The New York Times has once again published a blog post of such heinous naivety and conjecture it borders upon absurdity. The author, Anthony Turner, apparently knows more about what happened on that dreadful night than the two people involved, and he wasn’t even there. The New York Times is obviously allowing its newsScape to be used as a racial baiting battleground that has no place on a major news outlet.
Let’s dissect this New York Times posting …
I felt betrayed that my own race would try to come after me, to rob me.
This line of thinking is the very reason why this whole racism thing will never go away, nor will it ever get any better. It’s thinking like this that perpetuates the problem. If one feels betrayed because their own race is robbing them instead of any other race, then this person has already been indoctrinated to think that one race should treat another race differently.
This brings up a lot of questions: When does an innocent high school student become “intimidating,” “threatening” or “suspicious”?
This hypothetical question presumes that all high school students are innocent, and since Trayvon was in high school, he too must be innocent. Mr. Turner also presumes that no high school students are intimidating, threatening or suspicious. Not sure what school Mr. Turner went to, but my high school was chock full of kids that met all three of these criteria, and they were white, Latino, and black. The color of your skin does not make you threatening. It’s your attitude, behavior, unfriendliness, demeanor, and yes … the way you look.
If you’re a black kid with a hoodie, is it immediately assumed that you’re “bad” or a “troublemaker”?
No. I’m cautious of anyone wearing a hoodie concealing their identity. Especially at night. I’m also cautious of anyone with gang tattoos. I’m cautious of anyone who is walking around with a swagger and cold stare. I’m cautious of anyone who is staring me down. I’m cautious of anyone who is pretending like they are a tough guy. It’s called situational awareness. George Zimmerman was a member of the neighborhood watch program, probably because of the recent burglaries and saw an individual who looked suspicious (hoodie, late at night, took off running). To assume he targeted Trayvon because he was black is pure conjecture and racial bias. There is nothing to suggest this.
As he was coming back home from the store carting an iced tea and Skittles, a neighborhood watch volunteer named George Zimmerman felt “intimidated” by the young man and shot him, killing him.
Mr. Turner suggests George Zimmerman simply shot Trayvon Martin because he looked suspicious, but there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, the evidence now suggests Trayvon may have attacked Mr. Zimmerman, hence the broken nose, bloody skull, and an eyewitness who claims Trayvon was atop Zimmerman beating him up.
In my neighborhood a lot of guys sag their pants, wear hoodies and walk with a distinct swagger and cold glares. However, there is a big difference between copying a “tough” look and actually being a real threat.
Wrong. There is no difference if the poser looks just like the real threat. How is someone who doesn’t know either individual personally supposed to know who is the threat and who isn’t?
Anyone can feel threatened if they are scared or paranoid about their safety. And it seems that Zimmerman was paranoid.
Again, why did Mr. Zimmerman have a broken nose? Why was his skull bleeding? Pretty hard for Trayvon to attack Zimmerman with such force after he’s been shot. Could this whole thing be one giant accident? Was Trayvon Martin standing his ground because he thought someone was stalking him? Or was George Zimmerman standing his ground because Trayvon attacked him?
The bottom line is, no one knows what happened except Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. Anthony Turner was not there. Anthony Turner is acquiring his “facts” from the media. And if media sources like the New York Times (publisher of the article in question) are the source of “facts”, then clearly we have a bias in this particular case. How about we let the police, the FBI, the Justice Department and the courts decide if a crime was committed?
Mob rule fails. Vigilante justice fails.