Understand one thing… my posts over the last few days regarding the Martin shooting are eracting to the weird Conservative impulse to portray Trayvon as a ruthless thug. They claim they are just responding to the media circus that had made Trayvon into an innocent saint. They are responding to media narratives.
The problem with focusing on narratives is that there is not one monolithic narrative here. When Jessie Jackson claims:
“Targeting, arresting, convicting blacks and ultimately killing us is big business.”
And yeah…it is over the top. Of course, racial profiling is happens to be all to real…and calling 911 everytime a black male walks through your neighborhood is… excessive. And Jessie Jackson’s over the top narrative is not the one I am hearing in the mainstream media. The media narrative is that an unarmed young black man was shot by a guy who was an over-zealous white guy who at least appears to see all blacks suspiciously. It may or may not be inaccurate.
The seemingly damning video where Zimmerman appears to have not been all that beat up is not all that damning. A friend who worked with domestic abuse cases noted that the best option for taking pictures of bruising is a couple days after, as early bruising may not stand out and can even be “invisible to the camera. On the other hand, two different voice experts note that the cries of help on the 911 call are not Zimmerman’s.
But the core problem we are facing is…how do you get a fair trial here? Both sides of the argumet have drug both parties through the mud as best possible…the facts argued and twisted around by both sides so much…where do you find a jury of peers to give a fair analysis and verdict??
As the evidence has all been argued and debated…is there room for people to step back be objective?