Share This Page

Shut down the persecution of George Zimmerman, Mr. President

| Tuesday, July 16, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Trayvon Martin was an unarmed teenager walking home from a convenience store with Skittles and iced tea when he was shot to death by a racist, profiling wannabe cop named George Zimmerman. In the Big Media, that is how the Saga of Trayvon Martin is being told.

But is that what happened? Well, not exactly.

Trayvon Martin was not shot while walking home. He was shot after sucker-punching George Zimmerman, breaking his nose, knocking him down, jumping on top of him and banging his head on a concrete walk, while Zimmerman screamed, “Help me, help me.”

This is what George Zimmerman said happened. It is what the sole eyewitness to the fight, John Good, says happened. It is what Sanford police believed. It is what that jury of six women came to believe.

Why, then, do so many in the black community believe Trayvon was profiled and murdered?

Answer: Many had convicted George Zimmerman in their hearts before the trial began.

“Blacks are under attack,” railed Jesse Jackson. “Killing us is big business.” Trayvon was “shot down in cold blood by a vigilante ... murdered and martyred.”

“A hate crime,” said Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif. Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., said Trayvon had been “executed.” The Grio compared his killing to the lynching of Emmett Till in Mississippi in 1955.

And President Obama? Did he calm the waters? Hardly. “If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon,” he said.

Not only did they all inflame the black community into believing a racist atrocity had occurred, others still do so, even after weeks of testimony that raised far more than a reasonable doubt.

Moments after the verdict, Al Sharpton ranted, “This is an atrocity.” The four-term mayor of Washington, D.C., Marion Barry, said the Zimmerman verdict was “awful,” another example of “institutionalized racism.”

Who turned this neighborhood watch fellow, well-liked by all in his community, into some racist monster?

George “didn't know why he was turned into a monster,” defense lawyer Mark O'Mara told the assembled journalists the night of the verdict. “But quite honestly, you guys had a lot to do with it. You took a story that was fed to you, and you ran with it, and you ran right over him, and that was horrid to him.”

Like his partner Don West, O'Mara exhibited moral courage in that post-verdict press conference, as did that jury of six women, who rejected the prosecution's pleas to at least give them manslaughter or child abuse.

President Obama might now exhibit a little moral courage of his own, by directing his Justice Department to halt this scavenger hunt for a “hate crime.” If Sanford police and the FBI could not find a hate crime, and the prosecution could not prove racial profiling or malice, what reason is there to believe any such motive ever existed?

If Barack Obama and Eric Holder capitulate to Al Sharpton's demand for “Plan B” and the NAACP's demand for a second trial of George Zimmerman for a crime of which he has been acquitted, most Americans will come to believe this is no search for justice, but a drive for racial retribution and revenge. And they will be right.

End this persecution of George Zimmerman, Mr. President. Shut it down.

Pat Buchanan is the author of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.