Trayvon Martin and the Cult of Government Supremacy
by
William Norman Grigg
Recently by William Norman Grigg: The
Death-Dealing 'Divinity' in the White House
Nineteen days
before the
killing of Trayvon Martin 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. "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
pointed out that if 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,
68-year-old
retired Marine 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.
In his self-appointed
role as watchman, George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin's killer,
has 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., however, 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 from 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. The crime committed against Jordan Miles was quickly forgotten,
and the victim’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, and not all of them are white.
George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old man of Latino ancestry, 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. This might have something to
do with the fact that Zimmerman,
the son of a retired magistrate judge, had previously attended a
"Community
Police Academy" sponsored by the Seminole County Sheriff’s
Office.
Zimmerman’s
actions would be understandable – not justifiable, but understandable
– if he had absorbed the contemporary police doctrine that anything
other than immediate, unqualified submission constitutes a "threat"
to "officer safety." The Sanford PD’s decision to accept
his account at face value is more difficult to understand – and
more difficult still to defend in light of the fact that this is
not the only recent episode in which they have refused to charge
someone who assaulted an unarmed man.
Justin Collison,
the son of a Sanford police lieutenant, was
recently captured on camera sucker-punching a man to the back of
the head outside a bar. The victim – who had been trying to
break up a fight – had no chance to defend himself, and suffered
a broken nose when his face struck a light pole. Despite having
both video and eyewitness evidence of a deliberate act of aggravated
assault, the police declined to arrest Collison (who had reportedly
assaulted two others during a drunken rampage), and no charges were
filed.
Apparently,
the Sanford PD employs a "sliding scale" of some kind
when dealing with such matters. However, the preferred media narrative
focuses on the supposed iniquity of a Florida law recognizing the
natural right to self-defense.
Civilian disarmament
advocates have implicated Florida’s "Stand
Your Ground" self-defense law in Trayvon Martin killing.
The Sanford 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, cornered 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.
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.” Subsequent leaks from the police department reported
that Zimmerman claims to have been knocked down and seriously injured
in a fight with Martin, and that he shot the teenager “because he
feared for his life.” An anonymous witness confirmed seeing the
two of them struggling, and Zimmerman apparently getting the worst
of it and then seeing the prone figure of Martin following
the shooting.
How did the
fight begin? Zimmerman’s account, as made available through second-hand
sources, is that Martin pursued him to his SUV and then lunged at
him when Zimmerman reached for his cell phone. He insists that the
unarmed and demonstrably frightened teenager he confronted – after
being explicitly instructed not to – was the aggressor. Interestingly,
he made a very similar claim seven years ago in response to a domestic
violence petition filed by his ex-fiancee.
In her court
filing, the
woman claimed that Zimmerman had visited her home in Orlando
to demand documents from her. When she ordered him to leave her
property, Zimmerman allegedly insisted on staying, then he grabbed
her cellphone and shoved her and a fight ensued. He filed a petition
of his own claiming that she had been the aggressor, claiming that
she had struck him in the face. She blamed the injuries on her dog.
Both of them acknowledged that their relationship had been plagued
with violence – and each of them was granted a restraining order
against the other.
That earlier
account may be crucial here because it strongly indicates that Zimmerman,
whatever else can be said about him, doesn’t understand the non-aggression
principle and is in the habit of creating unnecessary conflicts
and escalating them to the point of physical violence. And it is
the non-aggression principle – not the politics of racial collectivism
– that is the most important question in the killing of Trayvon
Martin.
Sanford Police
Chief Bill Lee – who has been compelled to resign, perhaps temporarily
– 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.
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 most likely
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.
Reprinted
with permission from Pro
Libertate.
March
27, 2012
William
Norman Grigg [send him mail]
publishes the Pro
Libertate blog and hosts the Pro
Libertate radio program.
Copyright
© 2012 William Norman Grigg
The
Best of William Norman Grigg
|