Doctor disagrees with Mohler on Zimmerman case
    August 26 2013 by Dr. Charles P. Nicholson Jr., Greensboro, N.C.

    This is written to [Albert Mohler] expressing some differences of opinion with your views in “After verdict, the central tragedy remains” (Biblical Recorder, Aug. 3).
     
    I dare write neither of us knows all the facts. The ones I do know – matters of public record – do not portray Trayvon Martin as “a normal, happy 17-year-old boy,” which is your description of him. He had a history of problems in school in Dade County, Fla., including stolen goods, stolen jewelry, and burglary of tools from a locker. School administrators, instead of reporting them as “stolen,” reported them as “found,” in order to keep from having to file a police report, which would reflect a poor black crime rate in the school.
     
    Martin had several suspensions from school shortly before he was shot. His own texts portrayed his use of “lean,” a substance known to produce violent, paranoid behavior. He once texted after a mixed martial arts stealth bout, that he wanted another match. His opponent had not lost enough blood in his opinion!
     
    Items containing the ingredients of “lean” were found adjacent to his body – the “candy” he is supposed to have purchased just before the shooting. The pathology report on Trayvon’s body revealed damage associated with “lean” in the liver – this in the liver of a 17-year-old.
     
    George Zimmerman lived in a multicultural, gated community. Neighbors stated that he was the only person who introduced himself in the community. He once saw a homeless black man knocked down by the son of a policeman and persisted in seeking justice until the assailant was arrested. Zimmerman lived with two black siblings. Photos made soon after the shooting revealed Zimmerman had been struck in the face. Witnesses report him being struck with martial arts blows. There was evidence his head had been injured – bashed on the surface by Trayvon. He was larger than Zimmerman – inches taller. Zimmerman called for help!
     
    This incident was not one of race! It was one of self-defense. Had the legacy media been journalistic – not criminally fraudulent or criminally negligent – and reported the available facts, there would never have been “the central tragedy.”
     
    Prosecution of George Zimmerman was brought only after insistence by President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder. The local law enforcement had no reason to prosecute.
     
    Dr. Charles P. Nicholson Jr.
    Greensboro, N.C.
    8/26/2013 11:30:10 AM by Dr. Charles P. Nicholson Jr., Greensboro, N.C. | with 2 comments
    Filed under: Mohler, Zimmerman case




Comments
John D. Whiteheart
Thank you, Dr. Nicholson, for reporting the facts the main stream news media carefully withheld from us. It seems to tell us all the news that fits its agenda.
9/9/2013 10:22:32 PM

Micheal Pardue
Two brief points:

1. The quote from Mohler, "a normal, happy 17-year-old boy" is taken out of context. He does not say that Martin was a normal, happy 17-year-old boy he says, "The photos of Trayvon Martin shown to the world show a normal, happy 17-year-old boy " (http://www.albertmohler.com/2013/07/15/the-central-tragedy-of-this-case-remains-trayvon-martin-belongs-to-us-all/ paragraph seven). The difference in these two statements is worth noting.

2. I have no idea this writer’s race or if he has ever had the talk that Dr. Mohler is talking about in his article with one of his sons but Mohler's words are simply reflections of reality. As I watched the Zimmerman trial it was obvious that he could not be found guilty by the standards set forth in the law. However, if we are honest, we know that while Martin’s actions in attacking Zimmerman played a role in his own death, so did George Zimmerman’s decision to get out of his car and take the law in to his own hands. Zimmerman made the FIRST mistake in this chain of events, not Trayvon Martin.

Mohler is reflecting the sorrow we should all feel as we realize we are in such a place as a nation that a teenager walking home is profiled as breaking some law. Martin’s past actions are irrelevant to Mohler’s lament. Using them as evidence is a clear misunderstanding of what Mohler means by “the central tragedy”. As a parent who will one day have to sit down with his sons and have the talk that Mohler describes, I join him as hopes for a better day—“that day when those conversations will not be necessary.”
8/28/2013 12:14:24 PM

Subscribe
 Security code