Thankfully, the media hullabaloo surrounding the Trayvon Martin shooting has died down somewhat, but there's one consistent element to the coverage which has been bothering me.
It requires a couple of assumptions, the key being that George Zimmerman is telling the truth about Martin going on the attack and the second being the attack itself went down as described.
Here's my issue... every news report I read or hear keeps circling back to Trayvon Martin being "unarmed." The intent here is clearly to illustrate that a guy with a gun shot a kid with no weapons on his person at the time.
However, here's where I think that logic misleads and misinforms the general public - being "armed" is as much about mindset and will as it is focused on the weapon itself. Following that logic, I feel it's irresponsible and inaccurate to characterize Martin as this innocent, unarmed cherub.
The evidence may soon demonstrate his hands and body were very effective weapons and his size, conditioning, and training in a sport which rewards physical brutality provided the ability and willingness to use them to inflict what we call in Colorado "great bodily injury or death."
The tools and the will went sideways, however, when Martin found himself on the losing end of fists-vs-gun.
One could make the argument that Martin didn't know Zimmerman was, himself, armed with a handgun and that his intent was to visit violence upon someone HE thought to be unarmed. This is a far cry from the scared little boy we're being led to believe Zimmerman shot in cold, racist blood.
And, for those who believe hands, feet, elbows, knees, and the head aren't "weapons" capable of inflicting great bodily harm or even death, watch an MMA match or search the Internet for injuries sustained by muggings or street fights.
A person need not equip himself with a gun, knife, club or brick to be considered "armed." To assume that an "unarmed" person can't visit grave, mortal damage to another human being could be the last bad decision someone makes.
Shame on the media (Fox included) for insinuating innocence or, at least, no intent to visit harm because a person wasn't carrying a weapon.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone