Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Why I Find it Difficult to Read Kathleen Parker
Until today, that is. Here is her latest effort. It's not all drivel but here are two things I want to point out. She is writing an all encompassing even handed account of the Zimmerman trial. Kinda.
If I were African American, I would fear for my sons and be furious at a system that condones vigilantism and then acts as though calling a teen’s death a “tragedy” ends the discussion.
If I were black, I would fear for my sons too, but not about 'vigilantism'. I would fear their being murdered by another black son, which is several orders of magnitude more likely than for them to be a victim of vigilantism by a "white Hispanic."
The jury obviously felt that Zimmerman acted in self-defense, or, at least, that the state failed to prove otherwise. It must have been a terrible conclusion to reach because, no matter the legal definitions that guided them, it seems impossible that someone’s young son, guilty of nothing, should die while his killer walks. Adages become such for a reason: The law is an ass.
She puts it well about the jury verdict and then goes off the rails. Trayvon Martin was not "guilty of nothing." He was obviously guilty of assault. There is no evidence that indicates otherwise. He died not because he was walking home with skittles and watermelon tea, but because he sought to attack the "creepy ass cracker (or cracka)" who actually was not doing anything wrong. It was his decision to assault George Zimmerman which cost him his life. Difficult for a rational person to come to another conclusion.
Then she quotes Dickens (poorly), more precisely, Mr. Bumble in Oliver Twist. Indeed, the law was a ass to suppose that Mr. Bumble's wife acted under his direction. We've come a long way, baby. But is the law a ass to recognize that we have a God given right not to die just because someone else chooses to attack us? I think not. Maybe in Ms. Parker's cocooning in an upper middle class neighborhood in Camden, SC, she has no real fear of violent attack, but here in the real world, crime happens. One can choose to take what comes, (my choice), or one can take arms against a sea of troubles and carry concealed, loaded and locked as the phrase ought to be said. People who go about armed think we who choose to be lambs at a possible slaughter are stupid. Perhaps we are. But is the law stupid to recognize that those who choose to defend themselves against violent attack are not guilty of a crime? Obviously not. Parker, as she so often shows herself, is the ass regarding that legal analysis.
So now back to years of ignoring her completely.
From the 9-11 transcript:
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Dispatcher: OK, we don't need you to do that.
George Zimmerman, not Trayvon Martin, caused this whole debacle. Why didn't he back off as he was told?
Why do people like you have a knee jerk-like reflex that causes you to mention Skittles and ice tea? Not relevant. Whether Martin was up to no good before he and Zimmerman met is not relevant. What's relevant is that apparently didn't like what Zimmerman was doing (although it was perfectly legal) and decided to punch him out MMA-style. Zimmerman was completely within his rights to follow and keep his eye on Martin; Martin was in a public place. The fact that Martin didn't like it didn't give him a right to assault Zimmerman.
And yeah, what djd said!