(NEW YORK) - I've got to tell you something that happened to me. This is absolutely true. Last week a friend of mine came up to me and said, you know I’ve been off from work for a few days and watched what you had to say on KPIX 11 and it seems that you’re 'for' George Zimmerman. I’m for Zimmerman. I said at first, what?! I’m not for anybody or anything.
I’m giving an analysis of the legal issues. It would be like a doctor appearing who says that say birth control pills aren’t linked to significant health issues and someone says, oh, so you’re 'for' extramarital or unprotected sex. What? You wouldn’t be for anything; you’re merely reciting a fact. And then I realized, my friend’s right. I mean his interpretation is right. That’s what people think.
They see the whole Trayvon-Zimmerman case as a referendum on everything under the sun but what I’m interested in. The very simple, very specific microscopic, laser issue of proof vis-a-vis the facts before us. And I am the only person on the planet who sees it this way. What was I thinking? People don’t want to discuss facts. Facts?! No, take Bill Cosby. He said the issue is what was Zimmerman doing with a gun and who taught him how to behave with it? He said there’s a need to get guns off the street and to use every alternative before shooting someone. Do you see this? This is my patella as in the patellar reflex. Everything you hear from everybody on the subject is a patellar reflex. It’s canned, rehearsed, locked and loaded. Ring the bell, Pavlov, with gun death and you get this.
So, according to my friend, is Cosby for Zimmerman because he didn’t blame him but guns or is he for Trayvon? For? This sounds like Mets - Yankees. I’d love to ask Cosby this: if it were true, assuming arguendo, that Trayvon threatened to kill Zimmerman after he slammed his head against the pavement, I’m just saying, but humor me. Assuming that were true would Cosby`s statement make sense? No. Why? Because of a number of factors. First, he doesn’t know the facts. Second, he’s not interested in the facts. He’s interested in policy, gun control, what have you. But he’s not focusing on the facts here. Third, stand your ground laws do no more to encourage death and slaughter than self defense laws do in the first place, because that’s all stand your ground is. If someone threatens to kill you anywhere you can defend yourself, and we don’t even know if those are the facts here. Fourth, understand Cosby`s message. It’s always the mature, counter argument that doesn’t ignore the issue of race but frames it better. The anti-Sharpton view, if you will. This opinion comports with that perfectly. And fifth and finally, my friend was right. This case, despite my attempts to the contrary, is interpreted as for or against.
And sadly, yet again, the point is missed.