Friday, March 30, 2012

What The Trayvon Martin Case Is Supposed To Teach Us?

by Emanuel Mccray on Thursday, March 29, 2012 (Reposted with author's permission)

Why, in a civilized society like America, do we have laws in the first place?

Gimme Three Steps by Lynyrd Skynyrd immediately came to my mind. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygausyezIOc

In Gimme Three Steps, the incident did not escalate into violence or death. Instead he said: “Wait a minute mister I didn't even kiss her, don't want no trouble with you, and I know you don't owe me But I wish you'd let me ask one favor from you": “Oh, won't you gimme three steps, gimme three steps, mister Gimme three steps toward the door?”

The laws in America are designed to promote, foster and nourish civility. This is why WRITTEN civil and criminal statutes are on the statute books in nearly every State of the Union.

Zimmerman was on private property inside a gated community. For whatever reason, Trayvon gave him the impression that he was trespassing. Rather than use his phone to call his dad, 911 or the police, the media informs us that Trayvon carried on a conversation with a female friend.

Was Trayvon raised to walk around looking for a fight?

Was Trayvon raised, trained, taught and or groomed to make himself judge and jury of his own rights when confronted by Zimmerman or any other person who questioned him?

This case is solely about the reason and purpose of laws and living disciplined lives. The Bible tells us of numerous stories similar to Trayvon’s. U.S. Supreme Court cases from the early days of our Constitution are helpful in understanding why we need to focus on the TRUTH and not be misled by Satan’s agenda in the media.

In the case of CALDER v. BULL, 3 U.S. 386 (1798), the Supreme Court wrote:
“The people of the United States erected their Constitutions, or forms of government, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, to secure the blessings of liberty; and to protect their persons and property from violence…. There is a great and apparent difference between making an UNLAWFUL act LAWFUL; and the making an innocent action criminal, and punishing it as a CRIME.” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=3&invol=386

Mr. Justice Bradley, writing for the Court in BOYD v. U S, 116 U.S. 616 (1886), described the situation impacting on the Trayvon case this way by quoting Lord Camden:
“The great end for which men entered into society was to secure their property. That right is preserved sacred and incommunicable in all instances where it has not been taken away or abridged by some public law for the good of the whole…. By the laws of England, every invasion of private property, be it ever so minute, is a trespass. No man can set his foot upon my ground without my license, but he is liable to an action, though the damage be nothing, which is proved by every declaration in trespass where the defendant is called upon to answer for bruising the grass and even treading upon the soil. If he admits the fact, he is bound to show, by way of justification, that some positive law has justified or excused him. The justification is submitted to the judges, who are to look into the books, and see if such a justification can be maintained by the text of the statute law, or by the principles of the common law. If no such excuse can be found or produced, the silence of the books is an authority against the defendant, and the plaintiff must have judgment.” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=116&invol=616

Mr. Justice JACKSON, dissenting in TERMINIELLO v. CITY OF CHICAGO, 337 U.S. 1 (1949), wrote:
“As this case declares a nation-wide rule that disables local and state authorities from punishing conduct which produces conflicts of this kind, it is unrealistic not to take account of the nature, methods and objectives of the forces involved. This was not an isolated, spontaneous and unintended collision of political, racial or ideological adversaries. It was a local manifestation of a world-wide and standing conflict between two organized groups of revolutionary fanatics, each of which has imported to this country the strong-arm technique developed in the struggle by which their kind has devastated Europe. Increasingly, American cities have to cope with it. One faction organizes a mass meeting, the other organizes pickets to harass it; each organizes squads to counteract the other's pickets; parade is met with counter parade. Each of these mass demonstrations has the potentiality, and more than a few the purposes, of disorder and violence. This technique appeals not to reason but to fears and mob spirit; each is a show of force designed to bully adversaries and to overawe the indifferent. We need not resort to speculation as to the purposes for which these tactics are calculated or as to their consequences. Recent European history demonstrates both.

Hitler summed up the strategy of the mass demonstration as used by both fascism and communism: 'We should not work in secret conventiclers but in mighty mass demonstrations, and it is not by dagger and poison or pistol that the road can be cleared for the movement but by the conquest of the streets. We must teach the Marxists that the future master of the streets is National Socialism, just as it will someday be the master of the state.' (Emphasis supplied.) 1 Nazi Conspiracy & Aggression (GPO, 1946) 204, 2 id. 140, Docs. 2760-PS, 404-PS, from 'Mein Kampf.' First laughed at as an extravagant figure of speech, the battle for the streets became a tragic reality when an organized Sturmabterlung began to give practical effect to its slogan that 'possession of the streets is the key to power in the state.' Ibid., also Doc. 2168-PS….

There are many appeals these days to liberty, often by those who are working for an opportunity to taunt democracy with its stupidity in furnishing them the weapons to destroy it as did Goebbels when he said: 'When democracy granted democratic methods for us in times of opposition, this (Nazi seizure of power) was bound to happen in a democratic system. However, we National Socialists never asserted that we represented a democratic point of view, but we have declared openly that we used democratic methods only in order to gain the power and that, after assuming the power, we would deny to our adversaries without any consideration the means which were granted to us in times of (our) opposition.' 1 Nazi Conspiracy & Aggression (GPO 1946) 202, Docs. 2500-PS, 2412-PS. [337 U.S. 1 , 36] Invocation of constitutional liberties as part of the strategy for overthrowing them presents a dilemma to a free people which may not be soluble by constitutional logic alone.

But I would not be understood as suggesting that the United States can or should meet this dilemma by suppression of free, open and public speaking on the part of any group or ideology. Suppression has never been a successful permanent policy; any surface serenity that it creates is a false security, while conspiratorial forces go underground. My confidence in American institutions and in the sound sense of the American people is such that if with a stroke of the pen I could silence every fascist and communist speaker, I would not do it. For I agree with Woodrow Wilson, who said:

‘I have always been among those who believed that the greatest freedom of speech was the greatest safety, because if a man is a fool, the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact by speaking. It cannot be so easily discovered if you allow him to remain silent and look wise, but if you let him speak, the secret is out and the world knows that he is a fool. So it is by the exposure of folly that it is defeated; not by the seclusion of folly, and in this free air of free speech men get into that sort of communication with one another which constitutes the basis of all common achievement.' Address at the Institute of France, Paris, May 10, 1919. 2 Selected Literary and Political Papers and Addresses of Woodrow Wilson (1926).” http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=337&invol=1

This is how the before-mentioned Supreme Court cases bring us to the Trayvon case. According to the Miami Herald newspaper:
“Zimmerman and the 17-year-old had argued and struggled in a gated community near Orlando where Zimmerman lived and Trayvon was visiting with his father.” http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/28/2719868/network-broadcasts-surveillance.html

Go back to what Hitler said about his enemies, the Communists and the Marxists: “We must teach the Marxists that the future master of the streets is National Socialism…. It is “the conquest of the streets.” Using thousands of Swastikas and men and women, Hitler ruled the streets without pistol or bullets. A fair trial, called Justice, was given to all through the courts Hitler created for use in controlling the streets. Is there a semblance of Hitler’s policies in the policies of those attacking Zimmerman?

Was Trayvon acting as a “master of the streets?” To this question I will answer, YES. Blacks were immediately called to take to the streets; arrest and terrorize Zimmerman.

People live in gated communities for a reason. They put bars on their windows for a reason. They alarm their homes and cars for a reason. They want to place ID chips in their children for a reason. When the police say “freeze;” “stop;” “pull over” and “driver get out of the car,” they say these things for a reason.

HERE, Zimmerman was providing security for Trayvon’s father inside a gated community. Humm! This diffuses the claim that Zimmerman was an out-of-control racist. When a stranger is encountered in an area where they do not belong, the mind sort of twists a little.

Imagine how you’re crazy you and your mind becomes, or would become if you encountered a stranger inside your fenced yard; your garage; your bedroom. Now imagine what happens to your mind when the stranger gives you the impression they have a right to be where they are without nothing more, or better still, in a belligerent manner or tone of voice.

When I look at the media promote this as a case of race as opposed to the protection of private property, it is difficult not to reach the conclusion that Trayvon was ingrained with the mindset that the White Man is out to get the Black Man. Further proof can be found in the fact that the media, Jackson, Sharpton, the Panthers, the President and the “Hoodies” all want Zimmerman’s death, not caring an ounce about how the death of a 17 year old could have been prevented had it not been for their deep-seated racism.

This whole matter goes back to how we raise our children. I was NEVER raised to see “The White Man” as my enemy. I was TAUGHT no distinction in color. Everyone was my equal competitor. If I wanted what my competitors had, I had to LEARN IT and EARN IT, legally.

I was TAUGHT to NEVER mouth off at my elders, regardless of color or against the police. When questioned, I was told not to escalate violence.

So why is there such a HUGE disconnect between Zimmerman, Trayvon, Trayvon’s dad and the fact that they were all inside a gated community?

Could it be the fact that Trayvon was visiting his dad and not his mom and dad? Was Trayvon’s dad aware his son was coming to visit? Was Trayvon leaving the gated community after visiting his dad? Why did Trayvon’s Dad not provide transportation for his son? If the community was gated, how was Trayvon able to visit or leave the gated community? Why all of a sudden is Zimmerman such a stranger to Trayvon’s dad?

Read this question carefully: Why did this particular gated community have, in addition to gates, a roving security watch that included rules and regulations for the performance of his or her volunteer security duties?

We’ve all seen a neighborhood watch where the public drives freely through its streets. This community was clearly different. Because this case is truly about the protection of private property secured behind a gated community, the 2011 Florida Statutes, Title XLVI, CRIMES, Chapter 810 provides that:

810.09 Trespass on property other than structure or conveyance.—
(1)(a)  A person who, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters upon or remains in any property other than a structure or conveyance:
1. As to which notice against entering or remaining is given, either by actual communication to the offender or by posting, fencing, or cultivation as described in s. 810.011; or
2. If the property is the unenclosed curtilage of a dwelling and the offender enters or remains with the intent to commit an offense thereon, other than the offense of trespass,

commits the offense of trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance.

(2)(a)  Except as provided in this subsection, trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

810.12 Unauthorized entry on land; prima facie evidence of trespass.—
(1)  The unauthorized entry by any person into or upon any enclosed and posted land shall be prima facie evidence of the intention of such person to commit an act of trespass.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0800-0899/0810/0810.html

Zimmerman was on private property inside a gated community. For whatever reason, Trayvon gave him the impression that he was trespassing. We are told and given numerous examples not to be aggressive towards bears, wild dogs, etc., because we could lose our life. This is, in a way, the law.

When laws are not respected, we have the situation we have with Trayvon Martin. Our first reaction is to blame Zimmerman. But in American Law and Justice, it is called contributory negligence on the part of Trayvon, his parents, and the community that raised him.

If we teach our children to teach their children to teach their children how to avoid this type of situation, we will eventually have a Country where these types of deadly confrontations will cease to exist.

Sadly, the blood of Al Sharpton and other Black racists and their Satanic supporters will be around for a few more hundred years.

No comments: