Several months ago, July 13th to be
precise, I penned a post entitled, Black Lives Matter: Of That I Am Certain! In that post I opened with a statement
affirming the sensibilities of a certain segment of Americans. Here is what I wrote 5 months ago:
Fact. There are many Americans who
simply refuse, under any circumstances, at any time, in any place, to consider
the prospect their country in general, and especially themselves in particular,
ever tolerate even the hint of a suggestion that they harbor the most remote
scintilla of racist thought, deed, or action in exercising their life’s
functions. In fact, if you happen to suggest that one of these people is
racist, that person will deny it, quickly and robustly, and then just as
speedily and fervently, insist that by the mere introduction of such an idea,
you, in fact, are the racist.
Over the course of that blog, I briefly
examined the 1857 Dred Scott Decision. In that case Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote
the Opinion. Speaking about the clause in the Declaration
of Independence “that all men are created equal,” Taney wrote:
“It is
too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be
included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this
declaration.”
Taney went
on to say the following:
“The negro
has no rights which the white man is bound to respect”
The bottom line, in the eyes of the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States was, Mr. Scott had no right
to sue because as a
black man he was never intended to be an American.
In the course of human events, as the phrase
goes, it’s easy to contend now that something that unfolded 159 years ago when
our country’s social norms were so clearly framed by different values, has no
correlation to contemporary norms and behaviors. That may sound like a completely rational and
in fact documentable fact pattern. Well,
it is…in some instances…but definitely not in others.
As I mentioned in the July post, while defending Kentucky Clerk Kim
Davis’s refusal to issue marriage licenses out of her religious opposition to
same-sex marriage, Mike Huckabee said:
“The
Supreme Court’s 1857 ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford – which held that all blacks,
free or enslaved, could not be American citizens – is still the law of the land
even though no one follows it.”
“I’ve been
just drilled by TV hosts over the past week, ‘How dare you say that, uh, it’s
not the law of the land? Because that’s their phrase, ‘it’s the law of the
land.’ Michael, the Dred Scott decision of 1857 still remains to this day the
law of the land, which says that black people aren’t fully human. Does anybody
still follow the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision?’”
It’s 2016, and there are those among us whom for all practical purposes
maintain the same view as that articulated by a SCOTUS Decision in which the
sesquicentennial was observed nearly a decade ago. Last night at Texas A&M University,
Richard Spencer, the self-proclaimed leader of the movement known as Alt-Right,
which most objective observers refer to as white supremacists, brought his own
unique message of hope and change to the campus. Sort of.
He was not an invited guest of any student, faculty member, or campus
group. The University rents space for
groups and individuals, and Spencer’s appearance fell under the broad rubric of
free speech. Due to First Amendment
rights, there was no viable means to block him from coming to speak at the
school in College Station. Another white
nationalist, Preston Wigington, secured the space and invited Spencer to
appear. Wigington, who reportedly
attended Texas A&M for a year, was crowned “Strongest Skinhead” in 2005 at
Hammerfest, a neo-Nazi gathering, according to the Southern Poverty Law
Center. He had tried with little success
to host other Alt-Right events over the years.
While they consistently attracted small crowds, Spencer was expected to
change that. This time he has gained
national attention, including an interview by a CNN reporter Monday, prior to
Spencer’s visit yesterday. In one
exchange, the reporter, Gary Tuchman posed this question:
"By
saying that all Somalis shouldn't come here, isn't that being a bigot?"
After a long
pause, Mr. Wigington responded by saying:
"Um, sometimes
maybe being a bigot is wise."
At A&M,
Mr. Spencer was even more direct. Although he
denied being a white nationalist, he said during his remarks:
“At the end of the
day, America belongs to white men.”
All of which
brings me full circle and back to the shooting death of Walter Scott in North
Charleston, SC, April 4, 2015. In
summary, Officer Michael Slager shot Mr. Scott (5 times…in the back), during a
traffic stop. The shooting was caught on
tape by a by-stander. The video revealed
the officer appeared to drop his Taser near the decedent’s body after he shot
him. He then proceeded to handcuff Mr.
Scott…instead of calling for an ambulance.
He did announce shots fired into his radio after he shot the suspect.
During the
trial Officer Slager stated that he feared for his life. He maintained this despite the video showing
Mr. Scott fleeing, and estimated to be 18 feet away when he shot him. Slager said Scott has taken his Taser. This could not be confirmed by the video,
although…as noted above, Slager could be seen dropping something near Scott’s
body. Presumably the Taser that Slager
alleged Scott had taken from him. When
asked if Mr. Scott, while fleeing, and 18 feet away was far enough away from
him not to be afraid, he said no, he believed Scott could still turn around
(with no weapon it appears) and attack and kill him. This is, after all, what fearing for your
life means, right?
News accounts
emerged last Friday indicating that one member of the jury was unable to vote to
convict Officer Slager. Not for murder,
or for manslaughter. The video was clear
and compelling enough to convince 11 of the 12 jurors. Keep in mind the jury was composed of six
white men, five white women and one black man. The identity of the lone holdout was not
revealed. I am willing to go way out on
a long thin limb and venture that with 11 out of 12 odds, the recalcitrant
juror was one of the 11 white members.
The defense
blocked nine potential members, seven of whom were black. Asked about that, Judge Clifton Newman, who
is black, responded, “They…(said) that they could be fair and impartial,”
speaking of the white jurors. That is
their duty and obligation. That is what
we should expect. In fact, there is a
good chance 10 of 11 did. The only
problem is, it was not a game of horseshoes, close does not count/is not good
enough.
So, with all
due respect, because of Roger Taney, because of Mike Huckabee, because of
Preston Wigington, because of Richard Spencer, and because of the unnamed, a lone
holdout juror in Charleston, South Carolina, I am left with one totally
inescapable conclusion…“The Walter Scott Mistrial:This is Why #BlackLivesMatter is Necessary!”
I’m done; holla back!
Read my blog
anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.
To subscribe,
click on Follow in the bottom right hand corner of my Home
Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated
space, and click on “Sign me up.” Subsequent editions of “Break
It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.
Consult the links below for more
detailed information on a variety of aspects relating to this post:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/walter-scott-mistrial-early-test-trump-civil-rights-220223072.html?ref=gs
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment