An opinion on the Trayvon Martin case

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
Trayvon Martin and the Cult of Government Supremacy (Update, March 24)

Nineteen days before Trayvon Martin was gunned down by self-appointed block “captain” George Zimmerman, Manuel Loggins was murdered by an Orange County Sheriff’s Deputy in the parking lot of San Clemente High School. Loggins, a deeply religious man, often visited the school to walk on the track and discuss the Bible with his daughters, who were with him on the morning he was murdered.

According to the most recent of several official versions of the incident, the Deputy was concerned by Loggins’ “irrational” behavior, which involved crashing through a gate and attempting to leave the scene. Even this rendering of the episode, however, doesn’t explain why a Deputy would shoot an unarmed man behind the wheel of an SUV containing two young girls.

The Deputy initially insisted that he “felt threatened” by Loggins. Within a day or so of the story becoming public, the story had undergone a critical revision: The Sheriff’s Office claimed that Loggins had to be shot in the interests of “the perceived safety of the children.”

So zealous were the officers for the safety of two young girls who had just seen their father murdered in front of them that the department took them into custody held them incommunicado for thirteen hours while the official narrative was being worked out. In the words of the family’s attorney, “They just incarcerated them.”

Sgt. Loggins was black; his killer, Deputy Darren Sandberg, is white – and he’s back on patrol duty, without facing criminal charges or administrative punishment of any kind. His union, displaying its customary gift for arrogant self-preoccupation, insists Loggins was entirely to blame.

“It is heartbreaking that Manuel Loggins created a situation that put his children in danger and ultimately cost him his life,” oozed police union spokesperson Tom Dominguez said. "It is unfortunate that his actions put his own children into immediate danger and resulted in his death."

That smarmy, dismissive statement irresistibly reminds me of the radio exchange between U.S. troops involved in the Baghdad massacre documented in the “Collateral Murder” video. Eleven Iraqis were massacred in the unprovoked attack, and several others – including two small children – were seriously wounded.

“Well, it’s their fault for bringing kids into a battle,” one of the murderers snarkily insisted when informed that small children were among the victims. Loggins’s widow gave birth to another daughter at about the same time she buried her husband.

While this atrocity garnered a great deal of local attention, and a modest amount of national coverage, it didn’t receive the saturation coverage in which the Trayvon Martin killing has been immersed.

Neither Louis Farrakhan nor Al Sharpton reached out to the Loggins family. As a gesture of solidarity with Trayvon, the Miami Heat basketball team was photographed wearing hooded sweatshirts, the “suspicious” attire the teenager was wearing when he was chased down and shot by George Zimmerman. The Sacramento Kings abstained from a similar symbolic display of sympathy for Manuel Loggins.

Asked by a reporter to comment about the Trayvon Martin killing, Barack Obama, who pointed out is he had a son, the young man might resemble Trayvon. The President has yet to be asked to comment about the murder of Manuel Loggins – who is one of two black Marines to be murdered by police within the space of three months.

Last November 19, 68-year-old Kenneth Chamberlain, Sr. was slaughtered by police at his apartment in White Plains, New York. Chamberlain, an elderly man who suffered from a heart condition and several other ailments, was not a criminal suspect. He had inadvertently triggered a medical alert, which resulted in a visit by paramedics. The police, unfortunately, responded as well, and they quickly displayed their infallible gift for making matters worse.

Chamberlain ordered the police to leave. That was a lawful order the police are required to obey. They didn’t. Instead, the dozen officers who had formed a thugscrum outside Chamberlain’s door taunted and mocked the elderly man, eventually breaking down the door and invading his home.

Once inside, the police were confronted by a terrified old man who – as documented in video recovered from a Taser – was clad in boxer shorts, with his hands at his side. This dreadful specter was enough to trigger the “Officer Safety” reflex – practically anything will – and the heroes in blue shot him with a Taser and a beanbag gun before gunning him down.

The original story was that Chamberlain “came at the officers” with a butcher knife and – I’m not kidding – a hatchet. His son points out that his father’s heart was so weak that he couldn’t walk more than forty feet without resting. The initial account is difficult to reconcile with the footage captured by the Taser and security cameras. Furthermore, even if the old man had lunged at the cops, they had the duty to retreat: They had no legal or moral right to be in the home, and Chamberlain had the legal and moral right to evict them by force.

Long after the incident, the police rationalized that the invasion was necessary because they weren’t sure whether “anybody else inside was in danger.” This is a matter that could have been cleared up through use of an obscure piece of technology called a telephone, a remarkable instrument that could have been used to contact either Mr. Chamberlain or his son, who didn’t live far away. But this would have deprived the armored adolescents on the police force of an opportunity to bust down a door and impose themselves on someone who couldn’t fight back.

George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin’s killer, appears to have perceived practically every black male – on one occasion, a child he described as “7-9 years old” – as suspicious.

Predictably, Martin’s family believes that Zimmerman acted on bigoted motives. In the case of Kenneth Chamberlain, Sr., there is material evidence of racism at work: Recordings of the standoff captured racial epithets, including the “n-word,” hurled at the harmless old man by some of the officers involved in murdering him just a few minutes later.

Nevertheless, the Tolerance Police – for some reason --haven’t made the slaughter of Kenneth Chamberlain a cause celebre.

One much-remarked detail in the killing of Trayvon Martin is the fact that the supposedly suspicious teenager was “armed” with Skittles and a can of iced tea. This summons memories of Jordan Miles, an 18-year-old from Pittsburgh who was nearly beaten to death on the street near his grandmother’s house two years ago.

His assailants claimed that Miles struck them as “suspicious” because he fled at their approach, and that they feared for their lives when he appeared to be armed. It turns out that his concealed “weapon” was a bottle of Mountain Dew, an admittedly toxic substance but one harmful only if taken internally.

Miles, who stands 5’6” and weighs about 160 pounds, was swarmed by three large adult males, who slugged him, kicked him, and beat him with a club improvised by a tree branch.

The attackers were police officers, who weren’t prosecuted or subjected to administrative punishment. As is customary whenever a Mundane is left bloody by the ministrations of the State’s high priests of coercion, Miles was charged with “aggravated assault,” which presumably took the form of flailing his arms while bleeding on his sanctified assailants.

When those charges were dismissed, the police union – in a typical fit of corrupt petulance – conducted a mass “sick-out” as a protest. This had the unintended, if short-lived, effect of making Pittsburgh’s streets just a little safer. This crime was quickly forgotten, and Miles’s family recently received a trivial, tax-subsidized settlement from the City of Pittsburgh. Once again: This episode, which offers several strong points of similarity to the Trayvon Martin killing, didn’t ignite a nation-wide firestorm of media outrage.

Every week – perhaps every day – innocent young black men are beaten and killed by armed strangers who act with impunity, and often in circumstances quite similar to those in which Trayvon Martin was killed. The perpetrators of those assaults are police officers. George Zimmerman was a self-commissioned “captain” in a Neighborhood Watch program with which he had no formal affiliation.

For some reason the Sanford Police Department saw fit to treat him like a cop by granting him the kind of “qualified immunity” usually afforded only to fully accredited members of the exalted brotherhood of state-sanctioned violence.

Civilian disarmament advocates have implicated Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” self-defense law in Trayvon Martin killing. The Sanford, Florida Police have refused to charge Zimmerman, insisting that “under the law, it had no call to bring charges,” reported the New York Times.

Enacted in 2005, Florida’s “Justifiable Use of Force” statute (Title XLVI, Chapter 776) recognizes that an individual has the natural right to use deadly force when confronting the threat of “death or great bodily harm” from an intruder or an aggressor. This does not apply when “The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in … [a] dwelling, residence, or vehicle,” or if the individual who employed the defensive force “is engaged in an unlawful activity….”

Martin, an unarmed teenager with no criminal record, was headed to his father’s home in the Miami Gardens gated community. Although he was described by Zimmerman to the police as a “suspicious individual,” Martin had an unqualified legal right to be where he was. In his 911 call, Zimmerman told a police dispatcher that “There’s a real suspicious guy. This guy looks like he’s up to no good, on drugs or something…. These a**holes always get away.” Zimmerman actively pursued Martin, after being specifically instructed that this was unnecessary.

When Martin noticed Zimmerman, the teenager – who was speaking to a girlfriend via cellphone – made reference to being “hounded by a strange man on a cellphone who ran after him, corned him and confronted him,” as summarized in an ABC News report.

“Why are you following me?” Martin asked Zimmerman. A few moments later, Zimmerman shot Martin with his 9 millimeter handgun. Several witnesses reported hearing the teenager cry for help before the shot was fired.

“They’re wrestling right in the back of my porch,” one witness told a police dispatcher. “The guy’s yelling help and I’m not going out.”

For some reason, police investigating the matter “corrected” one key witness, a local schoolteacher, by insisting that it was Zimmerman, not Martin, who had cried for help. This makes little sense: Zimmerman was armed and outweighed the frightened teenager by more than 100 pounds. (Again, one can’t help but be struck by the similarity between this incident and countless others involving actual police assaults on helpless victims.)

In addition to “correcting” one eyewitness, the Sanford PD pointedly ignored the testimony of Martin’s girlfriend, to whom the victim expressed his own fears about the unidentified man who was stalking him.

Zimmerman’s original story, as summarized by the Miami Herald, was that “he had stepped out of his truck to check the name of the street he was on when [Martin] attacked him from behind as he walked back to his truck.” Zimmerman claims that he shot Martin “because he feared for his life” – a conjuration uttered by every police officer who has ever gunned down a helpless person.

Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee – who has been compelled to resign – pronounced that he was satisfied with Zimmerman’s version of the incident, moving quickly to wrap up the case because “there is no evidence to dispute the shooter’s claim of self-defense.” The police released him without testing him for drugs or alcohol.

Zimmerman, who was charged with resisting arrest and assaulting an officer in 2005 – has called the police to report “suspicious” black males 46 times since January 2011. Neighbors have described him as “fixated on crime” and have complained about his “aggressive tactics.”

An aggressor, of course, isn’t “standing his ground.” During the February 26 incident, Zimmerman pursued Martin, who had a legal right to be where he was. By creating the confrontation, Zimmerman was the aggressor. He had both the moral and legal duty to retreat, rather than to escalate the confrontation by employing force of any kind.

Florida’s self-defense law, like similar statutes elsewhere, makes an exception for law enforcement officers. Although he was not employed by a police department and not an official member of the volunteer neighborhood watch, Zimmerman clearly considered himself to be acting in a law enforcement capacity. For reasons yet to be made clear, the Sanford PD uncritically accepted Zimmerman’s self-characterization, granting him the kind of “professional courtesy” commonly extended to members of the privileged fraternity of official coercion. In doing so they went so far as to tamper with eyewitness testimony on his behalf.

According to ABC News, “The Sanford Police Department says it stands by its investigation, and that it was not race or incompetence that prevented it from arresting Zimmerman but the law.” Under the terms of the Florida state statutes, however, Zimmerman committed an act of criminal homicide, not justified self-defense. Yet the civilian disarmament lobby – most likely working in collaboration with police unions – moved quickly to implicate the “Stand Your Ground” law in the killing.

Police unions, the civilian disarmament lobby, and the state-centric media all subscribe to the idea that the government should have a monopoly on the use of force. This is why they oppose “stand your ground” and “castle doctrine” laws recognizing the individual right to armed self-defense.

The opposition of police unions has become particularly acute in recent months as they have lobbied against “castle doctrine” laws in Minnesota and Indiana that explicitly recognize the natural right of citizens to use lethal force against police officers who unlawfully invade their property or threaten their lives.

Yes, the familiar cast of prejudice profiteers and racial ambulance chasers – who failed to be moved by the racially charged police murders of Manuel Loggins and Kenneth Chamberlain -- has helped turn the killing of Trayvon Martin into a public works project. But the ideology that has propelled this issue to the top of the media agenda isn’t a variant of racial collectivism: It is the even more murderous doctrine of government supremacism, under which Zimmerman’s lethal actions would be considered entirely appropriate if he had been swaddled in a State-issued costume.

Within six months we should see a plethora of bills --supported by a coalition that includes the Brady Campaign and police unions -- bearing Trayvon Martin's name, all of which will seek the repeal of "Castle Doctrine" and "Stand Your Ground" self-defense laws.

Update: It begins....

"Where is the outrage over every single one of the thousands of children and teens killed by guns?" fulminated totalitarian nanny statist Marian Wright Edleman of the so-called Children's Defense Fund on March 24. Edleman condemns what she calls "gun slinging Americans unrestrained by common sense gun control laws" -- that is, laws that fail to provide a monopoly of violence to the most lethal segment of society, the State's enforcement caste.

"As a nation, we must aspire and act to become the world leader in protecting children against guns rather than leading the world in child victims of guns," Edleman continues, reveling in the pureile fallacy that evil inheres in the inanimate object called a "gun," rather than the malevolent will of an individual who employs it to harm another.

"We need a relentless, powerful citizens' voice to break the gun lobby's veto on common sense gun policy," Edleman declares, using the expression "common sense" as a functional synonym for "civilian disarmament."
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
There in lies the problem. We currently have what the media is reporting, and what the actual facts may or may not be. Too hard in this case to ASSUME anything. Geraldo is going with the hoodie theory.
 

cableguymn

Seasoned Expediter
All I needed to know about this case was a question asked of the police and their reply "we never said he (Trayvon) was unarmed"..

Now.. he very well might have, but it has never been offically announced by the police.

If it turns out he was killed in cold blood I say find a tall tree and a short rope. Until then, I say let TPTB do their job.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
This case is a mess. A young man is dead for reasons yet unknown. He death is being exploited in the press by anyone who can get a chance in front of a camera.

We REALLY need to stop trying cases in the court of public opinion. Nothing that is being done now serves justice or the Nation. It certainly does not serve that young man.
 

Ragman

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
This case is a mess. A young man is dead for reasons yet unknown. He death is being exploited in the press by anyone who can get a chance in front of a camera.

We REALLY need to stop trying cases in the court of public opinion. Nothing that is being done now serves justice or the Nation. It certainly does not serve that young man.

This could all be true, but to place the blame, as Geraldo does, on the fact that he was wearing a hoodie, is irresponsible at best for a journalist.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
That was my point. I have no idea why someone would make that statement. Pretty foolish with absolutely no facts.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
That was my point. I have no idea why someone would make that statement. Pretty foolish with absolutely no facts.
Nevertheless, there are plenty of white people who are scared of black people. They are even more scared if the black people are young, athletic males. The see a black person in a "white" neighborhood, and there is instant suspicion. Add to that the "gansta" clothing, and many of these white people just crap themselves.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
This entire mess is a direct result of an attitude that is rampant in this country. It is a direct result of the idea that there is no need to act in a responsible matter when exercising one's rights. That the 'right' of free speech is in reality the right to mouth off as one pleases, regardless of the consequences.

To far too many people, as long as they spouted off as they please, justice has be served. It is far more important to them to try and convict anyone prior to a trial if it suits their particular political need.


Geraldo, Obama, Bush, attorneys from both sides of the courtroom all do it.

The 'right' to free speech is important. It SHOULD protect freedom. The noise we have to day is only self serving racket designed only to protect people's 'right' to spout of for their own personal gain.
 

xiggi

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
Nevertheless, there are plenty of white people who are scared of black people. They are even more scared if the black people are young, athletic males. The see a black person in a "white" neighborhood, and there is instant suspicion. Add to that the "gansta" clothing, and many of these white people just crap themselves.

And here we have a perfect example of why the black white thing continues. In truth there is white scared of white, black of black, hispanic of hispanic or any combination of the above. Problem is people always want to make.it a white black thing instead.of a people thing.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using EO Forums
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
How is my statement "a perfect example" of why the black/white thing continues? My statement wasn't meant to be, nor did it indicate, an all-encompassing situation of every race or ethnicity. It is was specifically about those very people who do, in fact, have black/white issues. Did I not make that clear? I would have thought that "there are plenty of white people who are scared of black people," would have done that, since it's an accurate statement. Or, are you suggesting the statement is incorrect, and that there are actually very, very few, if any, white people who are scared of black people? Those who want to turn "people" issues into racial issues despite race not being a factor, are just as bad as those who want to dismiss the reality of racial issues and try to turn them into generic "people" issues in order to avoid the messy issue of racism.
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
And in the Florida case, it was actually a Mexican who shot the black kid.
 

xiggi

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
How is my statement "a perfect example" of why the black/white thing continues? My statement wasn't meant to be, nor did it indicate, an all-encompassing situation of every race or ethnicity. It is was specifically about those very people who do, in fact, have black/white issues. Did I not make that clear? I would have thought that "there are plenty of white people who are scared of black people," would have done that, since it's an accurate statement. Or, are you suggesting the statement is incorrect, and that there are actually very, very few, if any, white people who are scared of black people? Those who want to turn "people" issues into racial issues despite race not being a factor, are just as bad as those who want to dismiss the reality of racial issues and try to turn them into generic "people" issues in order to avoid the messy issue of racism.

I think my statement made clear yours is true. The simple fact is as long as people continue to look at these things as one group againsr another the problem will continue. To try to say turning them into generic people issues is a way to avoid a messy situation is otself short sighted on your part. Until they are seen as what they are "people issues" then the problem will continue.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using EO Forums
 

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
How is my statement "a perfect example" of why the black/white thing continues? My statement wasn't meant to be, nor did it indicate, an all-encompassing situation of every race or ethnicity. It is was specifically about those very people who do, in fact, have black/white issues. Did I not make that clear? I would have thought that "there are plenty of white people who are scared of black people," would have done that, since it's an accurate statement. Or, are you suggesting the statement is incorrect, and that there are actually very, very few, if any, white people who are scared of black people? Those who want to turn "people" issues into racial issues despite race not being a factor, are just as bad as those who want to dismiss the reality of racial issues and try to turn them into generic "people" issues in order to avoid the messy issue of racism.

Our town in TN is experiencing that with a bunch of meetings to discuss the "sagging pants" issue.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Until they are seen as what they are "people issues" then the problem will continue.
All disputes between people are people issues. But some of those issues also involve other mitigating (and motivating) issues besides the baseline of people issues.
 

ChrisGa23

Expert Expediter
A lot of people are afraid of black people simply of what we hear and see on the news the papers etc. Its no hiding it that they seem to be the ones who act out more than other races and this scares the hell out of people which makes them stereotype the rest that are good people but what others don't seem to understand there are good white people and bad white people and good and bad in any race. This shooting shouldn't of happened he shouldn't of followed him unless he was no his property in my opinion
 
Top