Trayvon Martin Case Study

The Cost of Freedom

When recalling the recent controversies in the public eye and memory, the New York

cases regarding the death of an unarmed Eric Garner due to inappropriate use of police force as

well as similar cases of police misconduct leading to the injustices in Ferguson exist as examples

around which fervent debate and contention arise. In less current news, the Trayvon Martin case

functions as a contemporary reference point in regards to the new brand of civil rights violations

and race conflicts between minorities and the police force. One of the key questions at the center

of such controversy lies in which institutions or individuals are culpable for these crimes, deaths,

and unfortunate circumstances. This paper offers a
brief justification for the state and existence

of regulations by the police using some excerpts from Rousseau’s famous work The Social

Contract. Additionally, this paper asserts that the institutional structures, protocols and rules

exist as instruments of safety for the safety of citizens, and that the abuse of power does not

originate from commonly cited factors such as racism or profiling.

Primarily, to understand and justify the existence of institutional, and by extension,

societal rules, we must first understand the necessity of a society. When individuals agree to live

in a regulated, ordered society for the benefit of all members of that society, it is necessary for

individuals to give up certain rights in order to live harmoniously. The restriction of freedom as

individuals choose to live in society is in place to ensure that an individual does not have the

capacity to freely violate the rights of another individual. If such freedoms – such as the freedom

to kill, steal, cheat, and so forth – were granted to the populace, then trust between individuals

would be impossible since there would be no system of punishment or regulation in place to

protect individuals or their property. Such a state where each individual retains all their

rights and freedoms, including those normally associated with criminal acts, describes

Rousseau’s conception of the “state of war”. The justification for this natural freedom is

preservation, “His first law is to provide for his own preservation, his first cares are those he

owes to himself…” (Rousseau 3). A world consisting of individuals only concerned with their

own self-interest implies that growth on a social scale would be impossible. The alternative that

Rousseau offers society, “Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the

supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as

an indivisible part of the whole” (6). In other words, all individuals in a society agree to be

bound by a set of rules out of their own free will, and protection is afforded to all individuals

who observe that contract of obeisance. The conclusion that can be deduced from this fact is that

the stability of society and the advantages it brings come as reliant upon the obedience of the

people towards the law. Understanding agents of the law and the power of the law as “racist” is a

fundamental error in the sense that the observance of law itself is a precondition to one’s

existence in society.

Moreover, with such a claim, it then follows that the basis of society depends on the

sacrifice of freedoms and obedience to laws decided by a central governing body representing or

directly composed of the will of all its members. The sacrifice of those freedoms and the

requirement of obedience then extend to institutions such as law enforcement, and individuals

such as police.

The establishments of strict police protocols that guide the behaviors of agents of the

institutions which enforcement the law, then, implies that the actions of the police are just. Of

course, this justness is granted on the basis that the law enforcement agent practices their power

correctly and in line with the valid protocols. Since officers are often in deadly situations where

their lives are at risk, many protocols leave the assessment of the conditions of certain situations

up to the acting officer. While one individual officer may act with impaired judgment, this action

has no bearing on the fact that the existence of the police or police protocols is necessary and

even tantamount to the maintenance of society.
Let us examine the case of Eric Garner for

instance. Many accusations have been lodged regarding the actions of acting officer Daniel

Pantaleo and his ignorance of Garner’s obvious cries for help as an act of racism on the part of

the New York Police Department. Consider the details of the crime, “A video of the incident

shows him [Eric Garner] apparently avoiding arrest, and Officer Daniel Pantaleo placed him in

an apparent chokehold to subdue him” (Bashan 2014). Several aspects of situation may illustrate

how although Pantaleo’s actions may represent a breach of power, they do not have racist

qualities to them. Any individual resisting arrest may have received similar treatment in order to

immobilize that individual from moving and to take them into custody. The color of Garner’s

skin cannot be shown to be a definitive factor in Pantaleo’s decisions to enforce the law.

The acquittal of George Zimmerman for the death of Trayvon Martin also illustrates how

a case of the maintenance of law may not be racially motivated. Media attention to the case had

cast the case in such a light, however, the basis for law itself – which we have already
discussed

as the preservation of order in society – stands as the principal reason for Zimmerman’s

acquittal. Consider the following, “His lawyers depicted him as a dedicated member of the

community who repeatedly offered to help his neighbors. They also called witnesses who

testified that he was a bumbling fighter who would have succumbed to Mr. Martin in a brawl”

(Campo-Flores 2013). The defense’s case is credible due to how it explains George

Zimmerman’s motivations as a function of upholding societal order: race had no part in the

decision to shoot.

Finally, consider that recent retributions against police officers in relation to these news

cases actually illustrate the dangers of a lawless society. Ismaaiyl Brinsley’s shooting of two

New York City police officers, Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu, in response to the Eric Garner

death causes a decrease in the overall safety of the city as well as increasing its violent crime

(Shallwani 2014). In these cases, it is not a matter of race, but a matter of the use of power.

Efforts should be devoted towards correcting and educating officers on how to better avoid

deadly confrontations in training rather than on a witch-hunt for individuals belonging to a

“racist” institution of law. Individuals must recognize that the existence of police protocols and

the restrictions on one’s liberties exist as a necessary aspect of a peaceful life in society, and that

blaming an imperfect system for its imperfections will not improve the system or society.

Works Cited

Bashan, Yoni. "Eric Garner Apparent Chokehold Case Could Test Staten Island Grand Jury."

WSJ. Wall Street Journal, 19 Aug. 2014. Web. 12 Mar. 2015.

<http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-staten-island-grand-jury-will-hear-evidence-in-the-

eric-garner-apparent-chokehold-incident-1408461864>.

Campo-Flores, Arian. "Jury Acquits Zimmerman of All Charges." WSJ. Wall Street Journal, 14

July 2013. Web. 12 Mar. 2015.

<http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324879504578603562762064502>.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Social Contract. New York: Hafner Pub., 1947. Print.

Shallwani, Pervaiz. "NYPD Shooting Suspect Referenced Garner, Brown Cases." WSJ. Wall

Street Journal, 21 Dec. 2014. Web. 12 Mar. 2015. <http://www.wsj.com/articles/two-

nypd-officers-shot-in-patrol-car-1419112127>.