Why Manipulate the Tragedy of Trayvon Martin?

The fatal shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin last month by a neighborhood-watch volunteer was a sickening and — unless new facts come to light — unjustified loss of an innocent life. Unless Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman, had reason to believe that Martin was armed, shooting him was a grossly disproportionate response to a fistfight, even leaving aside the fact that Zimmerman had initiated the encounter. If such a shooting is justified under Florida’s broad self-defense law, that law has licensed violence that goes far beyond legitimate self-defense. Every American shares the despair of Martin’s family over this heartbreaking tragedy and supports a fuller investigation (though the entrance of the Feds at this point is premature, absent evidence of Florida’s incapacity to conduct a fair inquiry).

But is the Martin shooting emblematic of a larger problem? Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the mainstream media here and abroad certainly are portraying it as such. That larger problem, of course, is lethal white racism and a criminal-justice system allegedly indifferent to the killing of blacks. At a rally Thursday night in Sanford, Sharpton said that “Trayvon represents a reckless disregard for our lives that we’ve seen for too long,” and warned that “they,” presumably whites, would try to trick black protesters into violence by “send[ing] in provocateurs.” “Blacks are under attack,” said Jesse Jackson on Friday from Chicago. “Targeting, arresting, convicting blacks, and ultimately killing us is big business.” MSNBC analyst Karen Finney claimed that “racist rhetoric” used by Rush Limbaugh and several Republican presidential candidates was responsible for Martin’s death.

So determined has the New York Times been to fit the shooting into its favored racial story line that it has been referring to the Zimmerman as a “white Hispanic,” contrary to its usual practice of referring to Hispanics without any additional racial characterization. The fact that Zimmerman’s father is white does not explain this departure from the Times’s racial protocols; the Times’s one-drop rule still applies to Barack Obama, who is, according to the Times and every other media outlet, America’s “first black president.” (The Grey Lady referred to Zimmerman for the first time on Friday simply as “Hispanic.”)

Times columnist Charles Blow dealt with the complicating factor of Zimmerman’s ethnicity with a simple duality: “Trayvon is black. Zimmerman is not,” he wrote last Saturday, presumably conferring on Zimmerman putative white status. The Rainbow Coalition has apparently broken down.

Blow went on to claim that it is the “the burden of black boys in America” to be at high risk of being shot by non-blacks: “This is the fear that seizes me whenever my boys are out in the world: that a man with a gun and an itchy finger will find them ‘suspicious.’”

Blow is right about one thing: Black boys do face a much higher chance than non-blacks that they will be shot when they are “out in the world.” Black males between the ages of 14 and 24 were seven times more likely to die of homicide in 2007 than white and Hispanic males of the same age group combined. But the danger they face comes overwhelmingly from other black males, whose homicide offending rate in the 14 to 24 age category was nearly ten times higher than that of young white and Hispanic males combined. (The federal government’s crime data puts Hispanics and whites in a single category of “white,” thus overstating the non-Hispanic white offending and victimization rates). Most homicides are intraracial, but the chance of a black being killed by a white or Hispanic is much lower than the chance that a white or Hispanic will be killed by a black. Seventeen percent of what the FBI calls “white” homicide victims in 2009 were killed by blacks, compared to 8 percent of black homicide victims who were killed by “whites.” There were two and a half times as many white and Hispanic victims of black killers in 2009 as there were black victims of white and Hispanic killers, even though the black population is one-sixth that of whites and Hispanics combined. If Hispanics were removed from the category of “white” killers of blacks, the percentage of blacks killed by Anglo whites would plummet, since a significant percentage of what the FBI calls “white”-on-black killings represent gang warfare between Hispanic and black gangs. (Needless to say, there is no reason to think that racism plays a more frequent role in white-on-black killings than in black-on-white killings.)

Blow’s fear that his children will be blown away by a white is particularly ludicrous in New York City. Blacks commit 80 percent of all shootings in the city — as reported by the victims of and witnesses to those shootings — though they are but 23 percent of the population; whites commit 1.4 percent of all shootings, though they are 35 percent of the population. Add Hispanic shootings to the black tally, and you account for 98 percent of all of the city’s gun violence. In New York, as in big cities across the country, the face of violence is overwhelmingly black and Hispanic.

No evidence has yet surfaced to support the charge that the failure of the Sanford police to arrest Zimmerman results from racial bias, as opposed to ambiguities in the application of Florida’s self-defense law and the absence of eye-witnesses to the killing. But if such evidence of racial indifference does emerge, it would be not only shameful but also a great exception to the practice of police departments across the country. Far from showing a “reckless disregard for [black] lives,” in Sharpton’s words, it is the police and prosecutors who are the most reliable responders to black victimization, trying relentlessly to put together a case even when the witnesses to crime refuse to cooperate. Most police chiefs will say that they could solve every inner-city killing if the people who saw the crime or know the perpetrators came forward, instead of obeying the “no snitching” code.

And it is the concerted efforts of police departments across the country to bring safety to urban neighborhoods that have played a central role in the 50 percent drop in the black homicide victimization rate from 1991 to 2008. In New York City, over 10,000 minority males are alive today who would have been killed had homicide rates remained at their early 1990s highs; the largest cause of that crime drop is the New York Police Department’s policing revolution, which has created an unprecedented sense of urgency about protecting lives. The NYPD’s weekly meetings at police headquarters, known as Compstat, focus relentlessly on one overriding question: How can we save more people — overwhelmingly minorities — from being victimized by crime? Many an NYPD commander has lost his post because he has not had an adequate answer to that question.

The protesters in Florida and across the country are right to demand an explanation for the decision not to charge Zimmerman. A critical examination of Florida’s Stand Your Ground law is absolutely warranted. But the racial storyline that has been imposed on the shooting does not fairly represent contemporary America. That storyline is not just wrong, it is dangerous, because it only feeds black alienation and anger. Family breakdown, not white racism, is the biggest impediment facing blacks today, producing such casualties as the 18-year-old gangbanger who fatally shot a 34-year-old mother picking up her child from school in Brownsville, Brooklyn, last October. Sharpton and the national media didn’t show up for that killing, just as they don’t for the thousands of other black-on-black killings each year. By all means, demand justice for Trayvon Martin. But when that justice comes, as it most surely will, perhaps some small part of the energy devoted to securing it could be redirected towards stigmatizing black criminals and revalorizing the role of fathers in families.

Editor’s Note: This post has been amended since it was originally published.

I understand what you’re saying, but being fair, Zimmerman did try to follow Martin - we know that from the 911 tapes.

I have doubts as to the girlfriend’s truthfulness but she has also given some important information:

The assumption has been made by the ‘hoodie’ group that Trayon was wearing his hoodie up because it was supposed to be raining at the time and Zimmerman profiled Martin specifically because of the hoodie. Trayvon’s girlfriend’s statement contradicts that:

“He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on,” she said.

“He said he lost the man.

(This seems very important. We can assume Trayvon said this after Zimmerman broke off contact and while Zimmerman was still talking to 911 - so if Martin ‘lost’ Zimmerman, why did Martin return to where Zimmerman was instead of continuing on his way to the apartment he was headed to? )

“I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run.”

(it’s reasonable to believe at this point Martin decides not to appear afraid in front of his girlfriend “i’m not going to run!”. Did Martin decide to retrace his steps and confront Zimmerman? How did Trayvon get ‘thisclose’ to Zimmerman less than a minute later, that the girlfriend could now also hear Zimmerman’s voice?)

“Trayvon said, ‘What, are you following me for.’ And the man said, ‘What are you doing here.’

“Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell.”

(if Trayvon said anything in response to, ‘what are you doing here’, the girlfriend probably would leave that out of her narrative but one can assume a punch would be accompanied by some sort of comment and no comment coming from Zimmerman or Martin was reported. Which makes me believe perhaps Martin did say something. The ‘hearing of pushing’ could have been Zimmerman being punched or pushed to the ground. If Martin did retrace his steps instead of continuing on to the safety of the apartment he was headed to, it’s then reasonable to believe Trayvon pulled the earbuds out of his own ears and hung up the phone so his girlfriend wouldn’t be a ‘witness’ to the beating he was planning on giving Zimmerman.)

I called him again and he didn’t answer the phone.”

(I’ve dropped my phone a few times and most of the time it remains connected to the call. Not sure what the odds are on that or if Martin had a flipphone or a droid, so not sure if that is important or not.)

I decided to take up your implicit challenge and I found this account of the girlfriend's account of her conversation with Martin.

At some point in this matter we have to analyze evidence. I ask you to review this phone call and explain where there's anything in it that implicates Zimmerman. At best, it might contradict his story that he was returning to his car where and when, by Zimmerman's account, he was assaulted by Martin. That would not be true if it were Martin who doubled back on Zimmerman and we have no evidence that Martin he did not double back. I think a very important fact might be the physical location of the body in relation to Zimmerman's auto. If it was proximate, Zimmerman's story holds.

Even if Zimmerman's story does not hold with respect to who followed whom it does not adduce any evidence of wrongdoing on Zimmerman's part. He had a perfect legal right to follow Martin.

In the absence of any evidence from the girlfriend's account or otherwise, we must conclude that there is no evidence except the following: Zimmerman admits that he shot Martin. Zimmerman says he was assaulted by Martin. There is absolutely no evidence that contradicts that.

In fact, there is an eyewitness who says that a fight took place.

Zimmerman says he was struck in the face, forced to the ground, and his head was being bashed into the concrete. There is no evidence whatsoever contradicting that. There is evidence that in the fight Martin was on top of Zimmerman. There is evidence that Zimmerman's nose was broken and the back of his head was cut. There is evidence that he was treated for these injuries before he was filmed entering the police station. The film at the police station in freeze-frame shows a likely injury to the back of his head.

There is an eyewitness that Martin was on top of Zimmerman.

Zimmerman says he was crying for help while being beaten by Martin. There is absolutely no evidence contradicting that assertion.

In fact, there are multiple witnesses to confirm they heard cries for help. Telephone recordings confirm that the cries were Zimmerman's.

There is no evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing on Zimmerman's part. Repeat, there is no evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing on Zimmerman's part.

Any conclusion that he used excessive force must be confected out of thin air. Any conclusion that he started a fight must be confected out of thin air. Even if he did start a fight, if he was in reasonable apprehension of serious bodily harm and had no place to escape because he was on the bottom, on his back, being pummeled, he had a right to use deadly force. There is no evidence that this was not the case.

We still have the presumption of innocence in this country. You must have some evidence somewhere, anywhere to overcome this presumption. The presumption shifts the duty to the state to come forward with evidence. What evidence do you have? Hypotheticals and theories are not evidence. Overzealousness, rudeness, racial stereotyping are neither crimes nor evidence.

At some point you have to have a crime and you have to have proof of a crime. The burden is on the state to prove a crime. It is the duty of the state to refrain from charging a crime that it cannot prove. That is why prosecutors have discretion and that is why we have the protection of being indicted by a grand jury so that we will not frivolously be charged with crime.

Here is the account of the telephone conversation I found on CNN news which is hardly a source favorable the Zimmerman, and ask you what do you read in it that carries the highest burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for the state to convict of a crime? I ask you if you can even find inferences most favorable which justify a reasonable man in concluding that we have probable cause of a crime?

"Martin's girlfriend

Benjamin Crump, the Martin family lawyer, says Martin's girlfriend's account of what happened connects the dots and destroys Zimmerman's claims of self-defense.

The girl, who did not want to be identified, said she was on the phone with the teen before the shooting.

When Zimmerman got closer to Martin, she told her boyfriend to run, but Martin told her that he was not going to run, she said.

"What are you stopping me for?" Martin asked Zimmerman, according to the girl.

"What are you doing around here?" Zimmerman asked in response.

The girl said she then got the impression that an altercation was taking place and that someone had pushed Martin, because the headset fell out of his ear, and the phone shut off."

How in the world does this "destroy Zimmerman's claims of self-defense?" http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/30/justice/florida-teen-shooting-witnesses/index.html

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.