Trayvon Martin

Was he attempting to gay bash Zimmerman?

There’s a lot more evidence for that than that Zimmerman killed him because he was black. But it doesn’t fit the politically correct narrative. Nor does the fact that he was an uncharged criminal.

Sadly for the media, almost everything they reported was wrong, and against the narrative. And of course, they continue to tell the lies. And when Will Saletan is calling you out, you know that you’ve jumped the shark.

[Update a while later]

Shorter Eric Holder: The show trial must go on. Plus a bonus — the gratuitous racism of Nancy Grace. CNN has been more disgraceful (so to speak) than usual on this case.

29 thoughts on “Trayvon Martin”

  1. So in the final analysis, was Martin’s death caused by defective gaydar?

    I also ran across the coining of the perfect word for Miss Rachel Jeantel in a Brietbart comment thread about her stunning Piers Morgan interview. She’s a “ghettopotamus.” ^_^

    I’m not sure whether she’s specifically a Ghettopotamus floridius, a Ghettopoatamus africanus, or a Ghettopotamus ignoramus, but perhaps with further observations taxonomists can narrow it down.

    That word may long outlive anything else that came out of the Zimmerman trial.

    1. What do you mean “defective gaydar.”

      What if Mr. Zimmerman were gay and giving Mr. Martin “the eye.” Is that justification for Mr. Martin assaulting him.

      Suppose Mr. Zimmerman were gay and also “carrying” and shot Mr. Martin to save his life from the “gay bashing.”

      Is a prosecutor going to file charges that a man looking with lust at another man was a proximate cause of the altercation and hence Mr. Zimmerman initiated the chain of events leading to Mr. Martin’s death and hence is guilty of manslaughter?

      I am not wishing this scenario on anyone, but were it to be the case here or somewhere else, would some Liberals’ heads explode?

      1. Similar to what you are saying. What if Zimmerman didn’t have a gun and Martin beat him into the ground. Would Martin be facing hate crime prosecution because of the racist slurs he called Zimmerman? The same if he thought Zimmerman was gay?

        I doubt Martin would have ever been tried for a hate crime, certainly not for race but also doubtful Holder would bring charges based on gender either.

        Even though Martin exhibits both racism and homophobia in this case, no heads on the left are exploding over it.

      2. What if Mr. Zimmerman were gay and giving Mr. Martin “the eye.” Is that justification for Mr. Martin assaulting him.

        Apparently so, if Miss Jeantel’s stylistic vocalizations are being correctly deciphered. A few writers have already penned articles on whether Zimmerman’s unfortunate situation was the result of a complete disconnect with ghetto culture, where delivering some “whooop a*******” was both proper and respected.

        She may be in part responsible for the outcome, if she was encouraging Martin to go confront the “creepy a** cracka”. In studies of violent honor cultures, including Appalachian feuding culture, it was found that the women were usually the ones egging on the violence, holding that a man who wouldn’t initiate violence over a perceived sleight was less than manly, and using their personal influence to convince otherwise reluctant males to stand to and go at it, playing on the male’s pride, honor, and vanity. And the males of course fall for it and get themselves killed or jailed for murder. The women gain social status or sympathy either way, while eschewing any real responsibility for all the dead bodies piling up. Occasionally feuding men caught on and targeted each other’s women folk directly, and then I suppose they ended up being drinking buddies.

    2. Let’s cool it on the disrespect of Ms. Jeantel. She was speaking the truth about what happened — that is if anyone bothered to listen carefully to what she was saying.

      1. I listened to what she was saying and it didn’t sound very truthful. I don’t think she really believed that Zimmerman was a rapist or that Zimmerman was following him home to rape his family.

        She didn’t need a translator to be understood and people who take issue with her testimony are not misinterpreting her statements.

        Making fun of her might be a little mean but it certainly isn’t worse than what she says about other people.

        1. She was impeached pretty thoroughly at the trial for changing her testimony multiple times. Not credible. I doubt this crap is at all true.

      2. Truthful? She lost virtually all credibility when she acknowledged that she could not read her own written statement because it was in cursive.

  2. Yes, that is Ann Althouse’s theory and for all anyone knows, tragically she may be right.

    Hetero men are acculturated to fear gay men seeking relations with them or even looking them over. Combine that with the respect/honor culture that made its way from a region in England into the American South, youthful male pride, a man who regarded himself as having fighting ability, what I have been told of tension between black culture and gay culture (think Prop 8), it makes sense that such could have been the provocation for Mr. Martin throwing the first blow according to Mr. Zimmerman’s account.

    Gay bashing is wrong and the gay men I know have no interest in getting anything going with men they know to not be gay. But there are so many things in this tragic affair that don’t fit “racist white guy guns down unarmed black guy for no good reason.”

    1. What if Martin telling his friend the guy wanted to rape him had nothing to do with any fear Zimmerman was gay but was just a way to insult Zimmerman? Calling someone gay or accusing them of homosexual behavior is often just an insult and not really a reflection of the insulters true beliefs about their victim’s gender.

  3. Criticizing the wise leadership of His Excellency the Right Honorable Eric Holder, JD, Attorney General of the United States, be raciss.

    Difrefpectin’ bold black sustah Jeantel be raciss as well.

  4. The whole “creepy ass-cracker” vs “creepy-ass cracker” thing was tenuous, at best, when it was brought up after Jeantal’s testimony (the XKCD reminder notwithstanding). The fact that Piers Morgan is a contemptible race-baiting, gay-baiting, gun-control-mongering, and otherwise anti-American moron who couldn’t journalistically report his way out of a paper bag doesn’t add any more credibility to the “ass-cracker” claim.

    If anything, his antics serve to prove that the whole connection to homophobia was just another shiny object on the ground that distracted people from the heart of the matter that Jeantal and Trayvon are/were (as most race-baiters tend to be) more racist than those they attempted to smear with their accusations of racism.

    1. Considering a new phrase had to be added to the lexicon in order for it to refer to a homosexual, ya it was tenuous. And how strange that in order to avoid being racist, the defense is that Martin was a homophobe.

  5. Lose-lose-LOSE for Holder. If he doesn’t initiate the Hate crimes case, “his people” will feel betrayed. If he does, it gets tossed, hopefully with some scathing comments from the Court. If he wins the case, we’re all screwed.

    1. You forget that the audience he’s playing to judges by intentions and not performance. If he initiates the investigation and it fails, he can just balm it on wacism and go about his merry way.
      If the ethnic left judged their own on performance instead of on stated intentions, there’d never be another Democrat elected anything ever again.

  6. Why are we picking on Rachel Jeantel? So she could not read cursive script on the stand. Is this not a truthful answer that she did not write that statement? So who did? Could it be someone with a college education and a law degree who should know better, discrediting Ms. Jeantel in pursuit of whatever lawyers-on-a-mission profess to pursue? Someone who merits having their backside handed to them, if not their backside placed in prison?

    I sooner place my faith in Ms. Jeantel than a whole class people with good grammar and perfect diction leading all the way to some very high places.

    1. People are talking about Jeantel because she is on tv doing interviews and spins some elaborate yarns when she speaks. Do the lawyers deserve some blame for her testimony? Sure but she bears some responsibility for her actions.

      Shouldn’t we look at the racism in her character and the environment that nurtures that racism? I wouldn’t trust Jeantel to hire/fire people or decide who can be a tenant because her racist views would lead to discrimination. We have a lot of educated people who have good grammar that think the same way she does.

    2. We’re also talking about Jeantal because the media has spent a great deal of time suggesting Zimmerman was racist for using terms like “thug”, or if you believe CNN, “coon”. Yet on CNN, Jeantal comes on to tell us about “crackers”, “niggas”, and “niggers”. This is Martin’s girlfriend, a person who he supposedly chose to love. She says these things, and yet the NAACP thinks Zimmerman should be charged with Human Rights violations.

      Perhaps for others, its commentary about Jeantal. For me, its commentary about those who would accept Jeantal as virtuous while yelling that Zimmerman is racist. Those people need to explain their hypocrisy.

    3. Paul, I think my criticism of Jeantel is warranted because she clearly lied on the witness stand. Her lies could have put GZ in jail for 25 years. I believe the jurors saw her testimony as untruthful (as well as many other components of the case presented by the prosecutors) and decided accordingly.

      As Wodun notes above, she is clearly a product of her environment, which is a terrible shame. Even worse, there is an entire subculture in the US with similar diction, racist thinking, and dependency on the state because our existing educational and social systems failed to help Jeantel achieve her potential.

      I share your sympathy for someone in that situation, but I do not share your defense of her decision to lie under oath.

  7. PM,
    I think you missed the point maybe.

    In court, under Oath, she said SHE had written the document. THEN, when it was handed to her, she said she couldn’t read cursive. I don’t think she mis-spoke, I think she was coached long and thoroughly, about what to say on the stand, and the goons at the DA’s office, ass-u-me’d that ANYONE 15 to 20 years old could read cursive hand writing.

    She never said, “…my AHnt wrote dis fo’ me”, nor did she say, “…my momma wrote dis fo’ me”, and she certainly bypassed an out by not saying, “..I said doze words, an’ but moms wrote it all down fo’ me”.

    [and for all you race baiters out there, I done wrote dis, da way she been talkin’ on da TB and in dat coat room! And BTW, I have white neighbors who speak like that too…sad, but true, so it doan be raciss, jus’ ’cause I been pointin’ it out!]

    It looks like perjury, walks like perjury and quacks like perjury to ME. And coaching a witness to LIE on the witness stand, is malfeasance, if not outright witness tampering.

    And Ms Jeantel certainly never took any hits for saying that ”creepy-ass cracker” WASN’T racial!

    Personally, I see that as being just as big a problem as white people [look out Paula, their coming for you…] using the dreaded N-Word post 1970. That young woman had NO concept that anything she said COULD be a racial remark, and all because SHE’S the black person in the equation!

    I’ve worked with college educated AA men and women [which is considerably more education than Ms Jeantel has, judging BY her eloquence] young people, who have told me word for word that AA or other minority people CANNOT be racists, BECAUSE they are part of the minority groups in the country.

    The caveat for that is, ONLY white people can be racists because they are NOT part of a acknowledged minority group. Anyone with a hyphenated country of origin name AND non-white skin, is, according to a dozen or so people I’ve quizzed, are incapable of being a racist.

    When I pointed out groups like the NBPP, or [and I had to explain this one to college students] the Mau Mau’s are seen as racial groups, but what about the everyday working, free, African African, or Malaysian, Malaysian could they be racists? The answer from all of them, except my AA Conservative co-worker, was a resounding, “NO!” And because groups like the NBPP or the Mau Mau’s, are fighting for or advocating for reforms that would help people, they aren’t racists.

    And Paul, it’s a huge problem when people are thinking like THAT. It means that they go into court, as jurors or witnesses, and they are incapable of seeing right from wrong, or from seeing racism in EVERYONE, regardless of their own skin color.

    1. They are taught in school that only white people can be racist and that racism is inherently a white person problem. So, this isn’t something that is just bubbling up from the social unconscious but is actively being taught by our teachers.

      1. There’ more than enough of us to disrespect the whole darn board worth of chess pieces. We don’t have to limit ourselves.

  8. In one of her latest interviews miss Jeantel said she thought Trayvon started the fight, so there’s that.

    I see liberal expressing outrage about profiling, but as one of my friends asked me recently, if you’re not allowed to keep an eye out for young black men acting suspiciously, what exactly does a neighborhood watch do in inner cities, blindfold themselves? And of course Martin was acting suspiciously. Heck, he was so wired up that he violently attacked the first cracker he saw coming down the sidewalk.

    So on profiling: “When a naked man’s chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher knife and a hard-on, I figure he’s not out collecting for the Red Cross.” — Clint Eastwood, Dirty Harry

Comments are closed.