Trayvon Martin and Black Manhood On Trial (Relying on Rachel's testimony? Huh?)

The Nation ^ | July 2, 2013 | Mychal Denzel Smith

[2ndDivisionVet]

Yesterday, the jury in the George Zimmerman murder trial heard, at length, Zimmerman describe in his own words what happened the night he shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. He didn’t take the stand, but the prosecution played for the court three separate audio and video recordings of Zimmerman’s interviews with the police and read aloud his written statement from the night of February 26, 2012. His description of the events were generally consistent with the story he has repeatedly told. But to my mind, the case really comes down to what the jury will believe happened in one specific moment.

Zimmerman says that after the 911 dispatcher told him he did not need to follow Trayvon, he continued walking to find an address so that he could be more specific regarding his whereabouts. Then he got off the phone. It’s during this time that Zimmerman claims that Trayvon came out of either the bushes, or the darkness, and said something to the effect of, “What’s your problem, homie?” to which Zimmerman responded, “I don’t have a problem.” Says Zimmerman, Trayvon replied, “You’ve got a problem now” and proceeded to punch Zimmerman in the face. Zimmerman’s version of the story is contradicted by the state’s key witness, 19-year-old Rachel Jeantel, who took the stand last week. Jeantel, who was one the phone with Trayvon that night for the duration of this event, says Trayvon was attempting to elude Zimmerman, whom he had described as a “creepy ass cracker.” Trayvon, according to Jeantel, believed he had lost Zimmerman, only to then notice that he hadn’t, at which point he told Jeantel, “The nigga is following me.” Jeantel says she then heard Trayvon say, “Why you following me for?” to which Zimmerman replied “What are you doing out here?” She then heard what she described as a bump and wet grass before the call was lost.

Jeantel’s testimony is key because it directly refutes Zimmerman’s version of the event and calls into question who was the aggressor in the resulting tussle. It’s clear that Zimmerman sustained some injuries, while not necessarily consistent with his assertion that Trayvon punched him twenty-five to thirty times and slammed his head on the concrete. It’s likely that a fight took place. But who started it?

On her show Sunday morning, Melissa Harris-Perry asked a question that gets at the heart of why this case is of national importance. Talking with Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman, Harris-Perry said: “It does seem like part of what hinges here is whether or not Trayvon Martin hit George Zimmerman and whether or not he did so first…but why is it that if this person hit someone who was prepared to use lethal force against him…why wouldn’t he have a right to stand his ground? Is that not racialized?” Do black boys get to defend themselves?

(VIDEO-AT-LINK)

Because it’s clear that, whoever instigated the altercation, Zimmerman followed Trayvon that night. He was instructed not to, but he did anyway. That Zimmerman fumbled for an answer when the lead investigator asked whether he thought Trayvon was afraid of him is emblematic of the way society has trained us to think about black manhood. Of course he didn’t think Trayvon could be scared. Young black men never are. They are the danger. Which is also why, for some, Zimmerman’s story, even with the cartoonish language he ascribes to Trayvon, doesn’t sound far-fetched. A black man jumping from behind the bushes to sucker-punch someone they don’t know and attempt to kill them only a short distance from their home. It makes perfect sense if you believe that black men are preternaturally violent.

The jury will have to decide who they believe in this instance, Jeantel or Zimmerman, and it is this that has me concerned. Brittney Cooper, writing for Salon, captured it succinctly: “…black womanhood, black manhood and urban adolescence are always on trial in the American imaginary.”

Zimmerman’s innocence rests on the notion of Trayvon’s criminality. And in this country, it’s not that difficult to convince six people of the criminality of a 17-year-old black boy.

********

Want more from the Zimmerman trial? Read Mychal Denzel Smith’s defense of Rachel Jeantel.

[FreedomPoster]

That’s funny stuff right there. I’m going to use that.

[windsorknot]

From the Nation by a Denzel somebody. I'll pass.

[freekitty]

BS

[maddog55]

Shows you how twisted the mind of a liberal is.

[faucetman]

““The nigga is following me.””

Wait a minute.... I thought he was a “crazy A$$ Cracker”?

[faucetman]

“Because it’s clear that, whoever instigated the altercation, Zimmerman followed Trayvon that night. He was instructed not to, but he did anyway”

If you say a lie often enough, it becomes true?

“We don't need you to do that” is what he said and then several times, asked George questions only answered by following Trayvon.

[Liz]

Zimmerman lawyer: “ Now, Rachel, in your own words, tell the court: When you referred to my client as a ‘white a** cracker’ ....did you mean that as a compliment?”

[ABN 505]

A black man sucker punching someone, come on how often does that happen?

[SWAMPSNIPER]

Some people are able to draw conclusions simply not supported by testimony or evidence. They hear only what they want to hear.

[SWAMPSNIPER]

The wet grass would have eliminated a lot of evidence and I don't think Trayvon's hands were bagged.

The grass appears to be a St. Augustine variety, it is like a sponge.

[Liz]

"Dam dose crazy racist a** crackers----how long do it take to
gets a double cheeseburger, two large fries and a diet Big Gulp."

[USS Alaska]

Don't ax her any more tough questions.

And don't be abusive or use cursive {she thinks cursive is calling someone a moff*#####}.

[jiggyboy]

It’s 3:30 AM in CA and I am in fact typing this in my sleep, it’s so easy:

- “dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow Martin”, blah blah, always the same lie

- “if this person hit someone who was prepared to use lethal force against him…why wouldn’t he have a right to stand his ground?” First, “prepared to use lethal force” is another way of describing anybody anywhere who is carrying a gun for any reason. The answer to that self-righteous statement posing as a question is, because he assumed that Zimmerman did NOT have a gun, and would therefore be an easy beat-down, i.e. TM was “someone who was prepared to use lethal force”.

- you have to be either lazy or biased (it is a certainty of course that somebody named “Mychal” writing in “The Nation” is both) at this point not to know that Rachel’s testimony in fact proves that TM doubled back with the express intention of ambushing GZ.

- “Zimmerman fumbled for an answer” because it’s really impossible for GZ to know if some guy he had glimpsed for 20 seconds was afraid of him or not, and whether it was fear or hate or drugs or TM’s known and demonstrated criminal mentality that drove TM to try to murder GZ.

- “cartoonish language he ascribes to Trayvon”? a quick look at TM’s grunts and squawks on Twitter shows how many levels below “cartoonish” TM’s thought processes actually were.

- “criminality of 17 year old black boy”. the very last thing in the world this guy wants to happen in this case is to let the jury to find out how much of a criminal this “boy” actually was. he’s a recruitment poster for white supremacists.

[wiggen]

“Because it’s clear that, whoever instigated the altercation, Zimmerman followed Trayvon that night. He was instructed not to, but he did anyway”

I read, hear this over and over again. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and when told ‘we don’t need you to do that’ apparently stopped right there. Theres absolutely no evidence anywhere showing he continued to follow.
I have idiots tell me over and over he shouldn’t have followed. But he stopped when asked to. We can’t go to a moment before he was told not to.

[LibLieSlayer]

A chris rock clone... racist and ignorant.

LLS

[snarkytart]

You’re allowed to follow people anyway. GZ was on his phone it’s not like he was going to attack, he was telling the 911 operator where TM was heading and what address TM was near. Look, the black people who are all riled up know damn well that out of shape, older Zimmerman didn’t chase down a 17 year old in shape teen male. They know TM was the stereotypical aggressor who was gonna knock out the cracka for staring at him. TM was to safety, he was close to his dads gf apt. Instead he doubled back and confronted GZ with a punch in the face, and it was done IMO so that Jabba Da Hut illiterate girl who took the stand could get a good ear full of TM giving a beat down. As others stated she probably encouraged it and that’s why she went MIA until tracked down by Crump.

[SampleMan]

That is funny! Sad, but funny.

[zencycler]

The writer has one thing right - black manhood is indeed on trial here. And if Zimmerman is found guilty, the verdict will be in - that young black man like Trayvon are justified in their blind rage and violent reactions toward being questions, reported, monitored, or, god-forbid, followed.

Lost in their hysteria over this trial is the simple fact that it was Trayvon's unjustifiable rage which is - by far - the main factor that lead to his death. In the long run, there was nothing else posing a greater threat - not Florida's gun laws, or the community watch program, or dedicated citizens like Zimmerman. Ultimately, this blind rage would continue to cause Trayvon, and many other young black men like him, to continue to put themselves into dangerous, violent situations. This is why so many Trayvons in our country are either dying at a young age or being incarcerated.

We hear so much about the riots that will ensue if Zimmerman is found not guilty, and even the people who may die as a result. But in reality, I believe it's a guilty verdict that will, in the long run, create more death and despair - and ironically among those who want this result the most. Zimmerman being guilty will be interpreted to mean that not only was Trayvon's rage over being followed justified, but that his decision to essentially wage war against Zimmerman that night was righteous.

A guilty verdict will mean that the blind rage among young black men in our country toward anyone who disapproves of them in any way is not something to be scorned, it is something to be protected, indeed celebrated. And since this continued rage will lead to more violent actions like the one Trayvon likely initiated that night, many will die as a result. The left will have this blood on their hands. They already do.

[MtBaldy]

Don’t read fecal matter in The Nation. It will rot your brain.

[COBOL2Java]

Very good, except you misspelled ‘crackas’...