« Wednesday WTF | Main | Bully, the not-PeeCee version »

March 23, 2012



Rivrsis, do YOU wear a hoodie for intimidation? Not that I've noticed. Do you wear one for the "cool factor"? Not that I've noticed. End of comparison. Since the comparison ended, your extending of it to my Nazi-salute analysis is not only speculation, it is deliberate injection of that issue into your life to attempt to influence ME. That is sophistry of the worst order.

Since you seem to want to be "attacked" though, let me ask this: do you wear cashmere sweaters to impress folks about your wealth in society?


Comparing my opinion about hoodies to the use of the Nazi salute, are you? And furthermore, you have no idea what brought Zimmerman to stand astride the kid and push down on him, AFTER HE HAD SHOT HIM, according to the witness. I rather doubt it's because he was wearing a hoodie prior to the gunfire. And you don't know at all that he even put his hoodie up, let alone that it dislodged his earpiece. Buncha wild speculation, and no more comparing yr own sis to Nazis, however distantly.


I stand MY ground. New information in now from an eyewitness suggests that Martin had Zimmerman down on the ground and was beating him up, so it seems that would confirm my suspicion about the other eyewitness, Martin's girlfriend, who has said she lost contact with him, probably when he pulled his hoodie up and knocked out his bluetooth earpiece. This is likely what happened: Martin got tired of the guy following him, so he decided to confront him, but before he did so, he pulled up his hoodie to cover his facial features (THAT move is also a part of the "hoodie culture"), then spun around and jumped Zimmerman. Martin, a football player, is athletic, and had the element of surprise on his side. He knocks Zimmerman down and begins to pummel him aggressively. Zimmerman pulls out his gun and kills him.

The only legal questions remaining seem to be answered by the language of the Stand Your Ground Law, which says you don't have to flee, you can use force, up to and including deadly force, to ward off an attack. The Grand Jury will have to decide whether Zimmerman, trailing Martin as he was, thereby divested himself of the protections of the law, and then, if he didn't, whether he was correct in invoking it's provisions when he used force.

The first question is not clear, but it's also probably moot. I would think that the law would be in effect because Zimmerman was just FOLLOWING Martin, not trying to apprehend him (assuming he was JUST following him). Did Zimmerman actually "corner" Martin? In a blind alley? Up against a fence that he couldn't climb? I haven't seen any such reports. As I understand it, Martin first headed pretty much home, but when he realized he was being followed, he began to take an evasive route. There is ZERO question in my mind that the SYG law applies once Martin displayed the aggressive move of pulling up his hoodie and jumping Zimmerman.

There are unanswered questions, mostly regarding any verbal exchanges which might have taken place between Zimmerman and Martin. If Zimmerman was demonstrably just staying within verbal range of Martin with his following, in an attempt to communicate verbally with him, there is NO way any jury would ever determine that to be aggressive intent, in fact, it is his job if he is actually trying to protect his neighborhood. Just using your eyeballs on your quarry is not proactive, you have to let your quarry know that you are watching, and to do that, you have to get within voice range and stay there as the quarry gets evasive.

I've had occasions in my own neighborhood to communicate with suspicious people. I have good powers of observation, but I have NO doubt in my mind that I'm FAR more effective when I actually challenge those strangers whose activities seem out of place. Zimmerman probably though along those same lines. As to the Dispatcher telling him not to get involved, I was a dispatcher back in 1974, and I told lots of people that, because I was required to, and would have been reprimanded if I didn't, even knowing, as I did, that simple contact from the reporting person to the suspicious person would, in 99.999% of the cases, result in there being no crime committed. Burglars and footpads are hinky people, and as soon as they know that they have been "made", they will give up that area and go somewhere else to commit crime.

On balance then, my "hoodie culture" analysis is spot-on, as is Geraldo Rivera's. Rivrsis, a lot of Hoodies are sold, I'll grant you that, but the thuggish aspect of our culture that their purchase and use represents is not one bit more desirable because of their universality. Remember, everyone in the Third Reich routinely gave the Nazi salute, most of them probably not people who were diehard Nazis, but the fact that they made that salute indicated their acceptance of, and fealty to, Adolph Hitler. Our youth and all who slouch around in Hoodies are indicating their acceptance of the street-gang culture, and that's a bad sign. I hope the luster of the Hoodie died with Trayvon Martin.


While the hoodie does have a negative image in certain situations, let's not lose sight of the fact that Zimmerman ignored the instructions of a dispatcher to "stay put". Then he made it worse by not merely following, observing, and reporting via cell phone, he cornered Martin. VERY bad judgement; he was neither a LEO, on his own property, or coming to someone's rescue.

I'm guessing he will be indicted on manslaughter charges, and convicted of the same.


Get off the hoodie nonsense, bro! It's part of the American uniform/native costume, like jeans and T-shirts. Old ladies wear pink hoodies to breast-cancer runs. There are hoodies for babies. There are Christmas hoodies. I have several hoodies and I'm an old woman myself. And apparently it was raining when Trayvon was attempting to get home, so he likely had his hood up. Which is what it's for. I believe Heraldo himself apologized for his remark.

The comments to this entry are closed.


Blog powered by Typepad