Where you have to go to rationalize the irrational

LAMBRO: Making a case for Trayvon Martin illustrates how bias creeps out from under cover in trying to rationalize a belief that doesn’t really mesh with reality. First up is an attempt to don a cloak of credibility to present a sympathetic basis not founded in reality:

“I’ve been one of Mr. Obama’s persistent policy critics from the beginning of his presidency. However, I have to say I found his measured, sensitive remarks very moving as he talked about our nation’s racial history and the troubling, personal experiences he endured as a young black man making his way through life.”

Next up is the ad hominem. Note the “self appointed” as opposed to the reality of volunteer and the implicit denigration of neighborhood watch organizations. The “wannabe policeman” is another common canard and there is a convenient disregard of just what this “history” of trouble with law enforcement really is all about.

“In the end, a jury of six women concluded that this gun-carrying, self-appointed neighborhood-watch volunteer’s act didn’t merit conviction for either second-degree murder or the lesser manslaughter charge.”

“This wannabe policeman — who has a history of getting into trouble with the law — was sitting in his car when he spotted Trayvon, then called the 911 police dispatcher to tell her, “He looks suspicious.””

Then there is the unspecified “awash in troubling facts” that can’t be clearly identified else both the “awash” and the “troubling” both become rather ridiculous.

“the story that unfolded on the night Trayvon was walking to the home of his father’s girlfriend in a gated community in Sanford, Fla., is awash with troubling facts that made this killing so senseless.”

Then it gets into an effort to gain credibility via others and a misrepresentation of the facts.

“Is this racial profiling? The prosecution thought so. What was suspicious about him? He wore a hooded sweat shirt as he walked home after getting a soft drink and some candy at a convenience store. He hadn’t done anything wrong, and not an iota of evidence was offered in court to the contrary.”

The facts are that it was a stranger to the neighborhood wandering around looking at houses in the dark with identity obscurred that aroused proper neighborhood watch suspicion and resulted in proper action – calling 911. As for what was not “offered in court” one needs to consider the defense problems with discovery and the firing of the IT guy which are issues yet to be resolved. The “getting a soft drink and some candy” conveniently bypasses what Martin usually did with those items and the timeline of his store visit.

Another indicative conclusion – “Certainly, Mr. Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon” – shows where a proper ‘keeping an eye on people showing suspicious behavior in the neighborhood’ has been turned on its head. The evidence is quite clear that it was Martin stalking Zimmerman if stalking is to mean anything. The four minute gap highlighted by the defense illustrates this.

The ‘stand your ground’ thing shows up here as well. That one was irrelevant to the case and is an attempt to divert the issue from what happened to some fantasy. That gets to the minimization of Zimmerman’s wounds as if that has anything to do with the fear of imminent danger idea in matters of self defense.

“He could have pulled out his gun during the wrestling match, stopped the fight, and called 911 for the police. But what would he have said? “I was following Trayvon, and he jumped me”?

With his gun trained on Trayvon, he could have left the scene and gone to the police to report what happened. He could have …”

When you are pinned to the ground and being subject to an MMA style ‘ass whuppin’ it seems rather far fetched to assume the attacker is going to be polite and civil. The woulda’ coulda’ shoulda’ ideas are also completely in disregard of standard self defense and use of weapons advice gleaned from actual experience in such situations.

Finally is a falsehood that was clarified in forensic evidence and the project of the prosectutions desires as fact:

“Mr. Zimmerman pressed the barrel of his gun into Trayvon’s chest just over his heart, pulled the trigger and killed him, because, as the prosecution said, he wanted to.”

The evidence indicates that the gun may have been in contact with clothing but was a couple of inches away from skin. The only way for that to happen was in a close quarters shooting where the victim was above the shooter with his clothes hanging away from his body.

Lambro bought the prosecution claims as Truth. The jury went with the evidence. The fact that these two points of view is so severe the prosecution is suffering blowback. At this time, it is delusional to try to make a case for Martin if one wants to stay in the world of reality, especially if the context not brought in court is considered.

Comments are closed.