Monday, 9 April 2012

Blip: The 'truth' about the Trayvon Martin case

I’m sure that if you’ve been paying any attention to the news (even international news) you’ve heard about the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case. It’s gained media attention and has every idiot and his dog protesting, complaining and leaving Jesse Jackson messages.

George Zimmerman is a neighbourhood watch volunteer, he noticed something suspicious and called the police. The 911 call has been released and it consists of George complaining about a “suspicious, young black male”, he asks the operator if he should be following him and receives “no, we don’t need you to do that” as a reply. Shortly thereafter there was a confrontation of some kind (no cameras or particularly reliable witnesses have a clear idea of what happened on this stormy night) that left Trayvon dead. 

There was an additional 911 call from a nearby neighbour that has recorded on it the sounds of some form of struggle, some indistinct screaming, a gunshot and a rather jarring silence. George’s story is that Trayvon attacked him, he defended himself and shot Trayvon in self-defence. Others, though, say that George attacked Trayvon and murdered him in cold blood.

Fundamentally of course we cannot know the truth; no matter how determined certain people are with their account of events but let’s look at the evidence - what little there is – that supports each story:

Self Defence:

-The 911 call captured screaming, claimed to be George’s.
-George reported being injured after the confrontation; pointing towards a struggle. This was confirmed by paramedics and is shown on cleaned up police station CCTV footage. Specifically, he had a badly injured area on the back of his head which suggests that he was attacked from behind.

-Although Trayvon was going to the shops for some skittles for his brother, he was wearing a hoodie (often used for obscuring facial features during crimes) and he was out in the late and dark, cutting through a residential area. He was reported to be acting suspiciously, not just moving to the shops at pace. 

-Trayvon had a record for criminal behaviour involving theft and drugs. This is not direct evidence but it does count against Trayvon’s character and the “innocent child” image that the media has portrayed.


-George was directly told not to follow or accost Trayvon but a confrontation still occurred. This could’ve been an attack with no prior knowledge but George made the call from a car. A car that he must’ve exited to have said confrontation.

-There was only the one gunshot; often, self-defence involves multiple shots and/or multiple wounds due to the panic stricken nature of defending one’s life.

The matter itself is confusing, convoluted and steeped in mystery; we can’t know the absolute truth, at least not with the information that we have so far. The issue is that George has not been arrested; I think it’s clear to see that he should be arrested so that a trial can determine what actually happened. There is a neanderthalic law known as “stand-your-ground” that justifies and absolves killing that is done in self-defence. The eventuality that this case showed was that, apparently, all you have to do is claim self-defence and you are instantly absolved without trial. Surely this law should be to protect those who have killed in honest self-defence once the courts make a decision as to the truth of events.

The media, alongside the amassing armies of intellectually redundant nobodies, have risen up in arms against George; they are outright determined to have him tried, sentenced and executed or at least imprisoned for life. They think this even though they, like everybody else, have no accurate view of what happened. The reason they think this is as stupid as any other and ten times more ignorant; George is hispanic (which in bigoted media terms is the same as white) and Trayvon was black.

Just because George used Trayvon’s skin colour as a physical means of identifying him, every moron has decided that it must’ve been a racially motivated hate crime. First off, don’t get me started on the term “hate crime”, as though a murder committed that has no racial issues contains no hate. Secondly, this case is simply an example of the overwhelming amount of Americans that are racist, ignorant hicks who will rally behind any cause if it allows them to gain points against another race.

My opinion on this case is that George is being treated unfairly but that it clearly deserves to go to an unbiased trial. I have no opinion on what actually happened, only on the evidence as it wouldn’t be right of me to weigh in on a matter that I don’t have the relevant information on.

My opinion on the handling of this case publicly, though, is quite another matter. It’s been a vile, atrocious and misrepresentative tsunami of bollocks and outright lies. I am disgusted with all involved that have dragged this simple case into the mud, dirtying it with racial motifs and manipulating it to serve their own means; I’m looking at you: Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Trayvon’s family; You should all be ashamed of yourselves; a teenager was killed and you just had to cash in. I hope you feel proud. 

Blip *signature placeholder*


  1. I agree with most of it except the part about Americans being hicks.

    1. If you read the nearby comment, you'll see I wasn't calling Americans racist hicks. I was saying that the few racist American hicks that do exist have a tendency to make a great deal of waves by rallying, unnecessarily, behind any vaguely race related case.

      The stereotype of American racist hicks comes from those people who shout their idiocy loudly from the rooftops and ive American people a bad name.

      Thankyou for your comment.


  2. It's a little ignorant calling Americans racist hicks. "Secondly, this case is simply an example of the overwhelming amount of Americans that are racist, ignorant hicks who will rally behind any cause if it allows them to gain points against another race."
    You have the right to your opinion, and I'm just sharing mine. The only reason that Americans are seen as 'racist hicks' is because the racist hicks draw a lot of attention to themselves, most Americans are just normal people. I can easily say that British people are 'bad teethed, tea drinkers' but that would be stereotyping. But besides that I completely agree with all of your other points.

    1. Sorry, evidently the diction of my post wasn't clear enough for you. It would be ignorant calling all or even most Americans "racist hicks" but that wasn't what I was doing.

      In the excerpt that you quoted in your comment I am saying that it is an example of the amount of American racist hicks that will rally behind a cause to score points. So actually I was making your point when you said:

      "The only reason that Americans are seen as 'racist hicks' is because the racist hicks draw a lot of attention to themselves, most Americans are just normal people."

      I agree; most Americans are normal people but the few American racist hicks have a tendency to be very loud and to rally behind any causes, regardless of truth, just to score points against another race.

      Please don't tell me I have a right to my opinion, especially when, in actuality, my point is in tandem with yours.

      On a side note, you could say that all British people are "bad teethed, tea drinkers" and that would indeed be stereotyping but it would also be a great display of ignorance because that isn't even a british stereotype. 'Bad teeth' is a stereotype of Scottish people, 'tea drinker' is a stereotype of English people; Irish, Welsh and Northern Irish people don't come into it.

      Thanks for your comment, I'm glad you agree with me and I'm sorry that the point I was making didn't come across clearly enough.



Please tell us what you think and don't be afraid to be honest, that's what we're here for.