Of course, we all saw the Jussie Smollett hoax saga play out the way our minority voices expected. It's easier to be told a story than it is to analyse it. Fortunately, in that case, Smollett's story was so absurd that even the media pandering and the support from the entertainment industry couldn't keep it afloat for a terribly long time. Of course, I haven't received a single apology from anyone who called me a racist for pointing to the holes in Smollett's story early on; but, most people have shut up about it. There's only a select few morons and racists who still insist that he was telling the truth.
To really understand the gravity of this, we've gotta go back to 2012, and see how people still think about George Zimmerman, and how many lies people still believe. This is the perfect example of how effective media gaslighting can be.
First of all, even today, when you Google "Trayvon Martin" the first images that come up are the only images that the corporate media (aside from maybe FOX news) showed -- a cute, smiling fourteen-year-old kid in a Hollister shirt. I have a nephew. When he was fourteen, he was a foot shorter than me; now, younger than Martin was, he's a few inches taller.
The media buried the photos of seventeen-year-old Martin, because he was a big dude. He was an enthusiastic street fighter. He posted photos of himself of social media holding firearms with his finger on the trigger. He had a history of theft, and he'd been suspended for having a locker full of jewelry that he had stolen from other students.
Of course, nothing in that last paragraph aside from Martin's size is relevant to Zimmerman's claim to self-defense. All Zimmerman was aware of was his size and, to be fair, his appearance.
Now, we can get into what we know as opposed to what we were told, as opposed to what people seem to still believe, and why millions of people are still duped.
First of all, I have to reiterate how badly the media painted stand your ground. A lot of people think that Florida was a pioneer in of stand your ground language in the law. That's false. California became the first stand your ground state in 1897. More importantly, the media portrayed stand your ground as a statute that says that you can shoot on a whim and just claim that you feared for your life after-the-fact. Also not even close to true. What's more, people still think that stand your ground read relevant to Zimmerman's acquittal -- it wasn't. Zimmerman's story, corroborated by his injuries and eye-witness testimony, Martin was on top of Zimmerman. Retreat isn't an option in that situation. Stand your ground was entirely irrelevant.
Still, to this day, people point to the Zimmerman case in debates regarding stand your ground. It became annoying for people who know the facts about ten years ago. Please stop this.
Now, the media narrative, for the most part, started with the story that a white man stalked a black teen and shot him in cold blood. When the media discovered that Zimmerman wasn't white, they changed the story to a "Hispanic man with a white complexion." Some went so far as to edit Zimmermann's mug shots to make him look fairer skinned.
That aside, think about the Jussie Smollett level of logical absurdity of the media's story:
- A racist man sees a black dude in a hoodie causally walking through an apartment complex and decides to kill him.
"Okay..." He thinks, "The first thing that I'm gonna do is call the cops before I shoot him so they'll get to the scene as soon as possible. I'll keep the cops on the line while I "stalk" him. I'll arrange to meet with the police in the opposite direction of where the guy is going. I'll shoot him and kill him. I'll make sure the cops have the freshest crime scene possible. And, I'll break my own nose really quick and slam my own head against the ground a couple of times, and I'll just claim self-defense. The perfect crime!"
That's too smart for the stupidest person in the world and too stupid for a person with an IQ above room temperature.
Now, the call to police?
How many people still think that Zimmerman offered the fact that Martin "looked black" as reason for Martin looking suspicious? That's false.
Zimmerman said that Martin looked suspicious because he was peering into people's windows. The operator asked Zimmerman if Martin looked, "White, black, Hispanic..." Zimmerman answered the operator's question. Outlets like MSNBC just muted the part where the operator asked the question.
How many people still think that the operator ordered Zimmerman not to pursue Martin, and that Zimmerman did it anyway? Also false.
What happened was that, while Zimmerman was on the call, Martin started to approach Zimmerman's car. Once Martin got close enough -- presumably to see that Zimmerman was on the phone, Martin ran in the other direction.
Zimmerman reported this. The operator asked Zimmerman where Martin was headed after Martin disappeared behind a building. That's when Zimmerman got out of his car to see if he could spot Martin.
The operator asked Zimmerman if he was following Martin and the operator did say, "You don't have to do that."
Zimmerman's response, which most of the media edited out, was, "Okay." When the operator told Zimmerman that he didn't need to follow Martin, Zimmerman turned back. The geography bears this out. What's more, the operator pointed out in court that it wasn't an order to turn back. Operators don't order the callers to do anything.
The call continued for more than a minute after Zimmerman turned back to meet with the police. Zimmerman gave his location to the operator via descending apartment numbers. The operator asked which unit Zimmerman lived in, which Zimmerman kindly refused to give because he didn't know where Martin was.
Now, a very little known fact is that Martin's apartment was less than a minute walk in the opposite direction from where Zimmerman was walking at the time of the incident. Martin had already turned the corner while Zimmerman was still in his car. If Martin, a seventeen-year-old, athletic young man really just wanted to get to safety, he could have gotten there in half the time that remained on Zimmerman's call after Zimmerman turned back.
The basic facts show that Martin got out of sight, and circled back to confront Zimmerman.
Zimmerman's account of being quickly punched in the face, knocked to the ground, and mounted is entirely in line with Martin's stated, preferred street-fighting tactics which he talked about in multiple text messages to friends.
How about Rachel Jeantel, who was on the phone with Martin prior to the altercation? She said that Martin said, "Why are you following me?" followed by, "Get off! Get off!!" Before the call cut out. The only this is, she allegedly put that down in a written statement. She could read her own written statement in court because she couldn't read cursive. Of course, the majority of the media tried to spin this into defense attorney Don West being mean to a vulnerable young woman. No, it impeached important testimony in a case in which West's client's life was on the line.
A lot of people still think that Zimmerman wasn't allowed to have the gun in the first place. Also false. Believe it or not, from a pro-2A perspective, Florida was much worse than Arizona in regard to conceal carry, and still is a little worse.
That said, in cases like this, prosecutors tend to throw anything that might stick at the defendant. The illegal possession of a firearm charge lingered over the Rittenhouse case until the end when they simply measured the rifle and saw that it was legal; but, they threw that at Rittenhouse as a security policy to try to get him on anything despite knowing that he was innocent of the serious charges. If they had a chance in hell at landing Zimmerman with any punishment for having the gun, they would have pursued that option.
So, why do millions of people still ignore the facts?
Well, one component is laziness. It's easier to passively listen to a news program or a podcast playing the edited version of the call than it is to find the full, unedited version.
Still, I think that it's the same thing as the Jussie Smollett case. Namely, people wanted it to be true because it would add factual credence to their ideologies.
People wanted to believe Jussie Smollett because they wanted it to be a solid case of evil to hang over every Trump voter. They wanted it to be true so badly that they were willing to believe that evil, white racists watch Empire and knew who Jussie Smollett was when even I didn't know who he was. They wanted it to be true so badly that they were willing to believe that these people were just out for a stroll in the middle of the night during a polar vortex. They wanted it to be true so badly that this happened in one of the bluest cities in the country.
Same here. Only, the Zimmerman case hit on more political goals. The overlap is the "evil, white racist" angle. What's added is the gun control aspect. It's compounded by many of the same people who are generally against self-defense and hate stand your ground. They wanted it -- probably needed it to be true. This was the perfect story for them to use to show a real-world example of their gripes in action. The problem is, it wasn't true -- so they lied. Millions of people bought the lie. More than a decade later, the lies are still contaminating our world.