his "what are you doing here?" response to Trayvon's relevant question.

Given Jeantel's testimony and Zimmerman's statements I can make a guess what happened:

When Zimmerman asked Trayvon what he was doing here, Trayvon probably did not react well. I can tell you personally that if I were being followed by a "creepy ass cracker" at night, who demanded I tell him "what I was doing" wherever it is I may be, I'd tell him to fuck off. I think Zimmerman, in his anger at "this punk" (yeah..punk...right...anyway)was "getting away" and had an attitude, Zimmerman put his hands on Trayvon. Trayvon. This is when Ms. Jeantel heard Trayvon say "get off, get off".

Trayvon drops his phone and fights for his life, managing to get Zimmerman on the ground. While on the ground Trayvon notices Zimmerman's gun, and thinks that the "creepy ass cracker" was in fact trying to kill him. At this point Trayvon makes the "you're gonna die tonight" comment that Zimmerman testified to. This is when Zimmerman manages to shoot Trayvon in the chest.

This does not support Zimmerman's claim of self defense. The reason for this is that it is clear from the testimony (thus far) that Trayvon was the one who saw himself in danger from the "creepy ass cracker" who was following him and who he later discovered had a gun. Zimmerman, by this testimony, confronted Trayvon and picked a fight. Once he found himself on the losing end of the fight he started he shot Trayvon. To allow Zimmerman to claim self-defense would be the same as allowing a mugger to claim self-defense if he shot his victim who resisted his attempts to mug them.

Trayvon Watch Part 5: The First Day

Did the Zimmerman defense team sink their client?

"You will see the evidence proves at least one thing. Trayvon Martin hadn't gone home," said West. "He had plenty of time, but choosing not to do that he either left or just hid in the darkness to see about this guy who was following him and turned out of the darkness and said why are you following me."

I believe that this statement by the defense team establishes that Trayvon was the person who was in fear.

just hid in the darkness to see about this guy who was following him

What kind of person "hid[es] in the darkness"? A person who feels threatened.

Why wouldn't Trayvon go home? Would YOU go to your home when you are being followed? You would let a stranger who is following you know where you live? You would lead them to your house?

Of course not.

So with this statement by the defense, it admits that Trayvon reasonably thought that he was in danger and did what he thought was in his best interest. If the jury is paying attention and the defense continues along this line they will have helped convict their own client.

Trayon Watch 4: The Tapes

The judge in the Zimmerman murder trial has decided that expert witnesses for either side cannot testify as to who they think was on the 9-11 recording screaming for help.

I'll admit that when I first heard that tape, I was in my office crying like a baby. Due to my bias I had already made up my mind who the person on the tape was. Putting on my jurist hat I realized that I had no rational reason to believe it was Trayvon. Nor did I have any rational reason to believe it was Zimmerman. There was nothing in the actual words screamed by the party to indicate who it was. Had the voice said "Help! Rhis man was following me!" or "Help! He's beating me up!" then I could make a deductive argument that the voice belonged to one or the other party. So unless the prosecution has other recordings with something other than "help!" then no rational jurist can decide who the voice is.

I was actually hoping that the 9-11 tape would not be admissible. That was a long shot as it is evidence that the crime occurred and so would need to be admitted. This brings us back to my short vs. long story prosecution.

Lets assume that Zimmerman is the one calling out for help on that tape. Remember that Zimmerman does not have to prove anything in this trial. It is for the prosecution to convince a jury that Zimmerman is guilty of the charges. In my mind the prosecution should lay out all the steps leading up to the voice on the tape. That Zimmerman misjudged an unarmed, non-threatening Trayvon as some kind of criminal and stalked him while in his vehicle. That Zimmerman, contrary to the requests of the emergency situation public safety personnel, stepped out of the safety of his vehicle with a loaded gun and attempted to track down an unarmed, innocent Trayvon, who had correctly seen Zimmerman as a threat to his person. That Zimmerman, in the eyes of the now deceased, innocent Trayvon, was a stalking stranger who admittedly flashed his loaded gun. That it was Trayvon who was fighting to protect his life and even IF it was Zimmerman who was shouting for help, that it was Zimmerman who was the person posing a threat to an innocent and unarmed Trayvon.

The prosecution must make it clear that Zimmerman lost his "self-defense" argument once he purposefully left the safety of his vehicle with a loaded gun to stalk and confront Trayvon. Once they do that, they do not need to concern themselves with who the jury thinks is on the tape because Zimmerman would have been shown to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt (of criminally negligent homicide at least) by his own actions. So this tape ruling is not the biggest deal so long as it is played correctly. I do not think that the prosecution will be able to convince every juror that the voice is Trayvon. It only takes one juror to allow Zimmerman to walk. The prosecution would be negligent to make the tape a central part of it's case given all the other evidence in play.

Trayvon Watch 3: RE: Liberals killed Trayvon Martin, and Jamiel Shaw, and…

So one Erik Rush of the Canada Free Press is of the opinion that Trayvon Martin was killed because he wasn't "genial" enough when confronted by an "authority figure".

Trayvon Martin, on the other hand, appears to have been far less genial, and more a victim of his lifestyle than a victim of George Zimmerman. The press narrative spun the picture of a little black waif skipping home with his Sprite and bag of Skittles, only to be ambushed and blown away by a nightstalking, cackling bigot. Though time will tell how it pans out in court, reality tells a different story, one of a thug-in-training for whom being accosted by an authority figure might have presented a welcome and self-affirming confrontation.

If only Trayvon had been more polite to the strange man who was following him in a car and then on foot and then flashed his gun.

I get it.

The victims of 9-11 know all about what happens when you're "genial" to folks who pose a threat to you.

First of all the media has not "pun the picture of a little black waif skipping home with his Sprite and bag of Skittles".

The fact is that "skipping" aside. That is exactly what Trayvon was doing. He was walking home from the store with a Sprite and a bag of Skittles minding his own business. He was not "casing the neighborhood". He was not armed. He was doing what every citizen of the US has a right to do: Walk down the street minding his own business.

As for the "thug-in-training for whom being accosted by an authority figure", this guy can kiss my ass.

First of all. If Zimmerman wanted to present himself as an "authority figure" he could have told Martin he was a part of the neighborhood watch. Perhaps wear a fucking uniform. No. Zimmerman was, in the eyes of Trayvon some creepy white guy who was following him in a vehicle and then on foot. Zimmerman never testified that he presented himself as an "authority figure". Read his numerous commentary and the commentary of his supporters. Never once does he say that he identified himself to Trayvon as an "authority figure". So where is this fellow getting the "authority figure" angle from?

Maybe he thinks that young black men ought to see random white men on the street as having authority over them?

Note to Erik: If you follow me in your vehicle and then on foot, I won't be too "genial" about it either. And I am not a thug.

Trayvon Watch 2: The Burden

Writing in WND, Jack Cashill proposed that

When George wrote this he had no idea that a 911 call from a neighbor would record someone desperately yelling “help” or “help me” 14 times in 40 seconds before the screams ended with a gunshot.

As part of its “burden,” the state must prove that Martin was the one yelling for help. The impossibility of that task is just one reason why Robert Zimmerman remains confident.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/06/george-zimmermans-brother-spanks-media/#rIyGSLgL0R1sVMmA.99

I do not believe that determining who was crying out for help is a burden on the state. It may work to the defense to have a determination that Zimmerman was the one crying out for help, but it does not help Zimmerman if the state has a lesser included charge of negligent homicide.

This goes back to my Short Story vs. Long Story theory. The prosecution will have to continuously remind the jury that Trayvon was not doing anything illegal. That he had no weapon and posed no threat to anyone.

Assuming that the Trayvon's girlfriend will be able to testify that Trayvon felt endangered by the strange man following him in his car and then on foot, it can be easily established that Trayvon felt endangered by Zimmerman. Furthermore:

“As I looked and tried to find my phone to dial 911,” George continued, “the suspect punched me in the face. I fell backwards onto my back. The suspect got on top of me. I yelled ‘Help’ several times.”

Zimmerman has alaready said that Trayvon "spottted his gun and went for it". Now we see why. Zimmerman flashed his gun when he "tried to find his phone".

So putting ourselves in Trayvon's shoes. Man follows him in car. Man follows him on foot. Man says "I have no problem with you" and then flashes a gun (that would be menacing).

Does it matter who was crying for help when the only person with anm ongoing threat to his life is Trayvon?

I don't think so.

Think of it this way: You don't get to walk into a bank and threaten to rob it and then when one of the customers beats your ass, you shoot him and claim self defense.

Trayvon Watch

Similar to what we did with Sean Bell, we will have running commentary on the Zimmerman trial. Right now jury selection is happening. Won't be commenting on that but I will give an overview of what I expect the jury to be presented with.

Short Timeline vs. Long Timeline

The Zimmerman defense will hinge largely on whether they can convince the jury that the only part of the evening's events that matter is Zimmerman'as claim that he had given up following Martin and was returning to his vehicle when he was confronted by Martin who Zimmerman claims jumped out of "nowhere" and started to punch him.

This "short time line" defense will claim that regardless of what Zimmerman did prior to the confrontation once he no longer posed a threat to Martin (if they even concede such a point) Zimmerman was acting in his self defense once Martin confronted him and "started the fight".

The "Long line" story which could be presented by the prosecution would be that Zimmerman created an environment that lead to Martin's death. They would claim that Zimmerman was the one who stalked and confronted Martin. They would claim that Martin was acting in self-defence against an armed man. They would claim that Zimmerman, being bested by Martin decided to kill Martin in order to escape a violent situation he created.

In either case, the claims of who initiated the violence will be hotly contested. Any claim of self defense requires that the defending party not initiate violence.

For Martin, the prosecution will need to show that Martin was in fear for his safety. Zimmerman's own statements already set up such an argument. Once (and if) Martin's alleged statement to Zimmerman of "why are you following me?" is accepted by the jury, the prosecution's job will be mostly done.

The Charges


I still maintain that the state has a near impossible task of showing malice. Neither scenario indicates malice. While Zimmerman may have had bad intent when he followed Martin, I do not believe it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that at up to the moment of discharge that Zimmerman intened to murder Martin.

What is provable beyond reasonable doubt is that Zimmerman created an environment in which a death could occur. He was armed when he followed an unarmed Martin who was not engaged in any illegal activity. It is clear that had Zimmerman stayed in his vehicle that Martin would be alive today.

That is criminally negligent homicide. That is provable. itr does not require going into Zimmerman's or Trayvon's background.