I binge-watched the docu-series Rest in Power: The Trayvon Martin Story the other day. While I had been fairly well versed on the story, I wasn't fully versed and came away learning a number of things from the 6-part series.
First off, while the series was expectantly sad and often times anger-inducing, it was rather interesting, educational, and I'd recommend people to check it out to, at the very least, garner a different perspective of the events.
When it comes to the events, while comparisons to the O.J. Simpson trial were made during the course of the series, I only see a partial resemblance. In the Simpson trial, I feel the LAPD slipped up to such a grand extent, the jury was right to rule the prosecution didn't prove their case against the former NFL star beyond a reasonable doubt, thus declaring him as "not guilty." I also haven't been convinced one way or the other on his level of guilt or innocence with regard to his murder charges. Yes, I may be the last person over 25 in the country who hasn't adamantly declared his feelings on the matter one way or the other. When it comes to the George Zimmerman trial and verdict, like Simpson, I think the prosecution failed to prove that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Unlike the Simpson case, however, I've been convinced Zimmerman was guilty.
The elephant in the room was Trayvon Martin's prosecuting team. They were so bad, I could actually understand some conspiracy theorists' beliefs that they were working with the defense to get George Zimmerman off scot-free. No, I don't believe that and don't want to start any conspiracies. I'm just pointing out the fact that Martin's prosecuting attorneys acted like they didn't want to be there, didn't want to represent the slain teen, and were doing the bare minimum to prove the defendant's guilt. They didn't bring up Zimmerman's history of racism against blacks. They didn't much mention the defendant's history of anger and violence. They didn't go the stalking-route where Zimmerman followed Martin prior to the altercation. It's all but certain they didn't prep their "star witness" for her appearance on the stand with regard to the phone call she had with Martin during the tragic incident. The defense wasn't even anything to write home about. They started their opening statement by telling a knock-knock joke. No, I'm not kidding. So it's not like the prosecution team was facing the greatest defense team ever orchestrated. Not even close, yet for as putrid as their time in court was, they sadly made Zimmerman's attorneys appear much more impressive than they actually were. Like the new trend in memes would suggest, it was like the defense started the proceedings by saying, "We're going to start this murder trial off with a knock-knock joke! Bet you can't one-up or one-down us there, more like!," and the prosecution said, "Hold our beer."
Having said all that, here's how I interpreted the story. Trayvon Martin went to a convenience store to purchase a drink and a bag of Skittles. It was raining outside, so he put his hood up to cover his head as he walked home. Upon doing so, he started getting followed by a person who found him to be "suspicious." Martin was on the phone with a friend at the time when he informed her of a person following him. The technical stalker called the police about this allegedly suspicious individual. When the police asked him if he was following the suspicious person, he answered in the affirmative, and the police told him not to do that. Yet he continued to do so. Fearing for his life, Martin hid and then pounced on the stalker. The two got into it and the altercation ended in the stalker shooting and killing Trayvon Martin. Adding some background, the stalker, one George Zimmerman, had a long history of making phone calls to police about "suspicious" men in the area, most (perhaps all) of whom were black. Even some of his closest friends admitted he had a thing against black people. In addition to that, while Zimmerman had wanted to be a cop, he was turned away due to a violent past, which included resisting arrest from an officer. So an angry, racist, violent individual stalks a member of the demographic he's racist against; this person fears for their life and defends themselves, only to get shot and killed, and the stalker/murderer is seen by many as not guilty? Not a chance!
Imagine if there was an alteration of demographics in this story. What if Trayvon Martin was white and George Zimmerman was black? What would the country's reaction have been then? Any different? A white teenager walks home from a convenience store with his hood up in stormy weather; a black man follows him; is told not to do so by police but continues to; and the white kid, frightened, decides to preempt the inevitable attack with an attack of his own, only to get shot and killed by the black man. Regardless of how awful the prosecution was, how would the all-white jury have reacted? The people at large? Any differently? Without a doubt, yes! You would have heard people defend Trayvon, saying, "Well, he was being stalked, felt scared for his life, so what he did was self-defense. The stalker was told by authorities not to follow him and did so anyway, and shot and killed the innocent kid. This guy has a history of racism, anger, and violence, so his actions came as no surprise. The guy is guilty. Period!" Skin color should have no bearing on legality or perception, so like this white-version of Trayvon Martin, the actual Trayvon Martin should have been seen and ruled as the victim. He was followed; feared for his life; acted in self-defense; didn't deserve to die; and George Zimmerman should be in prison for murder. Period.
First off, while the series was expectantly sad and often times anger-inducing, it was rather interesting, educational, and I'd recommend people to check it out to, at the very least, garner a different perspective of the events.
When it comes to the events, while comparisons to the O.J. Simpson trial were made during the course of the series, I only see a partial resemblance. In the Simpson trial, I feel the LAPD slipped up to such a grand extent, the jury was right to rule the prosecution didn't prove their case against the former NFL star beyond a reasonable doubt, thus declaring him as "not guilty." I also haven't been convinced one way or the other on his level of guilt or innocence with regard to his murder charges. Yes, I may be the last person over 25 in the country who hasn't adamantly declared his feelings on the matter one way or the other. When it comes to the George Zimmerman trial and verdict, like Simpson, I think the prosecution failed to prove that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Unlike the Simpson case, however, I've been convinced Zimmerman was guilty.
The elephant in the room was Trayvon Martin's prosecuting team. They were so bad, I could actually understand some conspiracy theorists' beliefs that they were working with the defense to get George Zimmerman off scot-free. No, I don't believe that and don't want to start any conspiracies. I'm just pointing out the fact that Martin's prosecuting attorneys acted like they didn't want to be there, didn't want to represent the slain teen, and were doing the bare minimum to prove the defendant's guilt. They didn't bring up Zimmerman's history of racism against blacks. They didn't much mention the defendant's history of anger and violence. They didn't go the stalking-route where Zimmerman followed Martin prior to the altercation. It's all but certain they didn't prep their "star witness" for her appearance on the stand with regard to the phone call she had with Martin during the tragic incident. The defense wasn't even anything to write home about. They started their opening statement by telling a knock-knock joke. No, I'm not kidding. So it's not like the prosecution team was facing the greatest defense team ever orchestrated. Not even close, yet for as putrid as their time in court was, they sadly made Zimmerman's attorneys appear much more impressive than they actually were. Like the new trend in memes would suggest, it was like the defense started the proceedings by saying, "We're going to start this murder trial off with a knock-knock joke! Bet you can't one-up or one-down us there, more like!," and the prosecution said, "Hold our beer."
Having said all that, here's how I interpreted the story. Trayvon Martin went to a convenience store to purchase a drink and a bag of Skittles. It was raining outside, so he put his hood up to cover his head as he walked home. Upon doing so, he started getting followed by a person who found him to be "suspicious." Martin was on the phone with a friend at the time when he informed her of a person following him. The technical stalker called the police about this allegedly suspicious individual. When the police asked him if he was following the suspicious person, he answered in the affirmative, and the police told him not to do that. Yet he continued to do so. Fearing for his life, Martin hid and then pounced on the stalker. The two got into it and the altercation ended in the stalker shooting and killing Trayvon Martin. Adding some background, the stalker, one George Zimmerman, had a long history of making phone calls to police about "suspicious" men in the area, most (perhaps all) of whom were black. Even some of his closest friends admitted he had a thing against black people. In addition to that, while Zimmerman had wanted to be a cop, he was turned away due to a violent past, which included resisting arrest from an officer. So an angry, racist, violent individual stalks a member of the demographic he's racist against; this person fears for their life and defends themselves, only to get shot and killed, and the stalker/murderer is seen by many as not guilty? Not a chance!
Imagine if there was an alteration of demographics in this story. What if Trayvon Martin was white and George Zimmerman was black? What would the country's reaction have been then? Any different? A white teenager walks home from a convenience store with his hood up in stormy weather; a black man follows him; is told not to do so by police but continues to; and the white kid, frightened, decides to preempt the inevitable attack with an attack of his own, only to get shot and killed by the black man. Regardless of how awful the prosecution was, how would the all-white jury have reacted? The people at large? Any differently? Without a doubt, yes! You would have heard people defend Trayvon, saying, "Well, he was being stalked, felt scared for his life, so what he did was self-defense. The stalker was told by authorities not to follow him and did so anyway, and shot and killed the innocent kid. This guy has a history of racism, anger, and violence, so his actions came as no surprise. The guy is guilty. Period!" Skin color should have no bearing on legality or perception, so like this white-version of Trayvon Martin, the actual Trayvon Martin should have been seen and ruled as the victim. He was followed; feared for his life; acted in self-defense; didn't deserve to die; and George Zimmerman should be in prison for murder. Period.
Comments
Post a Comment