Funny how it works one way with calls for vigilantes, ala a reverse-KKK (of course in black hoods instead of white ones) but when there is no question that the act was unjustified we hear..... crickets....
A 13-year-old boy who police say was doused with gasoline and lit on fire last week while walking home from school is recovering from first-degree burns to his face and head.
The boy was just two blocks from his home in Kansas City Tuesday when two teenagers began to follow him and then attacked him, his mother, Melissa Coon, said.
Police have described the suspects as black 16-year-olds, while the victim is white.
Bet you didn't hear about that all over the national media.
WHY NOT?
IT DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE COLOR OF THE SKIN OF THE SUSPECTS AND MOST-ESPECIALLY THE VICTIM, RIGHT?
Oh, and as for Martin and Zimmerman in Sanford? You might want to read this:
With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law-enforcement authorities told the Orlando Sentinel.
And before you say it's all "he-said, she-said" let's again quote the original police report:
Looks like corroborating physical evidence might have been found....
And why was Trayvon there?
Trayvon was visiting his father's fiancée, who lived there. He had been suspended from school in Miami after being found with an empty marijuana baggie. Miami schools have a zero-tolerance policy for drug possession.
Of course everyone carries around an empty marijuana baggie, right? Speaking of which, how does one know if a baggie is a marijuana baggie and not a more-ordinary baggie that previously contained, oh, a ham-and-cheese sandwich? I doubt it was labeled "marijuana baggie" to ease identification as a piece of contraband. Might there have been a bit of marijuana still in the baggie? If there was that of course leaves one to wonder if there was previously more marijuana in the baggie that someone might have consumed, yes? Maybe very recently consumed? After all how long would you carry around an empty bag that once used to contain drugs, considering that it no longer has anything of value in it? It's not like it's hard to get a new baggie if you want to acquire more weed, right?
Just curious, of course...
At a Monday news conference, Trayvon's mother, father and their lawyers called the report that their son was suspended from school because of a marijuana baggie irrelevant and needlessly hurtful.
Trayvon's father, Tracy Martin, said "even in death, they are still disrespecting my son, and I feel that that's a sin."
Irrelevant? Not at all. It explains what Trayvon was doing there. It is therefore quite relevant.
As for being a sin to comment on this is Trayvon's father using a special selective version of the Bible? You know which one that is -- that's the version of the Lieberally-Enhanced Sharpie-Marker Bible that only labels acts sinful if particular people engage in them while for other people essentially anything -- including maybe bashing people's heads against sidewalks -- is ok.
Read the rest of the Orlando Sentinel article. It's quite interesting and raises many questions -- questions we should demand answers to particularly given the media circus and rather-biased "reporting" we've seen thus far on this incident.
Oh, and while we're at it can we all please see some actual authenticated recent pictures of Trayvon? I'm kinda interested in exactly how big-and-built this "kid" was, given that it's reported and supported by physical evidence that he managed to both jump Zimmerman and pin him, then pound his head on the sidewalk. There's a bunch of pictures floating around the Internet, along with a number of captured copies of tweets that allegedly were from Trayvon too, before his friends, family (or his family's lawyers) got them removed. I have no way to validate any of this material but the picture of events we're seeing as actual evidence emerge into the public eye isn't quite what we've all been told by certain rather-interested parties. And what's with trademark registrations that were recently filed?
This, incidentally, is why I looked at the police report originally. It didn't jive with Zimmerman being the aggressor -- but it sure did if, as was reported, Zimmerman was knocked down, mounted and then pounded upon.
The reported lacerations on the back of Zimmerman's skull are consistent with having his head slammed on the sidewalk by Martin as well.
Now perhaps as more evidence emerges into the public eye my view on this incident will change. I tend to look at virtually everything I see with a jaundiced eye these days when the media gets hold of a story, especially a story like this one. But when you have physical evidence, one of the participants' stories and witnesses who all converge, that's pretty compelling stuff.
For my opinion to change the facts in the public view would have to change or be augmented. I've got an open mind on this, but it isn't going to change due to people screaming "Racism!", especially not when the loudest screamers are professional agitprops like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and it definitely won't change when there are calls for blatantly felonious conduct to take place, such as kidnapping with a $10,000 bounty offered for anyone willing to break the law in such a fashion. (Oops -- looks like one of the New Black Panther Party's members was busted for alleged possession of a firearm as a convicted felon this morning in Georgia. Oh darn.)
I have just one question for everyone who is considering this case, including Chuckie Schumer and Jesse-The-Racist Jackson, both of whom would love to ban guns, even when used for apparent defensive purposes (but do not, apparently, call to ban gasoline when used to douse and set aflame white kids):
Exactly how many times will you consent to having your head slammed on concrete by someone who knocks you down and then gets on top of you before you conclude that you have the right to defend yourself, including through the use of deadly force?
Is that threshold reached before or after your skull is cracked open like a coconut and your brains are splattered all over the sidewalk? Are you willing to voluntarily submit to that test in person? (Hint: It ain't felony assault if you consent; that's masochism, and it's legal!)
Please answer in public so you're "on the record." After all, we wouldn't want to misunderstand your actual position on exactly when everyone is in the clear exercising the unalienable right to not die when having their head slammed against concrete by an alleged assailant.
Oh, and while you're contemplating that please also consider where the reporting and "in your face" coverage is on the white boy up above who was doused in gasoline and set afire by, it appears, two older black teens.
I'm waiting for those answers folks.
I suspect Hell will freeze before I get any of them.
