Tue. Jun 18th, 2024
by Ken Carman

A lot of media time spent on the Trayvon/Zimmerman case misses one of the most important concerns. The incident goes deeper than one teen being shot to death by a self appointed neighborhood watch guy who ignored what the police told him not to do. To me the Martin/Zimmerman case goes beyond racism, beyond gun rights, or even just “stand your ground.”

Trayvon represents a direction the extreme Right demands America must go…

…and so far they’ve been very successful at dragging us in that direction.

When it comes to the kinds of laws that caused this to happen, a question comes to mind: do we really want to live in the kind of country where if you think someone might possibly be thinking of doing something that might be a danger to you, or they “scare” you, you can kill them and walk free simply by making that claim?

If you think about history: all the lynchings, the shootings of clinic personnel, bombings of clinics and gay nightclubs, tying of a teen to a fence in Texas, parishioners at a UU church in Knoxville, shooting of Gabby Giffords, civil rights workers; there are a lot of folks out there who have every reason to be frightened of the Right. And the reason why all this has been happening is the extreme Right fears much: and “stand your ground” is just one symptom of their reaction to what they fear: a reaction they seem to feel they have a perfect right to… as exemplified by rhetoric like “lock and load.”

How about the recent comment by Foster Friess’?

“I Hope Obama’s Teleprompters Are Bulletproof.”

Or the NRA holding a gun raffle right after Ms. Giffords was shot, people were murdered. They raffled off the exact same style of gun that murdered six people including a 9 year old girl.

If we’re those who support such legislation are really serious about everyone having a right to “stand their ground,” here’s a question…

What if the Left started raising money and arming every Liberal, every potential Trayvon, every clinic worker, every woman abused by a husband, every pol, pundit or activist who could wind up being Gabby-ed, or dumped in some Mississippi field… then teach them to shoot and how to use these laws to their advantage. Then let them go out to “stand their ground?”

Do you think those who pushed these laws through would support that?

If Trayvon, spooked by some guy following him then challenging him, asking him to empty his pockets: someone who is obviously not a cop, had turned around and blew Zimmerman away… how quickly do you think the extreme Right, and those who defend Mr. Zimmerman, would want these laws repealed? How much outrage would there be from the O’Reillys, the Limbaughs?

I was pondering situation the other day and then started connecting some dots. Many of the same folks who like these kind of laws are also the same folks who defend dumping due process if someone can be remotely, possibly, connected with someone who may know someone who may have had an association with a terrorist group, or terrorist. They support drowning such people until they’re almost dead, reviving them, then drowning them again. They support attaching live wires to their genitals. They think telling anyone that they have any rights while arresting them is wrong.

They do not believe in rights: except their own.

They do not believe in freedom: except their “freedom” to kill you if they feel they want to. And once they kill you they are free to lie: “They were threatening. I stood my ground.”

Pro-torture, pro-murder, pro-profiling anyone whom they consider politically incorrect in any way.

Why would anyone want to turn society into some perversion of the worst stories told about the Wild West?

Simple: unless they would equally support Trayvon’s right to blow Zimmerman away since he felt “threatened,” support Liberals/Muslim’s/Socialist’s right to blow Conservatives away if they feel “threatened,” what they are demanding is that only they should have the “freedom” to kill anyone they don’t like, anyone they find disagreeable, or anyone they can imagine might possibly be, at some future time, a threat. The freedom to kill you, or me, if it pleases them.

Us? We’re supposed to be so damn scared we sit down and shut up if we don’t agree with them.

How many times have you heard that type of rhetoric from their pundits?

Those who support these kind of laws are the intellectual progeny of those who felt they had a right to ruin the lives of anyone who refused to testify that they weren’t a Communist. They are the intellectual children of those who killed civil rights workers and then complained that the government was interfering with local affairs when they investigated such things.

Think this has nothing to do with you?

With these kinds of laws, tomorrow you may be Trayvon.

“They came for the Jews, and I was not a Jew… then they came for…”

Wearing a “hoodie” should not equal a death sentence. A few days after the outrage from the Right over those who dared to question what Zimmerman did hit a fan political fan; a fan pushed by their fav pundits ever plentiful supply of stinky rhetorical hot air, I was in a WalMart in an upper middle, white section, of town. I was purchasing a shirt and found one that had a hood on it. I needed to get out fast and it was a quick find. Why? Because more than half of the area donated to men was selling hoodies. All kinds of folks were buying them.

So much for the he was a “punk” because he wore a “hoodie.” But it certainly has been used as an excuse by hate mongers on the Right who want you to hate Trayvon so much that Zimmerman becomes some kind of bloody saint saving humanity from the Black kid with a “hoodie.”

This is typical of the extreme Right: gin up hate to justify actions we wouldn’t otherwise consider anything close to moral or necessary.

Quick question: who has the extreme Right told America to fear, to hate beyond reason, be very suspicious of since at least the 50s? Islam? Nah, that was simply standing on the graves of those who died on 9/11 and demanding more of a right to kill, torture and humiliate whomever. “Socialists?” Well if you really include “anyone who dares to disagree,” as a “Socialist,” perhaps. “Communists?” Give me a break. Even Republican administrations have approved trade with Nam, and been overtly friendly with China and Russia.

Nope. Plain and simple: everyone who is to the Left of them.

This is what they want: the freedom to torture, murder, throw into prison with no due process, anyone they want to target.

So, be careful… sooner or later you might be Trayvon. For the rightward Elmer Fudd behind you wearing the Rush button just might be getting ready to hunt.

“Be vewee vewee quiet. I’m huntin Liberals.”

Could be funny, as long as you don’t mind if you die laughing.


Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 30 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks and into the unseen cracks and crevasses that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.

©Copyright 2011
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
All Rights Reserved

By Ken Carman

Retired entertainer, provider of educational services, columnist, homebrewer, collie lover, writer of songs, poetry and prose... humorist, mediocre motorcyclist, very bad carpenter, horrid handyman and quirky eccentric deluxe.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ana Grarian
12 years ago

You want to see this law changed? Have women use it.
When I first heard about this I thought – “Why don’t you hear about abusive husbands/fathers being killed?”. What’s more “threatening” a kid whose walking away from you, or a screaming, lug of a drunk storming into the house? Or that self indulgent jock who thinks every girl is his for the taking.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not advocating to go shooting men at will – just pointing out that many people who are truly threatened, don’t go around shooting people.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x