I know you’re trying to be clever but your analogies distill to: Trayvon Martin = Emmett Till (and you wouldn’t want to try to victim-blame Emmett Till, would you?)
This is no different than what’s been implied if not stated as nauseam since this incident was wildly misrepresented in the media and by many politicians and activists both appalled by what happened - and eager to exploit it: Trayvon Martin = Emmett Till. Except not much of what we were told about that tragic encounter turned out to be true.
“George Zimmerman had no right to impose himself in Trayvon Martin’s space”.
What pray tell does that mean? How does that work in practice? Zimmerman better not dare look in Martin’s direction? Better not betray any concern about the spate of burglaries which had taken place at that complex? Better intuit where Martin would ambush him so as to avoid that area? Better leave the entire area rather than risk offending a teenager comfortable with using his fists who might be willing and able to pin him to the ground and bash his head into the concrete? Look, I think we all wish Zimmerman had shown caution and discretion and not even gotten out of his car. No sane or decent person isn’t sick at a teenager dying - however legally justified it was. But that’s part of what you’re ignoring: if it had been Zimmerman and not actually Martin who had insisted on imposing himself on the other’s space - by jumping him and beating his head into the concrete, or, if it it had been Zimmerman who had even so much as persistently stalked and cornered and accused Martin and plausibly made him feel like he might need to defend himself to get away from this man, wouldn’t that have been recognized and weighed appropriately at some point in the trial? Martin initiated the fight and Zimmerman was in real trouble. A person can black out or even die from having to the back of his head pounded into the concrete. One narrative was ascendant and it was clear what verdict the public had been primed to demand and expect. And yet the discernible facts said otherwise.
I know you’re trying to be clever but your analogies distill to: Trayvon Martin = Emmett Till (and you wouldn’t want to try to victim-blame Emmett Till, would you?)
This is no different than what’s been implied if not stated as nauseam since this incident was wildly misrepresented in the media and by many politicians and activists both appalled by what happened - and eager to exploit it: Trayvon Martin = Emmett Till. Except not much of what we were told about that tragic encounter turned out to be true.
“George Zimmerman had no right to impose himself in Trayvon Martin’s space”.
What pray tell does that mean? How does that work in practice? Zimmerman better not dare look in Martin’s direction? Better not betray any concern about the spate of burglaries which had taken place at that complex? Better intuit where Martin would ambush him so as to avoid that area? Better leave the entire area rather than risk offending a teenager comfortable with using his fists who might be willing and able to pin him to the ground and bash his head into the concrete? Look, I think we all wish Zimmerman had shown caution and discretion and not even gotten out of his car. No sane or decent person isn’t sick at a teenager dying - however legally justified it was. But that’s part of what you’re ignoring: if it had been Zimmerman and not actually Martin who had insisted on imposing himself on the other’s space - by jumping him and beating his head into the concrete, or, if it it had been Zimmerman who had even so much as persistently stalked and cornered and accused Martin and plausibly made him feel like he might need to defend himself to get away from this man, wouldn’t that have been recognized and weighed appropriately at some point in the trial? Martin initiated the fight and Zimmerman was in real trouble. A person can black out or even die from having to the back of his head pounded into the concrete. One narrative was ascendant and it was clear what verdict the public had been primed to demand and expect. And yet the discernible facts said otherwise.