Jeff Neal for C.U.R.E. - Certain Unalienable Rights Endowment

Zimmerman and “Stay in the Truck!!”

In Opinion on July 16, 2013 at 2:00 pm

Monday, in the Wall Street Journal, the editors wrote “Mr. Zimmerman made many mistakes that February evening, not least failing to heed police advice not to pursue Martin.”

My letter to the editor follows.

First, Mr. Z didn’t pursue Mr. Martin; instead, like a good neighbor he kept an eye on a suspicious character so he could report his location to the police when they arrived in response to his call for help – calling 9-1-1 isn’t the standard pre-crime act of a man intent on murder or manslaughter, is it?

More importantly, can the editors explain how they and other Martin apologists can simultaneously hold it in their head that (1) Zimmerman was culpable because he ‘profiled’ and followed Martin, so (2) Martin was justified in feeling threatened and afraid of a creepy [white] hispanic cracker, and (3) Martin was entitled to respond with violence to the aggressive(?) act of following, so (4) Zimmerman should have just let Martin beat him until, well, hmmm, beat him until he stopped beating him, I guess, and (5) only Zimmerman called the police while both men had phones in their possession.

Martin was a nearly full-grown young man, independent, savvy and confident enough to walk 1.25 miles each way to/from the 7-11 for a snack.  However, we’re meant to conclude that his inner child reasserted itself some 50-100 yards from home, he became frightened by Zimmerman’s gaze or gait, and that his reasonable response to the resultant, overpowering childish fear was to display the violent temper of an aggrieved, downtrodden black man.  And, lest you forget, he was not so frightened that he was incapable of describing the situation to Rachel Jentael, his friend in Miami, on a number of phone calls each lasting several minutes.

That is the only rationale for the “Zimmerman should have stayed in his truck instead of following Martin and all would be well” story-line that the WSJ perpetuates.  It disgusts me and, I suspect, any sane person who isn’t a racist.  It is not only disingenuous and incoherent, it characterizes Martin as an ignorant savage.  It suggests to young black men that, if in the future they experience discomfort caused by a [white] [hispanic] man’s behavior, it’s acceptable to attack the offender, so long as they check first for a gun, that is.

The message is:  If you survive an encounter with a profiler/stalker, trust that the US Department of Justice will investigate the taunting cracker and haul him in on charges of violating your civil rights.  But, please stop hitting him before he gets really, really bloody, because that could complicate matters.

Trayvon Martin does not have to have been a thug or a young man with a troubled past for George Zimmerman’s actions to be reasonable and legal.  George Zimmerman didn’t act irresponsibly, he responded to being threatened by Trayvon Martin, and that’s true even if Trayvon were an angelic choir boy who experienced a first and momentary lapse in judgment.

Tragedy?  Yes.  Crime?  No.  Sign of the need for a national ‘debate’ about race?  Again, NO, for the love of peace, NO NO NO.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: