As noted by the Drudge Report, Trayvon Martin’s friend Rachel Jeantel gave CNN her first interview since testifying in the George Zimmerman murder trial, telling Piers Morgan that during her final cell phone conversation with Martin he said he was afraid that the “creepy ass cracka” following him might be a gay rapist (I assume in more colorful language).
When asked if Martin “was freaked out” by this, Jeantel replied, “Definitely…for every boy, for every man, every — who’s not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creep out?”
But I don’t expect the media will show much interest in whether the fight with Zimmerman might have started as a gay panic attack. [Update: I was right; virtually no mention of this revelation beyond Drudge, even by CNN, which broadcast the Jeantel interview.]
[Added] A rare exception, William Saletan at Slate:
‘Martin, meanwhile, was profiling Zimmerman. On his phone, he told a friend he was being followed by a “creepy-ass cracker.” The friend—who later testified that this phrase meant pervert—advised Martin, “You better run.” She reported, as Zimmerman did, that Martin challenged Zimmerman, demanding to know why he was being hassled. If Zimmerman’s phobic misreading of Martin was the first wrong turn that led to their fatal struggle, Martin’s phobic misreading of Zimmerman may have been the second.
People will never agree on whether Zimmerman’s use of deadly force was justified, but IF Martin threw the first punch, as Zimmerman claims, and IF Martin feared that it was a gay guy pursuing him (as his best friend says he told her, moments before they came to blows) and that added to his anger, then we have a more complicated and maybe revealing tragedy, but one that doesn’t serve the dominant narrative.
More. But of course: “A coalition of LGBT-rights organizations has called for justice for Trayvon Martin after a Florida jury on Saturday acquitted George Zimmerman of the teenager’s murder.” It’s a Who’s Who of Democratic party front groups.
Furthermore. Via Instapundit: “Black Man With Pistol Permit Shoots White Teen, Is Acquitted.” Instapundit comments, “Funny, didn’t get much coverage — not politically useful.”
And then there’s this.
Still more. An apparent conflict within the ACLU has resulted in what TalkLeft is calling “a 180 degree u-turn” after which the group is no longer calling on the Department of Justice to bring federal civil rights or hate crime charges against George Zimmerman. That could be viewed as a rebuke to ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero, who is openly gay. Four days earlier, Romero had called on DOJ to investigate Zimmerman on federal charges, joining with several Democratic Party allied LGBT partisan groups. It’s also a small victory for those actually concerned about the threat of the federal government respecting our right to be found not guilty by a jury of our peers.
More on the ACLU switerchoo from Politico, reporting that former ACLU executive director Ira Glasser called the initial Romero letter a symptom of “the transformation of the ACLU from a civil liberties organization to a liberal bandwagon organization.” Gay groups such as GLAAD and PFLAG are by now so far down that path there may be no calling them back.
Still more. Via Cathy Young at Reason.com: Zimmerman Backlash Continues Thanks to Media Misinformation. Those who get their worldview from the partisan defamers who run mainstream media will find some inconvenient facts.
48 Comments for “More Layers to this Tragedy”
posted by Houndentenor on
No. It started with Zimmerman following a person who was breaking no laws or doing anything wrong but being black while walking through a mostly white neighborhood. He shouldn’t have been following Martin in the first place. Trying to gay-bait this case (which is interesting coming from a closet case like Drudge) is disgusting.
posted by Tom on
Houndentenor, the idea that Zimmerman was perceived to be gay came straight from the mouth of his besty Rachel Jeantel live on CNN’s Piers Morgan for the whole country to see….and Trayvon wasn’t just strolling though the neighborhood….it was cold and raining, yet he was stopping and looking around, not acting like someone who was in a direct route to get anywhere..and…in a neighborhood that had been experiencing an outbreak of burglaries….and African-Americans have a history of being homophobic; maybe as much if not more so than the Christian conservatives…but you just continue being a good little brainwashed follower of the left. They will be so glad to have you as a follower….but remember, when it comes to the left, black trumps gay anytime, anywhere.
posted by Tom on
Oh, and I forgot to add….Trayvon attacked George….and since his besty Rachel was telling him that George was probably gay and, in her mind, therefore a child predator, I would say it was a gay bashing…a hate crime.
posted by Doug on
So you think you have the right to murder someone because you don’t think they walk through your neighborhood is some pre-subscribed manner? And how to you know that Trayvon attacked George? Were you there?
posted by jared on
So you think you have the right to murder someone because you don’t think they walk through your neighborhood is some pre-subscribed manner?
Zimmerman followed Martin and then they began to fight (unknown – who threw the first shove or punch). If Martin threw the first punch and was beating Zimmerman’s head against the sidewalk, then yes, Zimmerman had a right to shoot.
Following someone in your neighborhood is not a crime.
(Also, it was a gated community; so yes, anyone walking through should expect a higher degree of security. In my private development (not gated), we have signs warning non-community members not to trespass).
posted by Doug on
Zimmerman was obviously doing more than following Martin. There was no need to get out of his car if he was just following him and the 911 operator told him to let the police take care of it.
Maybe Martin threw the first punch because Zimmerman came up and pulled his on the kid.
posted by Doug on
because Zimmerman came up and pulled his gun on the kid.
posted by Houndentenor on
Martin wasn’t trespassing. He was walking to his father’s house.
posted by Tom on
Well, there were the cuts and bruises George sustained, which I assume would have to be done by the living rather than the deceased…and how do you know he didn’t attack him…..were you there?
posted by Houndentenor on
No, I wasn’t and neither were you. You are simply speculating about who did what to whom up until Zimmerman shot Martin IN THE CHEST.
posted by Houndentenor on
You have no direct evidence for any of that. His friend said that he said something. Fair enough. The rest is either conjecture or from things Zimmerman said in interviews which may or may not be true. It’s possible but so are other things. Is looking a crime now? Is walking in the rain now a capital offense? I don’t trust Zimmerman’s word. He, not Martin, is the one with a history of violent acts. Would he lie to cover his ass? Of course he would. Zimmerman got off. Is it really necessary to continue to blame the victim?
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
—Houndentenor, the idea that Zimmerman was perceived to be gay came straight (was the use of ‘straight’ an effort at a pun?) …..
Drudge is a right-wing blogger who is pandering a ‘gay panic’ line because it will probably play well with his right-wing audience. Drudge is not the sort of person that has shown much interest or concern for the human rights of gay people, so why is he bringing it up now? Beyond how it can be sold to his anti-gay, right-wing audience….
The fact that a friend of Trayvon said this or said that Trayvon said this, also is not really that relevant to the argument made — mostly by folks on the political right that Zimmerman was entirely within his rights to murder an unarmed kid.
–Trayvon wasn’t just strolling though the neighborhood….it was cold and raining, yet he was stopping and looking around, not acting like someone who was in a direct route to get anywhere
Really? You were their when this happened? Is this (‘he was somehow looking around’…apparently in a evil way) a fact or just an opinion or a statement?
Beyond that, the fact that it ‘cold and raining’ does not make it illegal to walk through the neighborhood. Zimmerman is not a cop and has — to my knowledge — no professional training to conduct a ‘Terry Stop’ which seems to be the argument made here (i.e. ‘the kid was walking funny and looking around in a funny way’).
Police can — through their years of professional training/experience — do a ‘Terry Stop’ of someone walking or in their vehicle. It is not an arrest and the good cop can often do a terry stop without the person be aware that he or she is being ‘stopped’.
Zimmerman was not a cop. He was — at best — a ‘independent neighborhood watch’ volunteer, although his conduct does not seem to be ‘koshur’ with what the neighborwatch group requires about its volunteers.
The fact that the neighborhood had experienced an ‘outbreak’ of home robberies…also does not make it illegal for someone to walk through the neighborhood.
I have no doubt that heterosexual black men have a ‘history’ of being homophobic. Just some gay white men may have a ‘history’ of being racist.
I have no beef with the idea that racism or sexism or homophobia needs to be equally challenged, but again what relevance does it have to this defense of Zimmerman?
The fact that anyone of any age has racist or sexist or homophobic attitudes is tragic and worthy of education and censure.
However, the fact that a kid thinks that gay people are predatory and that the total stranger following him is such a predator does not really give Zimmerman cause to kill him.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The simple fact is that George Zimmerman was a 28-year-old adult and Trayvon Martin was a 17-year-old adolescent. As much as kids Martin’s age may think that they are adults, they aren’t and don’t have adult judgment.
George Zimmerman had a lot of opportunities to step back from the confrontation that ensued, and he was advised by the police to step back and let them handle it. A reasonable person would have stepped back. Or, if he was determined to follow, he should have followed at a safe distance. Instead, he kept following Martin, apparently got up close, and, whatever the details of what happened and who thought what, a confrontation ensued and Zimmerman used deadly force to end the confrontation.
Martin may or may not have exercised half-decent judgement in the last minute or two of his life. We don’t know, and I assume that he didn’t. Most adolescents don’t. But we do know that Zimmerman did not act responsibly — right down to willful disregard of police instructions — and his failure to act responsibly is compounded by the fact that he should have known better than to act the way he did. Zimmerman had completed several semesters of criminal justice training, was the coordinator of his neighborhood watch committee, and had a concealed carry license, with, one would assume, basic legal training about the use of weapons.
The trial, which properly focused around narrow legal questions attendant to the crimes of murder/manslaughter and required proof beyond reasonable doubt for conviction, did not get to the heart of the tragedy or the questions it raises about responsibility.
A lot has been said and written (and more will be, I suppose) about the racial overtones of this tragedy. Little has been said or written about the age-related issues that this tragedy opens up. The tragedy is that the confrontation should not have happened in the first place, and George Zimmerman is largely responsible for the fact that it did.
posted by Don on
wow. really couldn’t imagine how on earth this stuff could leak over onto this blog. but alas, as has often been the case this week, I’ve been proven wrong. again.
enjoy gang.
posted by Lori Heine on
What about the gender-related issues? This was more about testosterone than it was about race. Two macho a–holes locked antlers. One of them died. The only surprise is that it doesn’t happen more often.
It isn’t as if Zimmerman was sitting in his living room, minding his own business, and Trayvon Martin kicked his door down, came in and sat on his head. Nor was it as if Martin was in his bedroom reading a comic book and Zimmerman came through a window to shoot him.
They both put themselves in a combative position. Both strutting and preening their feathers about how damn tough they were.
Meanwhile, the police — as usual — showed up after the fact.
This is a sad, stupid, tragic story. That people are letting themselves be jerked around and manipulated, by political quacks, into taking one “side” or the other — Team Red or Team Blue — is pathetic, but all too typical.
posted by Doug on
How did Martin put himself in a combative position? He was walking home from a convenience store where he bought candy. Nothing would have likely happened if Zimmerman had not only followed him against police requests but gotten out of his vehicle to confront him.
posted by Lori Heine on
“How did Martin put himself in a combative position?”
Well, gee. I suppose you don’t consider sitting on somebody and pounding their head into the pavement a combative position. You and I will simply have to disagree on that.
posted by Doug on
Did you even consider the possibility that Zimmerman pulled the gun on Martin and he was defending himself, no I guess not because he was black.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
This is a sad, stupid, tragic story.
It is, and it is not worth the national attention it is getting, little of which has to do with anything that happened that night.
The case has become a stand-in for the politics that divide the country on many levels, all of which touch the case, but none of which seem to be central to the facts of what happened that night.
Whether or not the case is worth the attention it is getting, the case has become a touchstone for both left and right in our divided country — every detail (including Martin’s concerns about a “gay creep” being blown up into speculation about a “gay panic attack”) has been magnified and converted into symbol — and we have to live with that fact, because this case and its repercussions will be with us for a long time.
Here’s a prediction, which I hope is wrong: It won’t be long until the anti-gay crowd (watch for AFA, FRC and similar) start using this case as a way to attack gays, lesbians and LGBT organizations, with the predictable counter-response.
posted by Lori Heine on
I think it’s highly possible that, as I suggested earlier on this thread, both parties involved were jerks. It could very well be that the situation was — like many interactions between human beings — messy, confusing and, instead of black and white in any clear sense (racial or otherwise), some shade of gray.
For that reason, I would be willing to consider a whole lot of different possibilities.
I do, however, suspect that George Zimmerman is probably a bit of a Barney Fife. That he’s neither the hero in shining armor — as he’s been cast by the political Right — nor the horrible villain — as the Left has cast him.
He tried to protect his family, and didn’t do a very smart job of it. The consequences are tragic. But among those tragic consequences are that his family (none of whom were present at the time of the struggle, and who had no say in the matter whatsoever) is now less safe than ever before.
posted by Doug on
Did you also know that Zimmerman assaulted a police officer in the past and claimed that the officer assaulted him first. Did you also know that Zimmerman has a history of domestic violence. Did you listen to any of his previous 25+ 911 calls?
Zimmerman is no Barney Fife.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes. Meanwhile thanks to a kid-gloves interview on Fox News, Zimmerman was allowed to testify in court without being cross-examined by the prosecution or having his priors used against him. I found that a disgusting end-run around legal procedure and the constitution. You can either testify or not, but Zimmerman was allowed to have it both ways.
posted by Houndentenor on
Pretty much every African American male I know has posted stories in the last week about being stopped by police for no reason other than they were black. They weren’t speeding. They didn’t run a red light. They didn’t jaywalk. They were just driving a nice car in a nice neighborhood (where they live) so obviously they were up to no good. They just took it quietly because there’s too much to lose by speaking up or standing up to this crap. White people would never put up with this but black people do every day because they have to. They shouldn’t have to. Lori is right that we don’t know exactly what happened and more than likely both parties did things that made matters worse for such a thing to have happened. But the reason this has resonated in the African American community is that they realize that this could have happened to any of them or to their families. And that white people like me were only marginally aware that this goes on because it’s not part of our daily lives but it directly affects our friends. To act like this wasn’t about race is absurd. There was no reason to follow Martin in the first place. Perhaps Martin overreacted in the altercation but there was no reason for there to have been a confrontation. And I’m not buying the gay-baiting issue. That’s just a sick attempt to blame the victim of a tragedy. It’s revolting to any decent person.
posted by Jorge on
wow. really couldn’t imagine how on earth this stuff could leak over onto this blog. but alas, as has often been the case this week, I’ve been proven wrong. again.
Like God almighty.
Probably the most sane voice on this topic is Linda Chavez’s July 12 column (“It’s always about race, even when. . . Surprise! It’s not.”) It is at the very end of the column that she highlights that had this story not become one about race, the cnoversation and debate could have been how this could have been avoided, which would have entailed both Zimmerman and Trayvon acting differently. Bill O’Reilly’s commentary hasn’t been bad, either.
However, I disagree with both of them. I do not believe George Zimmerman did anything to provoke the altercation or initiate it. I do not believe it is necessary to second-guess the wisdom of his choices in the context of the situation he found himself in. (I mean, you can. Call the police and let them know there is a pattern of burglaries in the neighborhood. But what if even then they have not done anything about it?) There is either testimony or a phone recording that Zimmerman asked Trayvon what he was doing there. He is allowed to do that. The juror said that he went beyond what a neighborhood watch person should do. That may be true. However what he did in confronting Trayvon was legal, and it was an act of social responsibility. Trayvon could have answered or ignored him at his leisure.
Once Trayvon Martin initiated a physical fight with George Zimmerman (and based on the media coverage of the trial that is what I believe happened), Mr. Zimmerman had a right to defend himself. The judge said that. The judge said he did not have a duty to retreat if he had a legal right to be there. And if he reasonably believed he were in danger of serious injury or death–and there is no question in my mind that he not only believed but was in such danger–he had a legal right to meet force with force, including lethal force.
People are trying to invent reasons why George Zimmerman acted a certain way, but that applies both ways. It is legitimate to investigate why Trayvon Martin was the type of person who would attack someone unprovoked, and in such a vicious manner that he wound up dead. That explanation touches on the very people who are casting blame, because they are in fact partially culpable.
posted by Doug on
“I do not believe George Zimmerman did anything to provoke the altercation or initiate it.”
The police told Zimmerman NOT to follow Martin that they would take care of it. He disobeyed a direct request from the authorities. Further, rather than just following Martin in his vehicle he got out of the vehicle and confronted him.
To say Zimmerman did nothing is delusional.
posted by Jorge on
The police told Zimmerman NOT to follow Martin that they would take care of it. He disobeyed a direct request from the authorities.
Of course they requested he not follow Trayvon. What if Trayvon were a dangerous person and decided to attack him? They were trying to protect Zimmerman from a potentially dangerous situation. It’s like if you report a burglary in your home. The 911 operator is going to tell you “don’t go back inside, wait for the police to arrive.” But you decide to go back inside your home anyway. One of the guys attacks you. You shoot him dead. Don’t try to tell me that’s provoking or stalking. You have every right to do that–assuming it’s your own home. Zimmerman had every legal right to follow Trayvon regardless of how dangerous it was to himself to do so. Trayvon did not have any legal right to attack him. See, that was the weakest part of the prosecution’s argument: following Trayvon as an act of community policing does not establish intent to commit homicide or ill will or anything like that. The fact that African Americans associate such an act with a racist history does not establish that it was a racist or even an inappropriate act for George Zimmerman to continue following Trayvon Martin.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
To say Zimmerman did nothing is delusional.
Back in March 2012, Rich Lowry got it right:
I accept the verdict. Criminal conviction turns on narrow technical grounds about the elements of a crime, and requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction. The case had enough muck to support the jury’s verdict.
But “not guilty” doesn’t mean “not responsible”. Zimmerman’s actions, from the time he ignored the police and got out of the car to the time when he got close within arm’s length of Martin, are the primary reason why there was a confrontation at all. If Zimmerman had exercised minimal judgment, the police would have handled the situation, and Martin would be alive.
I don’t know why Stephen, Jorge and the right wing in general is so wound up about this case, but turning Zimmerman was an innocent victim of a “vicious attack” is just wrong.
posted by Don on
What I don’t care for, and I think Stephen is very right to point out, is the chorus of gay groups weighing in on this. What makes the NRA effective is that they focus on their issue, and only their pet issue. And they don’t care what side of the aisle is for or against.
Why gay rights organizations are weighing in on this can only be seen as a way to “pick sides” and alienate those who agree with their mission but disagree with their “team.”
I don’t want to be part of either “team” merely knee-jerk supporting whatever one side says. And the more that gets into gay mainstream politics, the better for all of us. We won’t win the whole enchilada until we’re bipartisan ourselves.
posted by Houndentenor on
Sorry, but gay people and gay rights groups aren’t the ones who made gay rights a partisan issue. The GOP started openly courting the religious right and using anti-gay platform planks to do so. We didn’t start that. Claiming we did was just a lie.
posted by Don on
The gun lobby is very, very at home on the right. And yet they have more than a couple of Democrats on their side. I didn’t say “we started it” or that “we should keep it going” but I do think it cheapens the debate to be “team liberal” rather than “team gay rights”
And no, it doesn’t have to be this way. Just as this particular tragedy has shown, if one or either of them had put ego down and walked away, no one would have been dead. Totally not blaming the murder victim here. But if the reports cited here are true that both had several chances to back down; walk away; and didn’t. If that’s true, then its was an avertable tragedy.
And that’s my point with the gay rights groups chiming in on a guns, race, and crime issue. As far as I know Team Planned Parenthood hasn’t weighed in. Team Immigration Reform hasn’t weighed in. Why did Team Gay Rights weigh in?
posted by Don on
It’s a mistake to have a gay rights group talk about an issue for which they have no stake whatsoever. and to paint themselves aligned with a liberal perspective over a non-gay issue makes them ineffective as organizations. And as a movement.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Don, although I advocate keeping a tight focus on “equal means equal” issues, I can understand the concern about a “guns, race and crime issue“. Gays and lesbians deal with the issues, too, in bashing and threatened bashing incidents. I wish the groups had made it clear that we have a stake in the issues, and why, rather than allow themselves to appear to have “aligned with a liberal perspective over a non-gay issue”.
posted by Jorge on
So long as team gay rights is reasonably divided, I see nothing wrong with it weighing in.
To my mind, the most logical “gay” angle would be that gays walking down the street need guns for protection a little more than the average George Zimmerman.
posted by Lori Heine on
I think the gay-baiting angle is silly. It makes gay conservatives look desperate — like they’re really reaching for a reason to take the side of the George Zimmerman “team.” I don’t buy at all that LGBT groups are betraying us by not taking the Zimmerman “side.”
That said, no matter what sort of troubled past EITHER Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin had — and both “teams” have cited these to try to use as leverage in their argument — based upon their decisions and actions THAT NIGHT, both caused the conflict and both were in the wrong.
“Two to tango,” and all of that.
posted by Doug on
I’ll remember that ‘two to tango’, the next time I see a report about a woman in a tight skirt who was raped.
posted by Lori Heine on
Wow, talk about male a–holishness! You’re seriously equating a woman who gets raped with a man who CHOSE where he was, CHOSE what he was doing at every step of the way, acted the way he wanted to act — and got himself, very willingly, into a fight?
Just wow. No wonder rape victims in this country are still slut-shamed by clueless men.
posted by Jorge on
Didn’t you just tell me that Zimmerman took actions to instigate the altercation? Now you’re objecting to holding them both responsible?
Argue over both being responsible or just Trayvon being responsible, but I’m not about to take seriously the notion that just Zimmerman was responsible. There’s too much evidence against it.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The verdict, in the last few days, has led to one positive result: Successful, middle-aged African-American men (e.g. Michael Steele, the former head of the RNC, Clarence Page, a Chicago Tribune columnist, and so on) are speaking out about the experience of being black, young and suspect in our society. I think that we’ll hear a lot of these stories over the next few weeks, and I think that it is a good thing.
posted by Lori Heine on
There is another aspect to this that is being ignored by both the corporate Right and Left. It doesn’t fit into the narrative either is trying to push.
Government has begun to treat white people as condescendingly and patronizingly, with regard to self-defense with firearms, as it has always treated people of color. People of color hear all the cries of “that’s not fair!” — and they wonder why white people think they’re so special.
People who are not white have always automatically been suspected of criminal intent when they arm themselves for self-defense. It never bothered whites until the same treatment began to be applied to them.
posted by Jorge on
I suspect this is true, but would not mind seeing some evidence.
posted by Wilberforce on
So you’re making excuses for this creep. How predictable.
Let’s be clear. Zimmer stalked then picked a fight with a kid on which he probably had 50 pounds. Given his advantage in weight, there was no chance that he was ever in danger. That was concocted for the cameras.
How easily the public can be duped. And how quickly you all jump to a monster’s defense. Gay mainstream indeed. You people are utterly horrible. I can only imaging the twisted hatreds grinding away inside of you.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
—One of the guys attacks you. You shoot him dead. Don’t try to tell me that’s provoking or stalking.
This is the essence of the ‘Castle Doctrine’. Fred can kill Barney if Barney is breaking into Fred’s home with a weapon. Yaba Daba Do!
This is one of the big problems with ‘Stand Your Ground Laws’ . They extend this ‘Castle Doctrine’ theory to ALL self-defense claims (as if a man’s house extended to the entire planet and beyond). This is a bad idea.
Let us suppose that Fred kills Barney (outside of Fred’s home) and claims self-defense. Freedom of assembly and travel being what it is, Barney probably had about as much right as Fred to be where he was (i.e. his physical location on the planet). Heck, if Fred had a right to a gun, then (probably) so did Barney. However, let us assume that Barney was unarmed.
Now let us also assume that the tragic incident was not captured on high-definition video, was not witnessed by the likes of Perry Mason and does not have any sort of last minute ‘well, this is highly irregular’ courtroom confession.
How do we know — objectively — if Fred killed Barney in self-defense or because of some other reason? This is one of the central problems with the ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws.
It is pretty easy to determine — objectively — if Barney broke into Fred’s house with a weapon. But, its a mighty bit trickier to judge self-defense claims outside of the home context.
This does not mean that self-defense does not exist out of the home context (as a right), but that it cannot be based on ‘Stand Your Ground’.
Stand Your Ground basically says (along with extending the legal house to cover the planet), “Well, if we believe, that Fred believed, that Barney was going to kill him and if we also believe that Fred really believed…..”
How accurate, rational or sane does this very subjective ‘belief’ have to be? Not very. other thoughts….
Zimmerman had NO legal right to follow Trayvon if it amounted to stalking/harassment. Furthermore, if Zimmerman had a right to be where he was and “follow” Trayvon, then so did the young man. If the right to travel/assemble is going to be limited by race, then we got a problem.
Zimmerman had a gun and Trayvon did not. If an armed, total stranger is following your around the neighborhood (when your big crime has been to buy candy) then you just might think that he wishes to hurt you.
Following a young man because of his race is racial profiling — at best — and an attack on the right to travel/assemble. This was not ‘community policing’ — when he was not doing what the police told him to do and the neighbor watch group made to clear that he was not following their rules.
The only way to event attempt — with any degree of non-racist sincerity — that he was somehow ‘investigating’ who might be behind a series of burglaries, would be if he actually had some sort of accurate description of the men or women that the police were looking for in connection with these robberies.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
That could be viewed as a rebuke to ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero, who is openly gay.
I assume that you see a connection between the two (rebuke/gay), or you wouldn’t have mentioned the two together. Want to enlighten us?
posted by jared on
How about this, if you read through just a wee bit and connect the thoughts, rather than splice them apart to make what you think is a clever point:
“Romero, who is openly gay. … joining with several Democratic Party allied LGBT partisan groups…”
Romero turned his back on ACLU’s core mission (which includes defending Zimmerman’s civil rights against the mob) to co-sign a letter with LGBT groups demanding the government try, try again (and rouse up the base for the next election cycle).
posted by Tom Scharbach on
So it is your view that Romero did so because he was gay, rather than, say, because he was exercising bad judgement? I hope not, but those seem to be the dots you want me to connect. I wondered if that was Stephen’s implication, but I had hoped not.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
But I don’t expect the media will show much interest in whether the fight with Zimmerman might have started as a gay panic attack.
As far as I can tell, based on an internet search this morning, the only media outlets (as opposed to far-right blogs) that are pushing the “anti-gay bigot” angle are right wing organs like the Daily Caller and, of course, Rushbo. Mainstream media hasn’t picked up the story at all.
posted by Lori Heine on
The whole “gay panic attack” angle is really hilarious, given the history of anti-gay remarks made by the people attempting to further it.
If they really shed any tears for how we’re treated, their tear-ducts would certainly have begun working before now — when they so clearly have an axe to grind that serves the Right Wing.
It defies credulity that even a teenaged kid, with no conscious experience with gays, thought gay men run around in the rain, late at night, stalking kids to rape. Teenagers throw around words like “gay” and “faggot” all the time — very casually. It’s disturbing, but they are just kids, and kids say a lot of dumb things.
I’m more disturbed by the dumb things being said by a lot of adults — who are supposed to be professional journalists, or political leaders — about this case. I doubt any of them give a damn about Trayvon Martin, regardless of which “side” they’re on politically. It’s cynical power-gaming, and nothing else.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
The problem with “Stand Your Ground”……a short story….
Cop: Golly Gee! Fred why did you shoot and kill Barney?
Fred: I believed that he was up-to-no good and trying to kill me
Cop: Was this belief rational, accurate or even remotely sane?
Fred: Nope. I believe that people that look like Barney, are the same age as Fred and wear the same type of clothing most be up-to-no good…and the neighbor’s dog told me to do it as well.
Cop: Well, as long as you believed it to be true, then can kill anyone you want to.
[End of scene]