Race-Baiters Batting .000 in Trayvon Case
Up till now, the most accurate reporting the mainstream media have done on the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman case has been relaying the fact that Martin had Skittles and iced tea on him when he was shot. At the rate they’re going, I won’t be surprised if it emerges that he was actually carrying Pop Rocks and Four Loko.
Here is a partial list of the wild, reckless, irresponsible claims the left-leaning media have made in the Martin-Zimmerman case, every one of which has been rendered highly suspect or outright false:
Zimmerman is a white racist who killed Martin because he was black.
Multiple acquaintances of Zimmerman’s, including black friends, testified to reporters that Zimmerman—who is half-Hispanic—isn’t racist. Zimmerman comes from a multiracial family and, during the period when the shooting took place, was tutoring a black neighbor’s two young children and helping raise money for her all-black church.
Maybe Zimmerman wasn’t racist, but he racially profiled Martin and told a 911 dispatcher Martin looked suspicious because he was black. Zimmerman also uttered a racial slur.
In an egregious act of journalistic malpractice, an NBC producer chopped up the 911 audiotape to make it seem as though Zimmerman had found Martin suspicious because he was black, when in fact Zimmerman was merely responding to the dispatcher’s request to identify Martin’s race. As for the slur, forensic experts enhanced the sound quality of the tape to isolate Zimmerman’s voice and concluded, not that he had used the archaic term coon, but that he was lamenting the cold.
OK, Zimmerman may not have racially profiled Martin, but he was a trigger-happy vigilante who shot Martin solely because of the cover provided by Florida’s barbaric Stand Your Ground law.
As Walter Olson and others have explained, Florida’s Stand Your Ground law is utterly irrelevant in the Zimmerman case. If Zimmerman stalked Martin and shot him in cold blood, then obviously he didn’t act in self-defense. If Martin set upon Zimmerman, knocked him to the ground, and started pummeling him, as Zimmerman claims, then Zimmerman couldn’t have safely retreated, which is what Stand Your Ground opponents would require potential victims to do instead of fighting back. Either way, Stand Your Ground has no bearing on the propriety of Zimmerman’s actions.
Well, Martin wouldn’t have started a fight with Zimmerman—he was a sweet, innocent kid.
The night he was shot, Martin was serving a suspension for carrying a plastic baggie with traces of marijuana. Previously he had been suspended for tardiness, truancy, and spray painting graffiti on school property. Martin had been reprimanded for possessing an assortment of stolen women’s jewelry and a lock-breaking device. His Twitter account revealed an affinity for gangsta culture, a flood of misogynistic tweets describing graphic sexual fantasies, and the suggestion that he had assaulted a school bus driver. Photos of Martin displayed a menacing figure grimacing at the camera with a grill over his lower teeth.
Martin’s school suspensions are irrelevant. He may have gotten into a bit of trouble now and then, but clearly Zimmerman lied about Martin bashing his head into the concrete.
Police on the scene confirmed Zimmerman’s injuries and the presence of grass stains on his clothes. When ABC News released a grainy surveillance video taken in the Sanford Police Station that didn’t show obvious wounds on the back of Zimmerman’s head, the media jumped all over him and called him a liar. When ABC later released an enhanced video that showed clearer evidence of two gashes on the back of Zimmerman’s head, liberals claimed the evidence was inconclusive and that conservatives were playing Columbo. When multiple witnesses attested that Zimmerman had bandages on his head and nose the day after the shooting, skeptics questioned the witnesses’ credibility. Finally, last week ABC released a graphic photograph taken just after the incident showing thick rivulets of blood streaming down the back of Zimmerman’s head. Liberals have been silent while trying to figure out how to squirm out of the latest corner they’ve painted themselves into.
Confronted with evidence disproving their claims of discrimination, race-baiting liberals always shift the standard of proof to make their case just one step harder to discredit, so that they get a clean slate from their previous raft of false accusations and must meet only their current, self-determined burden of proof. When that standard is refuted, they cry, “Yes, but…” and move on to the next unmet standard, claiming that all of the previous standards are irrelevant to their case. The logical endpoint of this burning platform approach to argumentation is for the left to claim that, okay, the facts don’t support their case this time around, but the problem they are decrying is nonetheless legion.
If the sheer volume of circumstantial evidence exonerating Zimmerman accumulates to such a degree that a majority of the population comes around to his side of the story, the left won’t admit that they were wrong. They won’t take responsibility for the multiple retaliatory beatings across the country incited by their inflammatory race-baiting. Just as they did with false rape allegations against the Duke lacrosse players, the flurry of phony noose-hanging and anti-black vandalism incidents on college campuses, the apocryphal rash of black church burnings, Tawana Brawley, and a million other incidents, liberals will simply claim that the charges against Zimmerman were fake but accurate, because they drew national attention to a problem that in fact exists only in their heads.
Previously published in modified form at Red Alert Politics