Where’d they run?
Well, off to capitalize on the next big exploitable “thing” to continue fostering the very profitable narrative that declares the perpetual helplessness of the “black community” to overcome “white privilege” in all its forms, whether subtle, brutally real, ephemeral, imaginary, or completely intangible.
I’m sure most of you out there think you know all about the death of Trayvon Martin. You think you know the evidence, the witnesses, and all the key players. But I’m betting you don’t. So, before I move on to more current events, let’s just review: Where are Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin today? Hustling a book to press hoping to take advantage of the fun and games in Fergusson Missouri. And then, they, like me, are probably already moving their operations to St. Louis, where another white officer just emptied the magazine of his Glock into an 18-year-old black kid, who’s friends and family claim was only holding a sandwich. The cops of course claim he was armed, and fired at the cop first. We’ll just have see how that plays out. The local “black community” however, isn’t content to wait. They’ve got to rush and get all the Jimmy Johns or Subway sandwich props up and running for the cameras here pretty quick. That’ll make a nice visual: “Don’t taze me bro…” bang, bang, bang, (seventeen times) and the sandwiches all fall to the ground as the protesters collapse in a heap for the news crew.
And then loot and burn down the nearest sandwich shop.
“An investigation will decide if the officer’s behavior was appropriate,” he said.
Asked about police claims that there was evidence the young man fired three shots and recovered a 9mm weapon at the scene, Syreeta Myers said, “Police lie. They lied about Michael Brown, too.”
Michael Brown was the unarmed black 18-year-old who was killed on Aug. 9 by a white police officer in nearby Ferguson. Brown’s killing was very much on the minds of protesters who gathered after Wednesday’s shooting, with some shouting “Hands up, don’t shoot” – a common refrain during the weeks of sometimes violent protests in Ferguson.
A state grand jury is deciding if the Ferguson officer, Darren Wilson, will face charges. He has not been seen in public since the Aug. 9 shooting.
Dotson said that the man killed Wednesday night was “no stranger to law enforcement,” including since he had turned 18.
Online court documents show that Vonderrit Myers was charged in June in St. Louis with the unlawful use of a weapon, a felony, and misdemeanor resisting arrest. A hearing that had been scheduled for Monday was continued until Nov. 17.
The police chief said some in the crowd Wednesday night shouted obscenities at officers and damaged police cars, but that the officers “showed great restraint.”
I have to give props to Tracy Martin at least, for taking his several fat payoffs quietly, discretely tucking away whatever regular or ongoing income he’s generating off the death of the son he took from his mother as an infant with apparently little protest from her. Tracy Martin indeed, broke up Trayvon’s home and family with several repeat performances of abandonment with several mistresses and would-be wives. And in spite of all the overt, incontestable images of his multiple adultery and philandering, he’s very credibly been playing the part of faithful husband and father for Sybrina Fulton Incorporated. He’s been generally keeping his mouth shut and out of the nation’s collective face otherwise. Tracy is most notably still connected to one of the lamest social-political pretenses for soliciting money from the self-hating “white,” mostly northern, “liberal” population and it’s currently sympathetic government. That would be, the attempt to repeal all “Stand Your Ground” laws in the nation. These laws oddly enough, measurably and statistically, benefit “black” defendants far more frequently than “white” defendants, at least in the state of Florida.
Of course, the Trayvon Martin case had nothing whatsoever to do with “Stand Your Ground” laws. Neither those words nor the Florida statute in question were ever referenced in George Zimmerman’s trial as even the vaguest allusion to some sort of possible defense for his shooting of young Trayvon Martin. The charges against George Zimmerman were cooked and seasoned for a year by the greatest Democrat politicians, lawyers, and prosecuting teams in Florida. Benjamin Crump and Daryl Parks, who’s interest in the case just came down to making money off Trayvon’s death in various civil suits, were the only two legal geniuses who still cling to the bare-assed, bold-assertion that Trayvon Martin’s unfortunate termination had anything at all to do with either “race” or “Stand your Ground” laws. The issue of “race” or “racial profiling” was never cited in the case of Florida v George Zimmerman. Even the hand-picked prosecution team, who bypassed the normal Grand Jury process in order to give the Democratic governor and local politicians a sure and immediate show trial, couldn’t make any believable connection to the “racial profiling” allegations of the “black community.” The whole truth was, after the feds started digging and prodding and arm-twisting everyone and everything George Zimmerman ever came in contact with his entire life, what the overtly biased prosecution team came up with, is, instead of a vicious white redneck who hated “Niggas,” Ol’ Georgie turned out to be something of a do-gooder and civil rights advocate who took a black girlfriend to the senior prom.
Sybrina Fulton on the other hand, seems determined to groom herself into a major “black community” celebrity–a Sainted Mother and symbol of universal grief and mourning for the young black males allegedly taken by hateful white predators on what one is expected to assume is a daily basis. Or whatever the most current and popular “black community” cause of the day might be. This of course, in spite of the fact that Sybrina Fulton didn’t raise Trayvon, wasn’t the mommy who trucked him out to ball games and sent him off to school in the morning with a kiss and a bag lunch. At the time of his passing, Sybrina had only been recently re-introduced to Trayvon Martin as a day-to-day responsibility. And this came about only in the wake of Tracy Martin walking out on Alicia Stanley, the lover he had dumped Sybrina for when Trayvon was a child, and then eventually married. Alicia was the woman who actually did raise the boy, the woman Trayvon Martin actually called “mother.” But at the time of Trayon’s death, his father was once again moving on and taking up with Brandy Green–a married woman who lived in the housing complex where Trayvon met his fate, The Retreat at Twin Lakes. Now, at the time the media was first swarming all over Tracy and Brandy, the latter
was being passed off as his “fiancé.” It was claimed that Trayvon had come to live in his “father’s” house. It was claimed that the candy and Skittles Trayvon had gone to get from the store that night, was for his “little brother” who we were led to believe was at home waiting with excitement for them, waiting during halftime at a championship game for his return, apparently along with his “parents,” or however you would characterize the Martin/Green relationship. (We would eventually were told by the prosecution’s “star” witness, Rachael Jeantel, that Trayvon Martin’s biggest cause for concern with George Zimmerman that night, was that he was a predatory man-rapist who would follow him home and also attack his “little brother.”)
The truth was, Brandy Green was married to someone else and it was her house that Trayvon was visiting. Trayvon’s mystery “little brother” wasn’t related to him at all. He was actually first introduced as Chad Green, the son of Brandy Green and the spawn of a mysterious man she was by all reckoning still married to. This man has given several interviews with the media, but I don’t find his name divulged online, except for here:
Here his name is given as Chester Joseph, and his son, the “little brother” of Trayvon Martin is referred to as “Chad Joseph.” (Chad the younger was also labeled “Chad Joseph” in the Zimmerman hearings.) You figure it out. And the whole truth is, Tracy Martin has a few more baby-mommas floating around out there that have never been explored by the “media,” and likewise, Tracy Martin has a few other loosely defined “children,” covering a wide spread of ages, spanning his multi-partnered reproductive years to date. (Ah yes, I am the paterfamilias. I have spread my seed…) But you get the point. It’s not a clean and clear picture of these key players we have been given by the “black community” and its media sycophants in the Trayvon Martin drama. Not from the very beginning. The pretended solidity of Trayvon Martin’s entire family relationship is a hoax devised to cover up an outright familial farce.
Tracy Martin didn’t live anywhere near where Trayvon was killed. Tracy Martin didn’t live at Retreat at Twin Lakes at all. Tracy Martin and his son were both complete strangers to that community. Tracy had only very recently started shacking up with Brandy Green, and then, mostly just on weekends. He would drive up from where he actually worked and lived in Miami—as did Trayvon. That’s 245 miles, roughly 3hrs and 45 minutes away from either Trayvon Martin or Tracy Martin’s “neighborhood.” This change in Tracy’s weekend lodging routine, again, came about apparently rather suddenly, when he just flat-out dumped Alicia with no warning or excuses. In the wake of his father’s fickle female partner trade, Trayvon was first bounced back to Sybrina, who couldn’t handle him, and then she bounced him back to Tracy at Brandy’s place because Trayvon had been suspended from school for the third time, and Sybrina had given up on trying to handle his anti-social behaviors. Tracy was indeed, at the time of Trayvon’s untimely demise, not at all “engaged” to Brandy Green, Chad was not his son nor Trayvon’s “little brother,” Chad was a 14-year-old young adult born of Brandy Green, who was apparently still legally Brandy Joseph, still married to Chester Joseph, while serving as the mistress of Trayvon’s father—who by best available accounts was actually still married to Alicia Stanley-Martin.
Brief though her contribution to the rationalization of the “black community’s” cultural myth that came to be known as “Justice for Trayvon” may have been, it was Brandy Green who first put out the initial Big Lie that Trayvon Martin had come back from the candy store and was sitting on his front stoop. It was there, on “his daddy’s porch,” that she, and subsequent storytellers over the first month and more of the media circus that followed, would embellish the slim “facts” actually known, into a fearsome story of white racism, where Trayvon Martin, shown only to the public as a cute little tyke, was assaulted by the heinous White Supremist, George Zimmerman, who came up out of nowhere, for no reason, while the boy was minding his own business in his own neighborhood, and shot him down like a dog on his own porch, just for being out of place in a “gated, white community.”
Later that public scenario was modified somewhat, because Zimmerman turned out not to be “white,” and his “gated community” was highly multi-racial, and because of the then clandestine input to the Fulton/Martin team of Trayvon’s friend Rachel Jeantel—who eventually came forward and claimed to have been on the phone with him at the time. The Fulton/Martin team, unsatisfied with the level of local attention, soon stepped their ever-more heinous charges up the media chain nationally, and soon began to claim that George Zimmerman had actually hunted Trayvon down, tracking him home from the store, candy in his pocket. They incorporated the emerging sketchy witness interviews and 911 audio to “prove” to the public that Zimmerman hunted Trayvon down, pounced on him, and Trayvon died screaming for help and begging for his life, as George held him captive. Privately, for the Fulton/Martin crew, after a little coaching and grooming, Rachel Jeantel seemed perfectly credible and cooperative in supporting the notion that George Zimmerman actually chased Trayvon Martin to “his daddy’s porch” and there, mere feet away from freedom, grabbed hold of “little Trayvon” and shot the alleged toddler down like an animal. That’s the story the “black community” wanted to tell. That’s what they wanted to believe, and they were going to make the story come out that way whatever they had to do to make it plausible. And you have to keep in mind that when Crump and Parks came onboard, they weren’t criminal lawyers. Nothing they had to offer about the Zimmerman trial had any insight or authority at all in a criminal case. They were, and are, ambulance chasers. Their whole reason for involvement in the first place was to initiate a civil suit and shake-down the Retreat at Twin Lakes Homeowner’s Association for 2-3 million dollars. In that, their main task, they won their case handily, and quickly moved on to other forms of profiteering from Trayvon’s death, and the combined grief of the “black community.”
But of course, Rachel Jeantel’s testimony didn’t hold up very well in front of a courtroom full of jurists who didn’t necessarily feel the same compulsion to validate the “black experience.” In fact, none of the principles falling on the Fulton/Martin side of the argument over the circumstances of Trayvon’s death, were willing to be totally honest even about the most basic, obvious facts of the case. Tracy Martin first blush attempted to pretend that he was right on the scene, and saw Trayvon just outside that night, that he knew he’d come back from the store and was right around the yard somewhere. But of course, the facts and evidence proved that Trayvon Martin had never come back home at all, never even attempted to come home, never even came close to his “daddy’s” house, had been wandering around for almost an hour in the unfamiliar complex, shooting the breeze with friend Rachael Jeantel, making fun of George Zimmerman as a “Creepy-Ass Cracker,” and a probable gay rapist.
Even the raw math of the incident’s timing betrays the “black community” storyline. Time stamps from video at the convenience store prove that Trayvon Martin had been wandering around the neighborhood for about an hour—the trip to the store and back would have only taken ten or fifteen minutes at a lazy stroll. Trayvon Martin was definitely not simply walking back from the store with Skittles and ice tea. (He most probably had Arizona Fruit Punch or Watermelon in truth, and there’s a whole lot of not-so-speculative exploration of what he was probably actually doing that night at the link below.)
Four minutes elapsed between the time George Martin lost sight of Trayvon Martin, claiming Trayvon had bolted off out of sight. This was verified via time stamps on Zimmerman’s 911 tapes, and supported by the testimony of “star witness” Rachael Jeantel and her phone records. Trayvon Martin was killed roughly a hundred yards away from his much-touted goal. His easily documented travels took him clearly in the opposite direction from “his daddy’s porch,” and around a corner behind some large buildings, in a dark area no more than 30 yards from where Zimmerman had started his observations, close to his parked vehicle. Trayvon Martin, had he really been afraid, could have easily made it “home” with time to spare. Instead, Trayvon Martin clearly turned around and met back up with George Zimmerman at an intersection far away from Brandy Green’s front porch, and right near George Zimmerman’s truck.
The New York Times and Reuters and a multitude of other reliable news sources report that Brandy Green and Tracy Martin were actually out to dinner all evening and left the two boys to watch the game alone, leaving them with money for pizza. (Meaning, Trayvon, Martin, 17, and Chad Green/Joseph, 14,) They came back late and in reality didn’t notice Trayvon was missing until late the next morning. So, in short: Brandy Green was just flat-out lying about seeing Trayvon sitting on the porch that night. So was Tracy Martin. They were just making up a story on the spur of the moment, flying by the seat of their pants, to cover their own asses for leaving two teenagers unattended all night.
So, what happened to Brandy Green? It’s clear that Brandy Brandy Green almost instantly got “disappeared.” It has been a swift and certain and very thorough “disappearing” to this day. That cleaned up some of the Crump/Parks/Fulton/Martin storyline. Then Tracy got groomed. And muzzled. Before Sybrina’s legal team swooped in, Tracy had already stumbled over several early faux pas that Crump and Park found damaging to the narrative, statements Tracy had to massage throughout the case. Tracy Martin for instance, gave national media interviews where he admitted he told the police he had doubts about whether or not the infamous “cries for help from a little boy” 911 recording sounded like his son. The police testified that he’d dismissed the tape as not being his son very clearly. The best Tracy could do on the stand is deny denying it, claiming that all he’d said was that he wasn’t sure it was his son. (Not very helpful there at all.)
As for poor Alicia Stanley-Martin , well to Ben Crump and Daryl Parks, it must have been obvious that you can’t sell books and interviews and tickets, much less win a trial, if Sybrina Fulton comes off like a disaffected mom who never even knew her own kid, and Tracy Martin is exposed to be a multiply-adulterous, home wrecking father and philandering husband. Alicia Stanley complicated things. Alicia Stanley wasn’t even allowed to sit with the family by the casket—not even in the front row–at her own son’s funeral because it didn’t fit the Crump/Parks narrative. It was awkward. It confused the public and muddied up the Fulton/Martin image on camera. The “black community” as a whole really really didn’t like her very existence messing with the “Justice for Trayvon” mythology they’d finally got all worked out for themselves.
But don’t take my word for it:
The two key elements in @Tjsotomaor”s arguments are first, a total lack of any “facts” at all. In fact, his “facts” are pretty much ass-backwards. And the second element in this analyst’s “black community” macho-male, misogynist-based manifesto, is that the facts, even if he had them straight, wouldn’t matter. The fact that Tracy Martin was still married to Alicia Stanley would not make one bit of difference to this “authentically” black YouTube genius at all–nor would the fact that Alicia Stanley had been Trayvon’s mom from age 3 till just before he passed away at 17. This “black” man’s point is simply this: Tracy Martin finished with Alicia Stanley. Five minutes ago, five years ago, didn’t matter. However many years they spent together, who she had become to his son all that time, didn’t matter. The moment Tracy Martin got bored with, and walked away from her, that bitch was irrelevant.
“You got to sit in where you fit in,” is what the Fulton/Martin Corporation told Alicia Stanley–Martin at Trayvon’s funeral, meaning, yeah, you can come, but plant your ass back with the masses wherever you can find a seat. No doubt Tracy Martin felt that way, having just walked out on her. If he didn’t, you know Sybrina did, since obviously she was the woman Tracy had dumped Sybrina for. The question that should be asked however, is: How did Trayvon feel about that? The “black community” and certainly the Fulton/Martin coalition obviously didn’t give a damn.
And finally, from her secret hiding place, came the “damning” testimony of the “star witness,” for the prosecution, Rachael Jeantel. Finally the much-touted, “friend” of Trayvon Martin who was going to explain it all appeared from the mist of the Fulton/Martin machine’s hyperbole, and graced the American legal system with her presence. Parks and Crump and the brilliant special prosecution team kept her utterly hidden in the background for almost a year, as “witness 8.” She was revealed at last to be that much-alluded to, but entirely mysterious “friend” Trayvon Martin was supposedly talking to on the phone at the time of his death. Ultimately, it proved that she probably hadn’t actually heard Martin’s last moments. Trayvon hung up or otherwise lost connection, just as the interesting part of his encounter with Zimmerman began. She had been promoted to be the “smoking gun,” proving once and for all the multiple race-based motivations and callous, bigoted, violent and foolhardy actions of the intrepid “white Hispanic”murdering racist, George Zimmerman. She was alleged to be a veritable “school bus full of nuns” who had heard and seen the whole thing. Instead, due to her performance on the stand, she was universally viewed as a hostile, unreliable, inarticulate Neanderthal. Her several, ever-morphing versions of events came off as unclear at best:
Martin’s friend was subsequently interviewed by state prosecutors on April 2, 2012. During her interview with the prosecutor, Martin’s friend recounted her last phone call with Martin and added that Martin had described the man as “crazy and creepy”, watching him from a vehicle while the man was talking on the phone. She also testified that Martin referred to Zimmerman as a “creepy ass cracker” and “nigga” during their telephone conversation. On March 6, 2013, prosecutors admitted that she had lied under oath, when she falsely testified that she had been in the hospital on the day of Martin’s funeral. She later admitted being embarrassed about lying and that she felt guilty about Martin’s death and not doing more to help. Crump had refused to disclose the identity of Witness 8, stating that she was only 16, a minor at the time of the shooting, and asked the media to respect her privacy. It was subsequently revealed that she was actually 18 at the time when she said she was on the phone with Martin. According to the defense, her actual age had been edited out of previously released disclosures. Crump has denied intentionally giving any misleading statements about her age. Witness 8 was subsequently identified as Rachel Jeantel, a friend with whom Martin had attended elementary school and high school.
Jeantel’s testimony, which continues as I write, contradicts Zimmerman’s claim that he stopped following Martin and was assaulted by him without provocation. Her account implies that it was Zimmerman who tackled Martin, rather than the other way around. How credible is her version of events? Not very.
That bit about “the sound of wet grass” seems like an after-the-fact embellishment; I am not sure what wet grass sounds like, and it is unlikely that Jeantel knew her friend was in the vicinity of it until she read or heard accounts of the shooting long after her conversation with him. Her claim that she “kind of heard Trayvon saying, ‘get off, get off'” also smacks of twisting her memory to fit the prosecution’s case. As defense attorney Don West showed in his cross-examination, Jeantel’s testimony has evolved over time in ways that help the prosecution.
In the courtroom, Jeantel confidently identified the person screaming in the background of a recorded 911 call as Martin. But as West pointed out, she was much less certain about that in a deposition, saying the voice “could be Trayvon,” adding, “Like I said, I don’t know. But it could be. The dude sound kinda like Trayvon.” In an interview with prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda, Jeantel said she “heard a noise like something hitting somebody”—a detail she had not mentioned before. Today in court she declared that the sound meant “Trayvon got hit.” West pointed out that she was merely speculating, since there was no way she could know that based merely on what she heard over the phone. Jeantel initially told prosecutors that the “noise like something hitting somebody” was the last thing she heard. Later she claimed to have heard someone say “get off, get off” after the “noise like something hitting somebody.” Yesterday in court, she mentioned the “sound of wet grass.” Today she said it was the sound of people rolling around on the ground.
Simply put: the “black community” with the help of a willing and enthusiastic white, liberal media, and in many cases a Democratic-led liberal legal and political structure, has long ago concocted and canonized a fable, a cultural fairy-tale, a narrative it wants to hear about “race” in America. And that’s simply what it’s going to hear. The Trayvon Martin case is one convoluted lie or half-truth after another, most of it pointless deflection intended to distract from a lot of personal disorder and scandal. And when you sort it all out you come to Trayvon Martin, a pretty good ass-kicker, who found himself in the dark and wet one night, wandering around a strange neighborhood in the rain, BSing with his girlfriend on the phone, coming into some kind of confrontation with the neighborhood watch captain who thought it was odd he was out there weaving around the housing complex that night. The encounter evolves quickly into Trayvon having a “Nigga Moment” on top of George Zimmerman’s face. After a while, Zimmerman decides he’s a goner and shoots Trayvon once in the chest. It’s a clean and efficient kill.
That’s all we really know about it. That’s all we will ever really know about it. No racial profiling. No racist redneck killer, no bloodthirsty “white” man stalking the night for little black baby boys to murder. No assault on the “hoodie” as a fashion or cultural statement. No “Stand your Ground.” No “racial profiling.” Just a swift and sure cessation of a potentially deadly assault. And you and Rachel Jeantel can postulate all you want that Trayvon would have never killed George Zimmerman, but it’s not incumbent upon George, in the midst of being beaten helpless and unconscious, to second guess where Trayvon’s Martin’s head is at the moment, or if he really has the experience and professionalism to lay down a safe and non-lethal “Ass Whoopin’,” or if he’s just going to keep hammering away after his Ass-Whoop-ee passes out—legally or morally.
Now, I can face down the “black community” with this sort of logic and evidence, and argue away all the other facts, get concession after concession, admission that the whole original story was a load of crap. But…but..and yes, there always comes a “but”…uh…Zimmerman should have stayed in his car. The police told him to stay in his car. Or, but…Trayvon had just as much right to “Stand his Ground.” Well, no: A, no, the “police” never talked to George, a 911 dispatcher talked to George. He was not “ordered” to stay in his car, he was told the police didn’t need him to follow Trayvon. George agreed, and evidence suggests that though he eventually got out to see if he could regain sight of Martin, he wasn’t actually “following” him anywhere, much less chasing him down—in fact Martin had doubled-back and cut George’s exploration off fairly close to his vehicle. “Following” isn’t illegal in any case. And B, no, it doesn’t matter who said what to who or who threw the first punch or made the first grab or how long it took Trayvon Martin to get on top of George Zimmerman, pin him down, and wail the tar out of him for an extended period of time. A minute or two of having the crap beaten out of you seems like an eternity when you’re on the receiving end of it. If at any time during Trayvon Martin’s enthusiastic “Ass Whoopin’” as Rachel Jeantel described it for CNN, George Zimmerman felt he was in fear of death or serious injury, he had every right to shoot Trayvon Martin to prevent it. That’s simple self-defense, and has nothing to do with “Stand your Ground.” That’s the law in every state of the union regarding legally-carrying handgun owners. There is no law that says: if the other guy is younger than you, or if the other guy doesn’t have a gun, you have to take the ass-whooping like a man and hope you don’t get killed in the process.
At this point, Hill attempts to draw her out more fully… At some point a fight breaks out, who swings–who hits who first in your mind?” Jeantel replies “In my mind, I believe Trayvon. It was Trayvon…”
Hill refocuses with another question “If Trayvon swung first, what do you think Zimmerman did to make him swing first?” Jeantel replies “I believe Zimmerman was a wannabe cop trying to say ‘Oh, I got you.'” Hill then brings up a theory which has been discussed by some in the media since the verdict “Do you think he pulled his gun out?” Jeantel replies “No, I believe he tryin’ to grab him. ‘Okay, I got you, you coming with me.'”
So it appears Jeantel’s view is that Zimmerman put his hands on Martin and then Martin responded by throwing a punch. However in testimony at trial Jeantel never claimed to have heard anyone saying “Okay, I got you.” She testified that Martin initiated the confrontation by asking Zimmerman “What you following me for?” Zimmerman responded “What are you doing around here?” At this point she says she heard a bump and faintly heard Martin say “get off.”
Zimmerman’s account was that Martin approached him and asked “You got a problem, motherf–ker?” Zimmerman says he backed up, reached for his phone and replied “I don’t have a problem.” At this point he claims Martin said “You got a problem now” and punched him in the nose. Is it true? Obviously only Zimmerman knows for certain, but his account does escalate with a certain logic. The words and actions of his account don’t have any obvious gaps that need to be filled in to explain how one thing led to another.
The other interesting part of Jeantel’s interview is her claim, also made on Piers Morgan Tuesday night, that Zimmerman should have taken his beating. Hill pointed out “George Zimmerman’s defenders would say well, if he didn’t pull out a gun, if Trayvon was whoopin’ his ass he could have killed George Zimmerman.” Jeantel replies “No. Trust me. That’s not killing. You have a big bruise, you don’t see inside your skin. You might have a little stitches.” Jeantel adds “He [Trayvon] would have fight him and run.”
Unfortunately, even if you argue the “black community” down to their last desperate nuggets of rationale for the complete excusing of poor little Trayvon for having any part of his own demise, it’s always going to be: George Zimmerman was a grown man, he had the gun. Trayvon Martin was an unarmed teenager. They that with a straight face, as if it makes sense. At that point I can only suggest that if all
unarmed young black teenagers assumed that every “Creepy Ass Cracker” probably had a gun on him, there might be fewer dead young black male teenagers. I mean, Trayvon didn’t know George Zimmerman had a gun on him. But he didn’t know he didn’t. He certainly should have known that Zimmerman could have. The one thing Trayvon Martin knew for sure, was that Trayvon Martin didn’t have a gun on him. But of course, that presumes young black males don’t frequently carry guns themselves—which we all know is nonsense. And it also presupposes that Trayvon Martin was harmless without a gun, which we all know is comically naïve. The pretense that the Trayvon Martins of the world are principally at risk because of “Creepy Ass Crackers” is even more inane. If he hadn’t decided to stove George Zimmerman’s his head into the sidewalk, Trayvon Martin would have been ultimately in far more danger from his little thug-wannabe buddies than he ever was from some neighborhood watch volunteer, with or without a gun in the possession of the latter.
No it’s not Trayvon Martin. It’s not Barack Obama’s unborn son who would have looked just like Trayvon Martin. In fact, Barry kdk as he was known then, would have only been six years older than this unarmend, young black male at the time he became famous. Barry would have been smoking dope in the dorm and talking about the coming revolution with possible future victims of this young black man and his fellow victims of “white privilege.” It’s Matias Reyes, who in 1989 raped and beat nearly to death the once highly publicized “Central Park Jogger.” Unfortunately, Matias got away, but five other young black men were convicted of the crime based upon their “wilding” behavior elsewhere and with other victims of assault in the park that night, lots of witnesses, their vicinity to the scene at the time of the crime, and rather a lot of other sound evidence, contrary to what Al Sharpton and company are now claiming. And sure, the “black community” screamed “racism” because the jogger was a pretty white woman, and the “racist white power structure” obviously wanted to fit up a gang of young black boys because racists think the main goal of every black man is to rape and defile white women. The problem with that bit of sarcasm, is that young black males have actually been known to rape and defile black women for fun and sport—sometimes in wolf packs.
The “Central Park Five” were eventually exonerated for the rape. Yes, the state may have gotten the verdict wrong. On that crime anyway. But then, all five of these youth had indeed been identified and convicted of being part of the “Wolf Pack,” a signature group of Central Park thugs who all-but invented “wilding.” All five of these youth had also given confessions to the police—which they later claimed were coerced. And that wasn’t the only evidence against them:
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio is demanding a quick settlement of the lawsuit brought by the five men convicted of one of the most sickening crimes in the city’s history: the attack on the Central Park jogger in 1989. The plaintiffs are demanding $50 million apiece…
The “Central Park Five,” as PBS documentarian Ken Burns has dubbed them, aren’t exactly Emmett Till (as Burns would have you believe). Even if they were innocent of the Central Park rape, which they aren’t, the reason they were originally arrested was that they were rampaging through the park, assaulting people.
Even after they began denying the rape, the defendants continued to admit committing these other attacks…
All those convictions — on the rape as well as the assaults — have been vacated because an aging district attorney wanted a glowing obituary in The New York Times.
The D.A.’s report was based solely on the confession of Matias Reyes, career criminal, serial rapist and murderer. Reyes had absolutely nothing to lose by confessing to the rape — the statute of limitations had run — and much to gain by claiming he acted alone: He got a favorable prison transfer and the admiration of his fellow inmates for smearing the police.
New York journalist Nicholas Stix reports that one inmate says Reyes told him he heard the jogger’s screams and raped her only after the “Central Park Five” had finished with her.
The media proclaim those five rapists innocent based on their own over-excited reports that the DNA found on the jogger matched that of Reyes, but none of the others!
Prosecutor Elizabeth Lederer expressly reminded the jurors of the missing rapist in her summation to the jury: “Others who were not caught raped her and got away.” Now we know who “got away.”
DNA wasn’t the evidence that convicted the “Central Park Five.” It’s hard to believe now, but in 1989 DNA was rarely used to convict anyone, so it wouldn’t have been carefully collected by police investigators. DNA identifications had only been invented a few years earlier and were not even permitted in New York courts until six months before the Central Park wilding.
This case was solved with old-fashioned police work. After the first 911 calls came in, the police arrested some of the thugs in the park that very night. Then they arrested those named as part of the wolf pack by the first detainees.
For example, one boy picked up in the park told the cops — without prompting — “I know who did the murder. I know who did the murder. I know where he lives and I’ll tell you his name.” He named one of the five convicted of the attack on the jogger, Antron McCray. (The night of the attack, no one expected the jogger to live.)
Of more than three dozen hoodlums brought in for questioning, only 10 were charged with any crimes, and only five of those were charged with raping the jogger. All those charged with the jogger’s rape gave detailed, corroborated, videotaped confessions, after full Miranda warnings, four of the five in the presence of an adult relative.
Recall that none of them — including the police — could have known whether the jogger would emerge from her coma and be able to identify her attackers. (She emerged, but blocked all memory of the attack.) All five confessed to assisting the attack on the jogger, but none to raping her themselves. That’s enough for a rape conviction.
In Antron McCray’s 34-minute videotaped statement, for example, he said:
“Everybody started hitting her and stuff. She was on the ground, everybody stompin’ and everything. … I grabbed one arm, some other kid grabbed one arm and we grabbed her legs and stuff. Then we all took turns getting on her, getting on top of her. … I just like, my penis wasn’t in her. I didn’t do nothing to her … I was just doing it so everybody … Everybody would just like, would know I did it.”
Melody Jackson, whose brother was friends with defendant Kharey Wise, testified — reluctantly — that she talked to Wise by phone when he was at Rikers Island and that he told her that he didn’t rape the jogger, he “only held her legs down while Kevin (Richardson) f–ked her.” She originally volunteered this information to the police thinking it would be helpful to Wise.
(The District Attorney’s report that recommended vacating the sentences described the above exchange as: “Wise replied that he had not had sex with her, but had only held and fondled the victim’s leg.”)
Other witnesses provided various corroborating details to the police, such as one who said Kevin Richardson told him, “We just raped somebody,” and another who heard Raymond Santana and another boy laughing about how “we made a woman bleed.”
Two witnesses independently told police they saw several of the defendants walking from the 102nd Street traverse area where the jogger was raped. One said he realized the significance of that fact only when he saw where the memorial to the jogger in the park was.
When Raymond Santana was being driven to the precinct the night of the wilding, he blurted out: “I had nothing to do with the rape. All I did was feel the woman’s tits.” Wait! Who said anything about rape? The cops had not asked him about any rape.
Two of the defendants, Santana and Richardson, independently brought investigators to the precise location of the attack on the jogger, something only the perpetrators could have done.
The evidence against Richardson also included his vivid description of the attack — given on videotape, in the presence of his father — and a deep scratch wound on his cheek that he admitted was from the jogger. Oh, also — the crotch of the underwear from the night of the attack was stained with semen, grass, dirt and debris.
Contrary to media reports, there was hair, blood or semen on all five of the defendants.
In the opposite of a rush to judgment, two multi-ethnic juries deliberated for 10 days and 11 days, respectively, before convicting the five defendants of rape or sexual abuse — as well as the other assaults that night, mysteriously vacated by Justice Tejada — and acquitting all but one on the most serious charge, attempted murder.
The stinger for Al Sharpton and his fellow “leaders” in the “black community” was, and will ever remain, that even if innocent of the rape, the Central Park Five were still violent thugs. And if the Matias Reyes confession scenario had actually played out the way he claimed it did, the actual culprit was indeed just another young black male. Matias Reyes was a young, strong and healthy 17, just like little baby Trayvon, when he attacked the pretty young white woman in Central Park, raped and beat and raped and beat her until he supposed he’d finally killed her and left her for dead. Matias Reyes was the same age and build as the “unarmed black youth” we are told by the “black community” didn’t pose any possible threat to anyone. Trayvon and Matias could have been twin brothers. So, if Barack Obama had a son, he would also look like Matias Reyes. Matias Reyes: A “harmless” and “unarmed” black youngster who by virtue of his youth and lack of weaponry could never represent a danger to anyone.
No. Not really. In fact, when it comes to “criminal profiling,” Trayvon and Matias are right there in thick of the most violent, dangerous, and most prolific of the criminal classes. And Matias Reyes never “grew up” and had the “come to Jesus” moment apologists for these primary sources of violence in the black and white communities alike keep promising will come with maturity and mentoring. The only reason Matias Reyes finally confessed to nearly raping to death the Central Park Jogger, the only reason the Central Park Five are free today, is that he volunteered his confession in conjunction with plea-bargaining around a number of other convictions including four other rapes and the murder of a pregnant woman. All the “Central Park Five” were guilty of perhaps, is beating the crap out of random white people in Central Park on a “wilding” spree. And of course, assuming Reyes got to her first, following up Matias’ brutal rapine and thuggery with some playful beating and molestation of their own—you can’t hold that against them. She’d already been “done” anyway and wasn’t long for this world as far as they could tell.
(WCPO) –CINCINNATI – A man allegedly (“Allegedly”? WTF?) assaulted and robbed by six teens during a “boredom beating” in North College Hill has died. Pat Mahaney, 46, passed away Friday at University of Cincinnati Medical Center a little less than a year after the vicious beating that caused him to suffer internal bleeding and put him in the hospital for four days. Investigators determined the teens instigated the August 2012 attack because they were “bored” and looking for something to do.
North College Hill Police Chief Gary Foust said the juveniles jumped Mahaney from behind, hit him in the head and knocked him to the ground with a six-pack of beer he had just purchased.
In Philadelphia, where the phenomenon of racially-motivated ‘flash mobs’ has been rampant for the past two years, Mayor Michael Nutter has had enough.
Tough talk: Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter says attackers in his city have ‘damaged your own race’
Targeting the city’s assailants in a speech reported by The Washington Times, Mr Nutter bellowed: ‘You have damaged your own race.
‘Take those God-darn hoodies down, especially in the summer. Pull your pants up and buy a belt ’cause no one wants to see your underwear or the crack of your butt.’
J. Whyatt Mondesire, head of the Philadelphia chapter of the NAACP, called Mr. Nutter’s remarks ‘courageous.’
The mayor has announced he will bolster police patrols and enforce a citywide curfew to crack down on attackers in the streets of the City of Brotherly Love.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024223/Wisconsin-State-Fair-attacks-Philadelphia-Mayor-Michael-Nutter-blasts-racist-flash-mob.html#ixzz3G4nbbIZz
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
At the Wisconsin State Fair on August 4th, hundreds of black people attacked white people once again.
The alleged attacks are part of a string of “flash mob”-generated violence around the country — including cities like Philadelphia and Chicago — in which packs of dozens or even hundreds of youths appear seemingly out of nowhere to commit assaults, robberies and other crimes against innocent white bystanders.
On July 4th, a mob of black youths attacked, beat, kicked, robbed and stomped on a group of whites watching fireworks in Milwaukee (Source). One black youth claimed, “Oh, white girl bleeds a lot,” after assaulting Shania Perry. Several victims claim the local police downplayed the violence the night of the attacks.
During the 4th of July fireworks display in Peoria, Illinois a mob of black people began screaming “Kill Whitey” and disrupted traffic by pulling people out of cars and not letting people drive by blocking the highway.The attackers also took fireworks and pointed them at police and firefighters-helping those who were attacked. Many of them, were burned and injured. The mob left black people alone and beat up as many white people they could find. According to eye-witness, the attack was racially motivated, however many local news papers refuse to acknowledge race.
The pretense for such independent “wilding” sprees often aren’t even bothered with any more. Major “riots,” often spawn small-gang spinoffs of course, like Freddy’s Fashion Mart, Tawana Brawley, the Duke University Lacrosse team, Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, it’s all the same to them. It doesn’t have to be “real,” it just has to be “perceived” by the “black community” and they feel justified. Or, these days, some random group of young black males could be just plain bored.
And where do they learn that this “wilding” behavior is justified and acceptable? I could waste volumes right now pointing out the race-baiting follies of Al Sharpton alone. But the “black community” and its liberal media apologists have simply decided it doesn’t matter how wrong Al Sharpton turns out to be about anything, nor does it matter who gets burned out, killed, imprisoned, or wastes millions of dollars on a pointless legal defense over what turn out to be blatant lies. Al Sharpton is a “respected” “black community” leader and he gets a pass.
1987: Sharpton spreads the incendiary Tawana Brawley hoax, insisting heatedly that a 15-year-old black girl was abducted, raped, and smeared with feces by a group of white men. He singles out Steve Pagones, a young prosecutor. Pagones is wholly innocent — the crime never occurred — but Sharpton taunts him: “If we’re lying, sue us, so we can . . . prove you did it.” Pagones does sue, and eventually wins a $345,000 verdict for defamation. To this day, Sharpton refuses to recant his unspeakable slander or to apologize for his role in the odious affair.
1991: A Hasidic Jewish driver in Brooklyn’s Crown Heights section accidentally kills Gavin Cato, a 7-year-old black child, and antisemitic riots erupt. Sharpton races to pour gasoline on the fire. At Gavin’s funeral he rails against the “diamond merchants” — code for Jews — with “the blood of innocent babies” on their hands. He mobilizes hundreds of demonstrators to march through the Jewish neighborhood, chanting, “No justice, no peace.” A rabbinical student, Yankel Rosenbaum, is surrounded by a mob shouting “Kill the Jews!” and stabbed to death.
1995: When the United House of Prayer, a large black landlord in Harlem, raises the rent on Freddy’s Fashion Mart, Freddy’s white Jewish owner is forced to raise the rent on his subtenant, a black-owned music store. A landlord-tenant dispute ensues; Sharpton uses it to incite racial hatred. “We will not stand by,” he warns malignantly, “and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business.” Sharpton’s National Action Network sets up picket lines; customers going into Freddy’s are spat on and cursed as “traitors” and “Uncle Toms.” Some protesters shout, “Burn down the Jew store!” and simulate striking a match. “We’re going to see that this cracker suffers,” says Sharpton’s colleague Morris Powell. On Dec. 8, one of the protesters bursts into Freddy’s, shoots four employees point-blank, then sets the store on fire. Seven employees die in the inferno.
The “black community” never admits its mistakes. That’s because “racism” is “true.” It’s certainly going to be forever “true” to all the workers on the Civil Rights Plantation making money off of stretching the Reconstruction Era to Infinity and Beyond. If there’s no “racism” they’re all out of a job. Whether it’s really true or not doesn’t matter. It’s emotionally “True.” It “feels” true. That’s all that counts. It’s a culturally-supportive fiction that “might as well be” true. If it’s not true in this case, it’s actually true all the time in every other case. It doesn’t make any difference if they get this one wrong, just this once, because justice is done overall anyway. The “black community” has a perfect right to habitually riot and protest and extort money and political retribution out of “white people.” Even if it’s based on a lot of facts and assumptions that don’t really apply this time out in this particular instance, “black community” outrage over presumptions of “racism,” is thought by its members to be easily justified out of historical precedent, if for no other reason. And it’s an easy gag to play on “Whitey.” The saddest, most self-defeating, self-damning problem, is that the “black community” feels that even if it isn’t “true” today, even if “racism” is essentially over and done with, it was true for a long time, and “Whitey owes us.”
September 2007 – Minnesota
Anoka – De’Andre June Sr., 47, a black Anoka resident who reported the burning of a cross on his lawn was charged with setting the blaze himself in a search for sympathy and money. Police began to suspect after learning that he had told inmates at the Anoka County jail last week that he was going to burn a cross in his yard and blame it on his neighbor. An inmate told police that June had “talked about getting sympathy and money from the public with a cross burning since he was a black man.”
- 29 Septembre 2007 – the Star Tribune – ‘Victim’ of cross burning in Anoka now faces charges par Kevin Duchschere,
- 29 Septembre 2007 – The Star Tribune – Past incidents par John Wareham
September 2007 – Pennsylvania
Bellafonte – On June 5, 2006, Police found the body of Langston Carraway, a 26 year old Black student at Penn State. He had been stabbed 93 times. Next to his body, “Die Nigger” had been smeared with his blood. This was thought to be a hate crime. Eventually, police found this hate crime had been staged and came to suspect LaVon Chisley, a Black former Penn State football player. He is currently on trial.
- 25 Septembre 2007 – Phillyburbs – Former Penn State football player on trial in death of student
- 25 Septembre 2007 – Centraldaily.com – Pathologist: 37 stab wounds occurred after deathpar Pete Bosak
- 25 Septembre 2007 – Centraldaily.com – Chisley murder trial opens par Pete Bosak
USA – Maryland
Waldorf – On Aug. 24, several black residents of Waldorf found their cars and mailbox spray painted with “KKK” and “Gay Pride”. This was labeled a hate crime. It turned out the Charles County Sheriff’s Office arrested 4 teenagers. Three of them are black, the fourth is white.
- 11 Septembre 2007 – The Southern Maryland Online – Four Juveniles Charged for August Hate Crime in Charles County
- 11 Septembre 2007 – nbc4.com – 4 Waldorf Teens Charged With Committing Hate Crime
- 13 Septembre 2007 – the Washington Post (subscription required) – Racist Graffiti Leads to Arrests par Dan Morse
April 2007 – Maryland – Waldorf – “White Power,” “K-K-K” and gang related signs were found at Doctor Gustavus Brown Elementary School. This was labeled a hate crime. It turned out the people who wrote the racist graffiti were 14 year old kids, all from all from interracial families and representing diverse racial backgrounds including black, white, Hispanic and Asian.
- 02 Avril 2007 – Southern Maryland online – Four Juveniles Arrested For March Hate Crime At Waldorf School
March 2007 – Delaware – James E. Cooke Jr., a metis, was found guilty today on all counts in his capital murder trial. Cooke broke into Lindsey Bonistall’s Towne Court apartment on May 1, 2005, then raped and strangled her before placing her body in a bathtub and setting the apartment on fire. Cooke, who is black, used a blue marker to write “KKK,” “White Power” and other phrases on the walls, police said. Bonistall was white.
- 08 Mars 2007 – delawareonline – Penalty phase next for Cooke: Will he get the death penalty? par Esteban Parra
- 09 Mars 2007 – the journal news – Cooke convicted in Bonistall murder par Jonathan bandler
- findlaw.com – State of Delaware v. James E. Cooke
March 2007 – California – Anderson – At Anderson High School, Maintenance employees found several sheets of paper with KKK and Swastika written on them. Police was called and the incident was labeled a “hate crime”. Investigations showed a black female student staged the whole thing because she was angry at her father for not picking her up.
- 23 Mars 2007 – redding.com – Police: Anderson student wrote hateful notes to lash out at dad par Lauren Brooks
January 2007 – Texas – Houston – Samuel White, a black man, has been charged with arson. In October 2005, he burnt down his own house and spray painted racial slurs and swastika on the walls. Police found the slurs were misspelled, the swastika drawn backward and that he had moved all his furniture 20 hours before the fire.
- 17 Janvier 2007 – abc13 – Homeowner accused of arson insurance scheme par Ted Oberg (with video)
- 18 Janvier 2006 – click2houston – Officials: Homeowner Staged Hate Crime For Insurance Money
September 2006 – California – Petaluma – Eric Young, a 19 year old black man, claimed he had been assaulted on September 4th by three white men who screamed racial slurs at him. The police found out inconsistencies in his story and he admitted fabricating the whole thing.
- 15 Septembre 2006 – The Argus Courier.com – Alleged racial-beating victim admits concOcting story
- 14 Septembre 2006 – Santa Rosa Press Democrat – Petaluma Man recants story of racist attack par Jose L. Sanchez
April 2006 – USA – Connecticut – Ansonia – A twelve year old boy claimed he was picked up by several white males dressed in white robes and masks, and taken to Linette Park where his face was sprayed with a flammable liquid and the males ignited it. The police showed he was burned while playing with a flammable liquid at a friend’s house. He made up the story to explain the injuries.
- 08 Avril 2006 – WTNH.com – Boy falsely reports racist attack in Ansonia par Jamie Muro
March 2006 – USA – Kentucky – Henderson – School authorities were extremely concerned when two African-American females and one black male at North and South middle schools received racist Email – The henderson police department found out that one of the suspects is African-American and that the two boys that sent the e-mails did it from the e-mail account of a high school student in order to get that student in trouble.
- 28 Mars 2006 – The Gleaner.com – “Two boys charged in racist email case” par Victoria Marty
March 2006 – USA – Virginia – Fliers headlined “KKK congratulates gang bangers for slaughter of black people” were distributed at the Heritage Acres Apartments in Suffolk. the “white racists” turned out to be a black woman.
Keep in mind it’s never considered “racist” to slander whites in one’s community
- 03 Mars 2006 the (Hampton Roads) dailypress.com – Black resident gave out KKK fliers, police say
February 2006 – Virginia – Powhatan – an anti-black racial slur and “white power” written on the home of a black family were thought to be a hate crime : a family member had written them.
- 22 Février 2006 – powhatantoday.com – Police: Graffiti left by family member par C. Clark Ballalso
- 06 Fevrier 2006 – Associated press – Police investigate sprayed racial epithets par Dionne Walker
Seemingly mainstream, educated, intelligent black folk have been known to fake hate crimes outright just for the notoriety or sympathy or as a diversion for their own malfeasance. I’ve listed above, a few cases of hate-crime fraud from one single random year. I could just as easily link a good score or so similar incidents every year back as far as you care to go. If you go far enough back however, you run into Emmett Till. And at that point they stop being “hoaxes.” At some point, some white people persecuted all black people horribly in America. But that may well be the point: it’s been a long time since the “black community” had a genuine Emmett Till experience, and some part of its psyche misses the drama of it all. My point being, if black folks have fairly often been known to self-promote themselves or their petty personal concerns via faking a racial incident, and sometimes do so out of the blue with no clear or serious reason or provocation, what are the odds that any time they think they are given some “legitimate” pretext to pull the “race card,” they won’t immediately display it, wave it about, making a great show of tears and suffering at the imagined indignity of it all?
Without the spectre of “racism,” much of the “black community” has no logical reason for perpetuating its own power structures and social conventions. They become, well, just plain people with no special status one way or another. They would be mutts, and multi-cultural generic citizens. They wouldn’t have or need an NAACP or a “black” liasons with the police from “black” civic groups who get to sit on boards and talk about “black” issues. If we have state and federal agencies that come down to the neighborhood and insure “civil rights,” what does Jesse Jackson do for a living?
You tell me.
On some level, too much of the “black community” loves to wink at the “wilding” and rioting and attacks perpetrated by its youth on random white folk in general. Some of its leadership incites it. Some of its leadership quietly encourages it. A lot of its leadership openly makes excuses for it, justifies it, rationalizes it. Why? Because if none of that behavior goes on, white people will stop hating black people. And if enough of it goes on, all white people will hate, or at least distrust all black people. As long as that arrangement remains the status-quo, the “black community” has a basis for remaining a special, protected class.
And that’s just another way of saying, they want to hang on to that race card.