it crossed your mind that you might be wrong, that it really could
have been Trayvon that attacked George that night? Even if you truly
believe George racially profiled Trayvon as a possible burglar, do
you really believe that such deemed a broken nose and a beating of
his head into a cement sidewalk?
have racially profiled George, assuming that because he is not
black, he was being a racist against Trayvon that night. Why is it
okay for you to racially profile George? George was asked a question
by the 911 operator, if the person was black, Hispanic, or white.
George answered the person. It was MSN that edited the phone call
recording and made it sound as if George just offered that
But again, even if you really believe that he
racially profiled Trayvon, you are racially profiling George. Anyone
of any race would have answered the 911 question and said what
race/color Trayvon was, and many people of all colors would have
just offered the information up. So clearly you are only saying
George did it for racial reasons, because George is not black. That
means you have racially profiled George.
is no good reason for Trayvon to have beaten George. Someone
appearing to follow you is not reason to beat the person. It is
reason to get out of there, but not reason to beat the person. What
if the person is just concerned about you wondering around the homes
and you just beat the person? Had Trayvon not been killed by George
that night, Trayvon would have killed George. Then Trayvon would
have been tried as an adult and lived the rest of his life in
prison. It is not a crime to think someone is up to no good. It is
not a crime to keep an eye on someone till the cops get there (and
the cops did not tell George to stop following the person, the 911
operator said it was not needed.) And it is not even a crime to
racially profile. Trayvon was not within his legal rights to beat
George. George was, however, within his legal rights to shoot a
person beating him.
has been information that has come out about Trayvon Martin that
shows he did in-fact have stolen jewelry in his possession, at
school. The school did not report him, but rather suspended him and
turned the jewelry over to the police as just "found" merchandise.
--The jewelry had been taken in a home invasion. Trayvon also had
info and pictures on his facebook account, his twitter account, and
his cell phone that showed him to want to across to people as a
pot-smoking gangster. So it is not a far reach to assume that he
presented himself as such out in public. It stands far more to
reason that George was seeing exactly the type of person that
Trayvon put off to be on his social media accounts. It also stands
to reason that Trayvon profiled George, calling George a "cracker."
And just another tidbit about Trayvon: He did not live with either
parent. Neither wanted him to live with them. Both were fed up with
him. He lived with a woman who had been with his dad for a time.
Trayvon was not this sweet little kid. And NO, we are not "all"
Trayvon Martins. And Trayvon Martin is NOT the face of black
America. Trayvon Martin was a thug. The last thing you should want
is for black America to appear as Trayvon Martin was. It is the
Trayvon Martins of the black race that cause people to be scared of
blacks. Do you really want that?
Bottom line, what if you are
wrong? Have you thought about that? And have you thought about the
fact that your painting depicts George shooting Trayvon from behind,
when it was proven in court that it was close range in the front?
Have you thought about the possibility that it is you who is a
racist and liar, as well as a hypocrite? And have you thought about
the possibility that George Zimmerman could consider suing you for
defamation? --He is currently suing MSN for their lie, for altering
the 911 call. Well, you have altered what happened that night in
your depiction of it, by showing him shooting Trayvon from behind.
Just saying, you might want to think about what you've
J.M. Smith 08-14-13