The Zimmerman Trial Was Always About Stand Your Ground

by Steve MacDonald

I started writing this as a comment to Skip’s post (here) but then realized it was too long.

Stand Your Ground was never brought up at the Zimmerman trial but I think that was intentional.   It was never about Zimmerman.  It was always about Stand Your Ground and the left’s anti-gun agenda.  He’s just a vehicle for the narrative.   They just had to get someone to put him on trial.  Win or lose the narrative has got legs.

If they lose the case this leads to low info-voter-racially motivated public protest, which equals the appearance of public support for the real agenda.  If the Win–if Zimmerman was found guilty–then they use that as a catalyst to move against stand your ground and castle doctrine, and self-defense in general.

The Obama admin’s mission from day one was to find someone to charge him and try him.  The outcome was irrelevant to the real goal.  And so they applied pressure where needed to make a trial happen.

Skip observes

Perhaps this was the goal after all and a small town tragedy was seen merely as another version of the same thing – to render us less dependent on ourselves.

Yes.  Yes it was.

I’ve been saying, and again, at least twice in the past week, that at its root this was always about the anti-gun narrative.  And I think they left that out of the court case intentionally.  They knew (KNEW) getting Zimmerman convicted was a long shot.   At best his being found not guilty would serve as a call to action which they could use to fuel the real motivation for trying him under these circumstances; agitating the base yes, but why?  They wanted protests and riots so it would appear that there was public support for their real agenda–Zimmereman used “Stand Your Ground” to kill poor little Trayvon Martin, right?  And were it not for Stand Your Ground poor little Trayvon would still be alive.  George Zimmerman might be dead but so what?  If Zimmerman dies this case never sees the national light of day (because it does not serve the narrative).

Facts don’t matter, clearly, or they never could or would have brought this to trial.  They needed the catalyst for the anti-gun agenda.   It’s fast and furious in complexion.  Create the circumstances to demand action.

But if they pushed the Stand your ground issue in court as well, given what little case they had, a not-guilty verdict would have made the anti-gun hill even steeper, maybe impossible to climb.  So they never brought it up.

And now, after the verdict, we have AG Holder doing what?  Talkng about Stand your Ground.  And that is exactly where they wanted to be.

Leave a Comment

  • http://granitegrok.com/author/mike Mike Rogers

    This explains the government’s motives very well, but there’s more.
    The Other McCain has been looking into the background of “poor little trayvon”, and has found, once more, the soft bigotry of low expectations at work.
    Specifically, by declining to discipline the boy in order to make the school system look less troubled, and to reduce the percentage of black crime reported by the school system, a grave dis-service has been done to Trayvon in particular and the black community as a whole. By perpetuating the view that lowered educational and behavioral standards are ok, the race hustlers and apologists have instead fomented a situation where people from the “new school*” think they are wonderful, and the world loves them, UNTIL they try to impose their low standards on the world, and get rejected, or even receive, as did Trayvon Martin, a “Darwin Award” for his bad attitude and failure to think before he assaulted a neighbor.

    *”We new school, they old school” said Ghettopotamus.

    • nhsteve

      I read or heard that elsewhere. But Obama and the left are not interested in any of that. obviously being from Chicago.

      It is relevant though I doubt we’ll get points for our compassion–school choice, free markets, futures…instead of this sad tale.

  • Pingback: The Democrat Bigotry Of Low Expectations — GraniteGrok()

  • Radical Moderate

    Coherent argument Steve. I agree. As more of the story becomes revealed it becomes undeniable that the charges were filled in spite of the lack of evidence and as a ‘show trial’.
    My take is that the PTB and their media tools are attempting to ‘soften the battlefield'(the purpose of a show trial) by associating SYG laws with racist motivation by white people. But this may backfire because by pushing this tag-line they have inadvertently equated anti-SYG action with anti-white action.
    In military applications the act of ‘softening the battlefield’ is a precursor to sending your ground troops out to directly engage the enemy. It is my prediction we will see an unprecedented push against SYG laws around the country by all the ‘ground troops’ the Progressives have at their disposal both nationally and locally.
    We must be very observant and suspicious of those that now move against SYG laws here in NH. In my opinion these people are extremely dangerous and are quite willing to do grievous bodily harm to those that stand in the way of their agenda as history has proven time and time again.

    • nhsteve

      I agree. And we seem to have the radar on 24/7 when it comes to the anti-gun left in NH. We’ve practically turned GG into a gun blog in the process.

  • Pingback: 18 Different 17 y/o Black Males Shot Dead in Chicago Since 2/16/12 — GraniteGrok()

  • Pingback: Seeking Clarity from NH AG Joseph Foster — GraniteGrok()

  • Pingback: Coincidence? Obama Media Collectively Grinding the Stand Your Ground Axe — GraniteGrok()

Previous post:

Next post: