We will be talking about the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin situation for some time, I'm sure. Everyone has an opinion on it and I don't see anyone's opinion changing based on anything. Normally, people "feel" that Zimmerman was wrong, or that he hunted or stalked Martin, which ended up in Martin's killing.
This is the face of political correctness because it forces people (or gives them permission) to substitute truth for emotionalism. People come to believe that Zimmerman was a racist therefore he hunted Martin who was black. If that's what they believe, I have noticed that nothing will change their viewpoint. Nothing. It's because they cannot go against the way they feel about something. That would be dishonest for them. The way they arrived at their decision though does not seem at all dishonest.
I would like to believe that I look at facts before making a decision. I realize that in this particular case, facts are few and testimony is largely from Zimmerman. It's not as if this rarely happens. Many situations involving crimes rely on the testimony of one person and any corroborating evidence either supports or negates that testimony.
It seems apparent that this case was portrayed as racist from the beginning. One network went so far as to edit the police call from Zimmerman to make him appear to be a racist. Another introduced Zimmerman to us as a "white/Hispanic," in spite of the fact that Zimmerman sees himself as a Hispanic. He's also a Democrat and voted for Obama in 2008, but that wasn't newsworthy.
It was important for the media to portray Zimmerman as a white man vs. an unarmed black man. This allowed race-baiters like Al "I'm a Liar" Sharpton to claim racism and to once again use politically correct methods to assign guilt to the white race as a whole. It's his favorite card to play.
Eventually, Sharpton stopped referring to Zimmerman as a "white/Hispanic" and simply called him "white." Wonder what he would say if we referred to Mr. Obama (whose mother is white) in such a way? The race card would be played quicker than a minion can say "WHAT?"
There is a new book out, written by a criminal lawyer from Canada, called "Racism and the Death of Trayvon Martin." His name is Arthur Weinreb and he's white, so many will automatically discount anything he says on that basis alone. For those who can get passed that, he has something to say about the case and I think it's worthwhile. Cost is $4.99 and it's 33 pages.
With respect to this case, Weinreb notes, "Zimmerman, the Sanford Police Department, Angela Corey, Bernie De La Rionda, the rest of the prosecution team and the jury all have one thing in common. They agree that events that occurred in the early evening of February 26, 2012, had absolutely nothing to do with race. To believe the killing of Trayvon Martin was a racist act, one would have to believe that the Sanford police, the state prosecutors and the jury were themselves racist and conspired to cover up any evidence of Zimmerman shooting Martin because he was an African American."  Unfortunately, I believe that's easy for some to do, based on political correctness.
Weinreb has a lot to say about the situation. He breaks it down for us and offers his legal analysis. He goes into the Stand Your Ground law in Florida as well as the self-defense laws. He discusses the specific charges against Zimmerman and what the jury had to deal with in order to arrive at a conclusion. In eleven chapters and thirty-three pages, Weinreb breaks down the situation leading up to the time of the shooting until the jury verdict. He also even discusses facts about Zimmerman that the media refused to discuss, most likely because it did not serve their agenda.
This is the major problem with political correctness. It sets facts aside and chooses instead to make decisions based on emotional virtue. If your heart goes out to Trayvon Martin more than you feel anything for Zimmerman, then you are likely to believe the media's claim that racism played a part in this tragedy from start to finish. Political correctness uses emotion to bring people to conclusions.
The so-called news bureaus long ago stopped reporting the news. Now, they make it. They decide how everything is reported based on the type of reaction they want to have from listeners and viewers. I don't like watching ANY news channel. I obtain my news from alternative sources on the Internet. I ignore ALL mainstream news sources.
For the left, it's all about political correctness. They believe only what they feel. They make decisions based on how the information grabs them. Politically correct thinkers can easily ignore actual facts. That's not a problem. They gravitate toward things that create emotional impressions. Yet, it is amazing that the prosecution in Zimmerman's trial never argued that Zimmerman used racial epithets to describe blacks. They never indicated or implied that what Zimmerman did was based on race. Yet, there are people today - thanks to Al Sharpton and the media - who firmly believe that Zimmerman stalked, hunted, and killed Martin. If race had nothing to do with it, then why would Zimmerman supposedly have done that? If he did it, he did it based on race. Why didn't the prosecution bring that up?
Arthur Weinreb puts forth some answers. If you choose to read his short book, you of course, will either accept or reject his logic. It's up to you. The one thing I would ask is that you try to set aside your emotions in the matter and simply look at what can be determined. If you can't support your emotions with facts, then shouldn't you toss out your emotions as the means of arriving at conclusions?
Arthur Weinreb. Racism and the Death of Trayvon Martin (Kindle Locations 777-782). Decoded Science.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.