« Rogue police officer | Main | Issa circulating draft of contempt citation »
"Trayvon and Zimmerman: the Structure and Elements of a Disinformation Campaign"
An interesting and provocative essay at The American Thinker. It would explain one things that had me wondering, which is why the story suddenly became hot weeks after the actual event.
8 Comments | Leave a comment
On a local radio station a caller came on and suggested Zimmerman was injured when Trayvon, mortally wounded, fell on him and accidentally knocked him to the ground. Of course she said she didn't see it, but it made sense to her. This is how it will proceed, like the JFK Assasination, people already have their basic view of happened and will make up any evidence they need to continue to support that view.
"why the story suddenly became hot weeks after the actual event."
Exactly the same situation as with the Motoon controversy. I wonder if the explanation is likewise similar?
One enlightening bit of information about the case comes from seeing the satellite photo of the area and the locations of various things like the clubhouse, Trayvon's house, and the crime scene. Trayvon walked past Zimmerman's truck toward his house and was only about 100 yards from home. Trayvon had a running start on Zimmerman and not far to go. It appears almost certain that Trayvon had to have turned around and initiated the confrontation with Zimmerman. It is hard to see how if Trayvon continued running home out of fear, that Zimmerman could have caught up to attack Trayvon. He maybe could have shot Trayvon from long distance, but not at close range.
The only way I can think they could have come together other than by Trayvon intentionally initiating is if Trayvon was lost and going in circles looking for his house. But it seems unlikely that if somebody was chasing you that you would be going in circles in the area of the threat rather than trying to put some distance between you and the threat.
I don't have a good explanation for why Trayvon would initiate a confrontation. The most likely possibility I can think of is that sometimes violent criminals get angry when crime fighters interfere with their criminal activities.
Who cares what the MSM is doing?
Seriously, were you not already convinced that they were adamantly opposed to us owning and carrying guns?
As to the Martin/Zimmerman incident, ZIMMERMAN is the one, who, while armed, chose to initiate a confrontation where no crimes was alleged to have been committed and no one was in any danger.
At the least, that's incredibly poor judgement. At worst under the "Initial aggressor" doctrine, he may have lost any claims he can even make as to self-defense.
DON'T get into any confrontation unnecessarily while armed.
Accosting a "suspicious person" when no crime has been committed nor threat is present while armed presents precious few good outcomes and lots of bad outcomes. this is what phones and police are for.
Bill: Aren't you omitting the minor detail that Zimmerman denies initiating the confrontation let alone the initial aggression, and the prosecutor's case is so thin that the affidavit inexplicably shifts to the passive voice at that point?
"Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued."
If the prosecution doesn't believe they can establish who initiated the aggression, why should we believe, well, any of this campaign's narrative?
@Bill - It is unlikely that Zimmerman could have initiated the confrontation unless he could outrun a young athlete that had a good running start on him. And if you are acting as security for an area, it's legitimate to follow suspicious persons. If they stop to confront you then you can explain why you are following. Just because the neighborhood watch guy is following is no good excuse to punch him and start smashing his head into the concrete. There was a guy around here a while back that got his head pounded till he was retarded. Preventing that kind of thing is why Florida passed shall issue concealed carry. It's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
A couple of "representatives" have a Trayvon bill in the house that would cut government funding to states that have "stand your ground" or other self-defense laws...calling them "shoot first laws", they claim that self-defense related deaths are up 300%.
They are not “Shoot first laws…” … that whole construct is totally without merit. You may only shoot legally if you perceive a real, imminent threat of bodily harm or death to you or someone around you. The threat is, and must be, first.
If “deaths due to self defense” have tripled as these demagogues say, (which terms they don’t bother to define), consider that three times the number of criminal attackers, predators, won’t be attacking the helpless any more….and more than three times the number of people who would have been serial victims of violence, won’t be victims anymore.
This is a good thing, not a bad thing.
I’d argue that the predators, in most of these cases, are the ones who died…what was it that Napoleon supposedly said? “Pour encourager les autres.” Skin color does not matter…I’d say the same for a black father with a shotgun defending his home and family against the Klan, like Condoleeza Rice’s father and neighbors needed to do.
Judgemental? Yes. Humans have a faculty called a mind that can weigh the difference between a casual insult or a hostile attitude and a deadly threat. Judgement of the situation is a survival-enhancing thing…do you have to fight or should you, and can you, fly? If you can’t make that decision, you may be something less than fully human.
So tell me, how does a 98 pound woman retreat from an abusive boyfriend or a rapist?
How does anyone retreat when they are flat on their backs having their head pounded on the sidewalk?
How does a mother retreat from the doorway of her child when she stands between an attacker and an innocent?
Where’s the “social justice” of being robbed, beaten, raped because you lacked the means and legal standing to defend the only thing you will ever really possess, your own life?
The frail elderly retiree with a Social Security check facing a young, strong, mugger?
If you believe that your life is not worth defending,…you’re probably right.
Awesome analysis! This is the most objective look I've seen so far that specifically shows how the public is being manipulated for political purposes.