Gay Patriot Header Image

Real justice for Trayvon

As Dan has noted, some 35 Gay Left advocate groups have signed an “open letter asking for justice for Trayvon Martin”. Justice is a crucially important value, so let’s give that suggestion its due, by considering what it could mean.

Since the groups were prompted by the Zimmerman verdict: perhaps they mean that bad things, such as imprisonment, should happen to George Zimmerman. But why would any reasonable person think that? A jury of his peers looked into the matter as intensively as any people on Earth, and found Zimmerman not guilty of breaking any laws. The jury felt that he bore Martin no enmity and saw a strong possibility that Zimmerman acted in legitimate self-defense.

We will never know, to a certainty, what happened the night Martin was killed. But Martin’s friend, Rachel Jeantel, has stated her belief that Martin must have thrown the first punch. (Also, she has stated her belief that Martin had profiled Zimmerman as a gay rapist – which, if Martin had, would make his attacking Zimmerman first an anti-gay hate crime.)

Jeantel has also expressed a belief that Martin did not mean to kill Zimmerman; that Martin would have stopped short of killing him, just in time. But Zimmerman could not possibly know that, as his head was being slammed into the concrete.

For sake of argument, let’s believe Jeantel for a moment, on those two points: that Martin did attack Zimmerman, but without meaning to kill him. Then any reasonable person must agree that Trayvon Martin did not deserve to die.

But people die all the time, who don’t deserve it. The only people who deserve death are the very few who have committed the most heinous crimes. Everyone else’s death is a tragedy, including Martin’s.

Without casting aspersions on Zimmerman, and based on the available evidence: real “Justice for Trayvon” would be if Martin and Zimmerman had both kept their lives that night – and Martin had then been arrested, charged and put on trial (perhaps in juvenile court) for the crime of assault.

It’s strange, how the “Justice for Trayvon” advocates always manage to leave out that last part.

The LGBT advocates’ letter does say:

Every person, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity, must be able to walk the streets without fear for their safety.

We can agree on that. But the JfT advocates need to remember that the “every person” includes George Zimmerman – a Latino neighborhood resident who was patrolling his community to help it deal with a crime wave; not a gay rapist, and apparently, not anyone who deserved to have his head slammed into the concrete.

Share

37 Comments

  1. I always thoroughly enjoy reading cogent and reasonable articles on this site as opposed to the rants without any intellectual honesty on the Libs’ sites.

    Comment by killiteten - native intelliegence — July 20, 2013 @ 7:22 pm - July 20, 2013

  2. See? This is why I don’t comment often, people like killiteten already have it nailed.

    Comment by Carolynp — July 20, 2013 @ 8:24 pm - July 20, 2013

  3. Every person, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity, must be able to walk the streets without fear for their safety.

    This is the exact core belief behind ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws.

    The absence of such laws are one of the reasons Chicago has become such a violent and dangerous place; thugs rule the streets because no one can legally stand up to them.

    Comment by V the K — July 20, 2013 @ 8:31 pm - July 20, 2013

  4. Thanks guys! :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 20, 2013 @ 9:14 pm - July 20, 2013

  5. I appreciate the kudos!!! V the K has got it perfectly correct…I have heard that 63% of burglaries in the UK occur during the day time as burglars know that the populace don’t have firearms to defend themselves…

    Comment by killiteten - native intelliegence — July 20, 2013 @ 11:03 pm - July 20, 2013

  6. Hey Jesse & Al, guess who stands with you: Iran Demands Justice For Trayvon Martin

    Comment by RSG — July 21, 2013 @ 2:24 am - July 21, 2013

  7. It just occurred to me that the various “Justice for Trayvon” groups might really mean (or, might more accurately name themselves) “Revenge for Trayvon.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 21, 2013 @ 11:27 am - July 21, 2013

  8. Killiteten, if you are going to cite the British experience you also have to acknowledge that their strict gun control has yielded a MUCH lower rate of gun violence.

    Comment by Brubeck — July 21, 2013 @ 7:28 pm - July 21, 2013

  9. If you subtract the gun -ontrolled cities of Chicago, New York, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Washington DC from the American totals; our rate of gun homicides is lower than Britain’s.

    Comment by V the K — July 21, 2013 @ 7:59 pm - July 21, 2013

  10. It may be that there are two “solutions” to gun violence, just as their may be (say) two opposite solutions to a simple quadratic equation.

    One is to encourage the law-abiding to own guns, striking fear into the hearts of criminals. Studies show that gun violence will then decline.

    The other is to punish the law-abiding, by subjecting them to such stringent controls that criminals don’t even need to bother with guns. Again, gun violence declines.

    One is in accord with the U.S. Constitution. And the other is in accord with the needs of a fascist-totalitarian State. That should be enough information for you to guess which one the Left favors, and why.

    Even the Brits will (when being honest) sometimes characterize their form of government as an “elected dictatorship”.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 21, 2013 @ 8:11 pm - July 21, 2013

  11. Killiteten, if you are going to cite the British experience you also have to acknowledge that their strict gun control has yielded a MUCH lower rate of gun violence.

    Comment by Brubeck — July 21, 2013 @ 7:28 pm – July 21, 2013

    Uh huh. And what, perchance, has replaced it? Why, attacks via the weapon found in every kitchen and cutlery drawer. Stabbings, or ‘knife crime’ as the Brits call it, have reached epidemic proportions. The National Health Service spends millions of pounds per year treating victims of same in the UK.
    Further, the occurance of such crimes are likely downplayed, theoretically to bolster the image of the UK as a gun-free and therefore non-violent and “safe” country.

    While it’s true that drive-by stabbings are virtually non-existent (save perhaps for sociopathic circus performers), only the claustrophobic and agoraphobic and hermits are safe from such attacks. Thanks to technological advances [like instruments made from ceramic and polymer materials], even the use of magnetometers are no guarantee of knife-free zones in public places.

    London proper now has up to 1000 stabbings per month.
    Is that really any better than having 1000 shootings a month? Even the most anti-gun trauma surgeon would be hard pressed to say there’s a difference as it relates to their line of work.

    The US is often labeled as a bunch of Neanderthals-with-advanced-technology for our alleged love affair with firearms; yet other countries who have proudly patted themselves on the back for not being beholden to such savage attractions often don’t fare much better when it comes to curbing the incidence of violence. And really, isn’t that what the discussion should be about, tackling societal violence?

    Yet the focus only seems to come down to getting rid of a particular type of weapon, not the usage of it and other types.

    Comment by RSG — July 21, 2013 @ 8:25 pm - July 21, 2013

  12. Well, according to a Bloomberg story, the US homicide rate is four times higher than Britain’s and you have ten times the chance of being killed in a violent crime in the US than you do in Britain, so no, knives are not as bad as guns. It’s not that Britain is less violent, it’s that British violence is far less lethal because they don’t have guns — getting rid of the guns matters.

    Comment by Brubeck — July 21, 2013 @ 11:57 pm - July 21, 2013

  13. So, a leftist admits that confiscation is the goal.

    Fascism loves a disarmed populace.

    Comment by V the K — July 22, 2013 @ 5:57 am - July 22, 2013

  14. Realize what else Brubeck is saying, “It’s better that you be robbed and beaten than for you to use deadly force to protect yourself from being robbed and beaten.”

    That is what leftists actually believe.

    Comment by V the K — July 22, 2013 @ 6:37 am - July 22, 2013

  15. Actually I read it a bit differently.

    Brubekc beleives the state should have a monopoly on violence. The guy who pulls a gun on you is just as much an enemy of the state, as you are when you shoot him in self defense.

    Comment by The_Livewire — July 22, 2013 @ 9:08 am - July 22, 2013

  16. The point is that you are far less likely to die as a result of violent crime in Britain, which has far fewer guns, than you are in the US, which has far more. So it is pretty hard to argue that all the guns are making us safer.

    And the argument for private gun ownership as a check against a tyrannical government is self-contradictory. I have listened to Ted Cruz say indignantly that supporters of gun control suggest he wants machine guns to be legal, which of course he doesn’t. But if you really belief in the check against tyranny argument, you have to favor machine guns being legal — as well as all sorts of other deadly weapons that gun rights supporters say they want to keep illegal — since those sorts of arms would be needed to give an insurrection a fighting chance against the US military. You can’t logically say both “I don’t want private ownership of machine guns” and “I believe gun ownership is a check against tyranny.”

    Comment by Brubeck — July 22, 2013 @ 9:45 am - July 22, 2013

  17. So it is pretty hard to argue that all the guns are making us safer.

    Statistics have consistently shown that rates of violent crime are lower in places that give people more freedom to arm and defend themselves. Whereas Shitcago, with the most Draconian gun laws in the country, is over-run with violent street crime.

    But don’t let the facts get in the way of your gooey leftist talking point.

    And as to the notion that the US military is too sophisticated and too well-armed to be defeated by a civilian militia, two words: “Vietcong” and “Taliban.”

    Comment by V the K — July 22, 2013 @ 9:51 am - July 22, 2013

  18. And as for the notion that disarming law-abiding citizens makes them safer, one word: “Chicago.”

    Comment by V the K — July 22, 2013 @ 10:29 am - July 22, 2013

  19. But if you really belief in the check against tyranny argument, you have to favor machine guns being legal — as well as all sorts of other deadly weapons that gun rights supporters say they want to keep illegal — since those sorts of arms would be needed to give an insurrection a fighting chance against the US military. You can’t logically say both “I don’t want private ownership of machine guns” and “I believe gun ownership is a check against tyranny.”

    Comment by Brubeck — July 22, 2013 @ 9:45 am – July 22, 2013

    This is the typical leftist tactic of demanding that conservatives have to meet a leftist’s standard of consistency in order to speak, which indicates that Brubeck is an Alinsky bigot who is arguing in bad faith.

    Furthermore, as V the K points out, it also indicates that Brubeck is a historical imbecile.

    The reason is, of course, that Brubeck, the fascist, hates the Second Amendment and wants to disarm law-abiding Americans. As we all know here, Brubeck does not support disarming black gangsters and fully endorsed and supported Obama’s Fast and Furious initiative to arm Mexican drug cartels. Brubeck gives guns to criminals and refuses to enforce the laws against criminals, especially those that make up Obama’s base; all Brubeck and the Obama Party ever call for are laws to punish conservative law-abiding – and particularly white – gun owners.

    Which makes Brubeck an even more obvious bigot and racist.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 22, 2013 @ 10:51 am - July 22, 2013

  20. Meanwhile, Brubeck, since you clearly are in the “white privilege” and “white supremacy” camp that your Obama screams and rants about, please do the honorable thing and resign your job, since you clearly only got it based on skin color and discrimination.

    Want to play consistency games? Fine. Practice what you preach, liberal, and repudiate your “white privilege” by giving up your job.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 22, 2013 @ 10:55 am - July 22, 2013

  21. Take a look at how many guns in, say, DC, come from Virginia and other nearby states where people can buy multiple guns at a time and then bring them into the city. And take a look at the stats that show guns in homes are usually far more likely to be used in suicides and accidental shootings than in self-defense.

    But neverthelss, I live in a safe part of town, and I am reluctant to tell people in more dangerous neighborhoods that they can’t have guns to protect themselves, regardless of what the stats say. So let’s just agree on common sense regulations — and even Scalia said some regulations were consistent with the Second Amendment. Universal ballistic fingerprinting (and if you want to argue that this can be defeated, tell it to the police departments who have used it successfully to solve crimes). Universal background checks. One gun a month limits. Limits on the size of ammo clips. And so on. When we say you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater or we pass reasonable libel laws, no one claims we are violating the First Amendment, and these sorts of regs would not violate the Second Amendment.

    Comment by Brubeck — July 22, 2013 @ 11:12 am - July 22, 2013

  22. Brubeck has already admitted that confiscation is the ultimate goal: (i.e. “getting rid of the guns matters,”) which is one reason why no one trusts the left when they say, “Oh, we just want a few commonsense limits.”

    Another reason is that the Schumer Bill was hailed as “commonsense gun regulation,” and it made it a Federal crime for a man to loan his best buddy his rifle on a hunting trip, or for a person to just handle and examine a firearm he wasn’t interested in buying or selling. (a.k.a. “Universal background checks”)

    “Limits on the size of ammo clips,” how much of a limit? One bullet?

    We don’t trust the left. They have lied to us too many times.

    Comment by V the K — July 22, 2013 @ 11:52 am - July 22, 2013

  23. Someone needs to tell Brubeck that machine guns were legal. Heck, you could buy a Thompson sub machine gun in a Sears catalog at one time.

    But hey, he doesn’t like facts, like all of John Lott’s research.

    21.Take a look at how many guns in, say, DC, come from Virginia and other nearby states where people can buy multiple guns at a time and then bring them into the city.

    So BRubeck believes that restricting the rights of the people of Virginia is the solution to the problem of criminals getting guns. Hint, the people who vilolatethe law, are criminals.

    (Or host Meet the Press).

    Comment by The_Livewire — July 22, 2013 @ 1:40 pm - July 22, 2013

  24. Yeah, if the problem is that guns are bought in the suburbs than used in the city, then the problem isn’t guns, is it? Otherwise, the suburbs where the guns were purchased would have horrendous murder rates, too.

    Comment by V the K — July 22, 2013 @ 1:47 pm - July 22, 2013

  25. So let’s just agree on common sense regulations — and even Scalia said some regulations were consistent with the Second Amendment. Universal ballistic fingerprinting (and if you want to argue that this can be defeated, tell it to the police departments who have used it successfully to solve crimes). Universal background checks. One gun a month limits. Limits on the size of ammo clips. And so on.

    Comment by Brubeck — July 22, 2013 @ 11:12 am – July 22, 2013

    No sale.

    Because we know the simple facts, Brubeck:

    1) You don’t enforce the laws you already have.

    2) You exempt people from prosecution under current laws based on their political views

    What that makes clear, Brubeck, is that your “common sense regulations” have nothing to do with “safety” and instead exist as a means for government to abuse and punish people that you don’t like.

    Therefore your “regulations” also fail Scalia’s test, since you clearly do not enforce them equally and instead use them only as excuses to prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising their constitutional rights.

    Hence there will be no agreement. As V the K correctly put it, liberals are liars and not worthy of trust on anything. You do not respect our constitutional rights and have demonstrated time and again that you will act with malice to harm conservatives.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 22, 2013 @ 1:55 pm - July 22, 2013

  26. Again, V the K and Livewire, the people in Virginia are more conservative and the people in DC are more liberal.

    Brubeck believes that government should punish and harass conservatives and protect liberals.

    Therefore, Brubeck will NEVER support arresting Barack Obama supporters in Washington DC who obtain and use illegal guns. That is merely an excuse for Brubeck demanding that the government act to punish and harass conservatives.

    You apparently live under the impression that Brubeck and his fellow liberals want to use government to solve problems. Wrong. Brubeck and his fellow liberals want to use government to punish, harm, and steal from conservatives. [closing sentence deleted]

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 22, 2013 @ 1:59 pm - July 22, 2013

  27. Yes: try for even, fair enforcement of the restrictions we have already, before making any new ones.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 22, 2013 @ 2:02 pm - July 22, 2013

  28. Fortunately, I only have to live under the People’s Republic of Maryland’s heinous tyranny for one more year. I feel for NDT and ILC, marooned in California.

    Comment by V the K — July 22, 2013 @ 2:17 pm - July 22, 2013

  29. Although V, I read yesterday that CA has the most nearly-aggressive “Stand Your Ground” law in the nation, where you are allowed to actually pursue your assailant if you feel it’s needed for your ongoing, immediate defense.

    I don’t know for sure if that’s true…or what I think of it! :-)

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — July 22, 2013 @ 2:27 pm - July 22, 2013

  30. The “black leadership” and their fellow-travelers are frantically chumming the waters to conceal that “Justice for Trayvon” would entail handcuffs, arrest and a up-coming trial-date for assaulting Zimmerman if the Police had arrived just-before that fateful moment.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — July 22, 2013 @ 4:43 pm - July 22, 2013

  31. They say every person “regardless of race” should be allowed to walk the streets without fear. Does that include “White Hispanics”?

    Comment by Mitch — July 22, 2013 @ 10:54 pm - July 22, 2013

  32. OK, how about giving the ATF enough money to inspect gun dealers more than once every five years and letting the ATF computerize its records instead of having to sift through hundreds of thousands of paper records when it tries to trace a gun used in a crime? Or how about letting the FBI keep background check records for more than 24 hours so it can recognize patterns indicating “straw purchases”?

    Comment by Brubeck — July 23, 2013 @ 12:38 pm - July 23, 2013

  33. We know the only reason you on the left want “Universal Background Checks” is so that you’ll have a database of all gun owners to facilitate eventual confiscation… which you openly admit is the end-goal.

    As for the ATF, we’re supposed to trust the agency that was running guns to Mexican Drug Gangs, and who roasted 84 people alive in Waco, to be responsible stewards of the Second Amendment? Hell no. The ATF should not be expanded, it should be disbanded.

    Comment by V the K — July 23, 2013 @ 1:42 pm - July 23, 2013

  34. OK, how about giving the ATF enough money to inspect gun dealers more than once every five years and letting the ATF computerize its records instead of having to sift through hundreds of thousands of paper records when it tries to trace a gun used in a crime? Or how about letting the FBI keep background check records for more than 24 hours so it can recognize patterns indicating “straw purchases”?

    Comment by Brubeck — July 23, 2013 @ 12:38 pm – July 23, 2013

    Oh yes, let’s give MORE money and power to organizations that have demonstrated such superior operational efficiency and ability.

    Ever notice how the answer for government parasites like Brubeck is always to give more money to incompetents and reward those who are wasteful and screw up?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — July 23, 2013 @ 3:58 pm - July 23, 2013

  35. Ever notice how the answer for government parasites like Brubeck is always to give more money to incompetents and reward those who are wasteful and screw up?

    In other words, the Democrats treat their base exactly the opposite of the way Republicans treat theirs.

    Comment by V the K — July 23, 2013 @ 5:36 pm - July 23, 2013

  36. The point is that you are far less likely to die as a result of violent crime in Britain, which has far fewer guns, than you are in the US, which has far more. So it is pretty hard to argue that all the guns are making us safer.

    Comment by Brubeck — July 22, 2013 @ 9:45 am – July 22, 2013

    Has anyone tried to pin a cause on why deaths from violent crime are greater in the USA than the UK, other than attempting to pin it on the oversimplistic “because guns are evil” argument??

    Couldn’t it be because USA might just be a more violent society, or because victims are allowed to die without medical treatment? Or because crimes which occur in the US are likely to happen in less compact places than the UK and thus more removed from services? Possibly other reasons? [Like, for example, the individualistic nature of US citizens which allows for crimes from home invasions to go unnoticed until the victim is not observed in a regular routine?] It seems that there is an attempt to imply a cause-and-effect relationship where one might not necessarily exist just in order to bolster a particular point of view.

    Comment by RSG — July 23, 2013 @ 9:14 pm - July 23, 2013

  37. I am not sure of your life’s history as to upbringing, where you have lived from childhood, up to now….what part of the areas where you have lived over the years up to this point in your life. I was raised in poverty from a child beginning with my grandparents who raised me because of my mother’s lifestyle. We picked cotton, peaches, anything available during the week. We fished in the streams to catch fish, raised a garden for fresh vegetables, canned everything that we ate. We hunted for whatever was in season. But we made no excuse for our simple style of living. My grandmother made my shirts out of flour sacks. In those days, all large bags of flour came in printed sacks which not only was used for shirts but the scraps were saved and made into quilts. Every one in our country suburb worked hard and worked together. There were blacks Hispanics, even a Russian immigrant and however many other races but people did not use their race as an excuse for anything other than doing the best they could to survive and to help one another. In 1962, for about a year, I lived with my mother in Oakland California. I attended Oakland Tech High where I was one of the few whites. Students there were routinely carrying guns, Teachers illegally carried guns for their own protection. I am white, my stepfather was black. In the 60’s, that was a situation which put me socially in “no mman’s land”. Between being gay and living in one of the downtown ghetto area of Oakland, I was an outcast of all of society at the time. In 1970 my mother owned The Honeymoon Club in the downtown area of Oaklanf across from “Old Man’s park”, a shooting gallery for gangs, prostitutes and murderers. I tried to get my mother to buy a gun but the police had assured her she was well protected. In 1970 she paid with her life for the mistake of following their advice. She was murdered. Because of financial reasons I have since lived in almost every ghetto in California:: the ghetto of east Los Angeles, the 69th Street projects of Oakland California, the Hayes Valley and Tenderloin ghettos of San Francisco, the Oak Park in Sacramento in the 60′s where it was nothing more than a shooting gallery, Rainbow Rock Trailer Park in Plant City Florida, East Tampa, Ybor City, Sulphur Springs All of Florida, I learned early in life that if you want to stay safe and keep your family and belongings safe is to own a gun and know how to use it, and to know the normal patterns in hyour neighborhood, and working with neighbors to watch one anothers homes at all times and staying in touch by phones,. A non-organized neighborhood watch. Just heighbors working with neighbors. Police were originally designed to “prevent” crime. Now they are no more than cleanup crew after the criminal elements have hit you. Today, in Oakland or San Francisco you will get nothing but an answering machine in the middle of the night. If you do get lucky and an actual person answers, you cannot, repeat, you cannot survive most incidents without a weapon. Don’t run the race bullshit past me and try and incorporate it into your own reality as factual. You obviously probably never had to take buses thru dangerous areas, nor had to face a burglar, someone shooting your dog, trying to shoot you, or rape the young mother next door who was screaming out her bedroom window for help, only to have the police to show up over one hour later who told you they didn’t have the time nor the money to fingerprint the area and catch the perpetrator. You have no idea what the hell is going on in this present time, nor the past I imagine. When your neighborhood has been burglarized several times, your own house broken into and you see someone strolling around between houses, it doesn’t matter what the hell their race is, you do exactly what Zimmerman did. I’ve dealt with Hispanic gangs, black gangs, red neck gangs etc…If you read ALL the evidence, especially Martin’s girlfriend’s later statements, all the self posted shots of himself, his history with the law and the chief of the campus police who had covered up his crimes by refusing to prosecute him and then himself being fired, the evidence the prosecutor refused to bring forward which now we know what a thug he was. I doubt if you have any idea of what reality is in the living situations in poverty areas all over this country, or if you do, you are a gutless liberal who would keep driving by if you saw someone being mugged on the streets. I am amazed at my fellow gays who are so damned liberal and uninformed about these realities. I’m an old man, but listen to my song recorded and released in May. I am sick and tired of gays, especially gays, running around in leather with chains, whips and handcuffs who are “play actors” and will not fight back or speak out unless they are safely in a yearly Pride crowd. Where we you in the 60′s and 50′s when we were illegal just because of our sexuality. The damned freedom you have today was paid for by people who said “hell no we won’t take it any more”. Not just because of our sexuality, but as citizens who are simply not going to allow people to rob, assault or murder us no matter what their race or their age might be. Most of the gang murders are done by murders with gang leaders this day and age because they know if they get caught, the punishment will be much less than an adult. And of course, their defense will always be “it was because of my poverty or my race, Bullshit. In my song I write “This Queer Don’t Run. Even handicapped and on crutches most of the time: I mean exactly what I say and don’t insult me with your liberal analogies!

    Comment by Conan Dunham — July 26, 2013 @ 7:59 am - July 26, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.