Most of us probably believe that it was wrong for Zimmerman to
confront Martin in the way he did, and it was a tragedy that the boy
died. But in terms of a conviction, unfortunately there just wasn't
enough there to prove the strict definitions of 2nd degree murder and/or
manslaughter. It's not like he killed Martin outright... he first put
himself in dangerous proximity, and escalated into some sort of verbal
and physical altercation. He's misguided and showing poor judgment, but
not a murderer. Obviously he is a child killer, and yet a hero to many.
What about the trial's greater implications? Our culture,
racial policies, and gun laws were not on trial - but they are still
open issues for debate. Obviously after Oscar Grant, Martin, and many
other examples, I assume the black community and many other Americans
are tired of seeing young, lower income, unarmed people of color getting
beaten or killed, while the lighter-skinned, gun-toting perpetrator is
acquitted or given little punishment (in their opinion). Anger is high
and some may want to lash out violently. On the other side, Zimmerman
and his supporters may expect that. These folks probably favor
concealed-carry, stand-your-ground, unrestricted 2nd amendment, and
other legal provisions that enable firearms to be lawfully used for more
self defense and vigilante scenarios. So they may want to carry their
weapons more often, and may be even more paranoid when confronted by
others whose appearance scares them. That's a volatile combination of
circumstances.
We discussed this a bit before, but as you'd expect I find
such laws that enabled Zimmerman to legally create the tragic situation
in Sanford fairly outrageous. We know almost any adult can purchase a
gun in America with next to no "qualifications". And in states like FL,
you can easily get a permit (if you even need a permit) to carry your
gun loaded in public - as long as you are not intoxicated, brandishing
it so others feel threatened, etc. Americans get buy guns easily and
have loaded guns almost everywhere in a variety of situations - thereby
increasing the likelihood that a Sanford type killing, an outright
crime, or an accident occurs.
Adding SYG to that, in incidents where conflict ensures and the
shooter feels in danger, he/she can use deadly force as self defense and
be legally justified. Premeditated malice and aggression aside, it
barely matters how you got into the mess (especially when evidence is
sketchy, if it's even relevant/admissible), as long as you can prove you
were under attack - you have "a license to kill". Does that mean any
moron can start shit with anyone else, and when they get in over their head
and things go south, they can "kill their way out of trouble?" What if 2
armed people get into a fight? Whoever shoots first under threat will
be the "winner". So will that incentive people in those states to be
even more hasty and trigger-happy?
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/03/23-other-states-have-stand-your-ground-laws-too/50226/
FL and 23 other states have some sort of SYG. They are
basically every state below the Mason-Dixon, plus IL, WA, NV, OR. Maybe
the best way for blacks and concerned citizens to "have their revenge"
against the system and our gun-happy, conflict-happy culture is to
boycott. Move out of those states, don't do business with them, don't
contribute tax dollars to them. If enough people do it, leaders will
start to get the picture and maybe change the laws/norms. Plus, with all
the non-pistoleros leaving those communities, the only people left will
be the Zimmerman types. It will be more likely that they get into armed
altercations with each other, thereby reducing the pro-gun population
and creating a lot of negative press for the gun/vigilante/self defense
crowd. Because maybe that is the only thing that will really move the
debate - when a non-poor, fair-skinned, pro-gun shooter kills a
non-poor, fair-skinned, pro-gun victim. Unfortunately it seems that dead
black people piled up to the ceiling (forgive my crudeness, but just
look at the Chicago and Oakland cases) is not enough to get America and
its lawmakers to care.
Or another option is, "if you can't beat em, join em". Zimmerman
opponents can start acting like him. Imagine if Martin was an adult and
went through the necessary steps to carry in public. Once Zimm. was
following him and starting stuff, he could have just killed Zimm. and
the trial would have been inverted. It would have been even easier to
argue self defense since Zimm. was armed, was the instigator, and his
prior 911 call showed prejudice and intent to confront aggressively.
With Mark O'Mara, the gun lobby, AND the NAACP defending Martin, no way
he would be convicted (unless the FL justice system is truly racist).
Maybe that is what is needed, legally armed black people fighting back
and killing gun-toting racial profilers who mess with them? Obviously
I'm being facetious here, but my point is: look at what these laws and
culture could lead to. A nation where almost everybody has the legal
authority to be armed in public (with ever more deadly weapons), and use
those arms to lawfully kill in an increasing multitude of situations,
is not a freer or better society. It's goddam Tombstone. And it won't
make your suburb any safer, it won't protect your kids from a deranged
school shooter (who likely outguns and outcrazies you), and it won't
defeat Al Qaeda or our tyrannical socialist gov't.
So yeah, I would advocate the boycott approach before the Tombstone approach.
-----
For the record, they also compared SYG to Tombstone - but I
called it first. ;) They also showed footage of Zimm's brother
discussing how George would have to look over his shoulder for the rest
of his life because people may want to take matters into their own
hands. It was pathetic that the brother didn't grasp the irony.
Also, CNN aired an interview with one of the anonymous jurors
(who already landed a book deal, but it got cancelled after her
interview aired since it seemed wrong to profit from what some see as a
blatant injustice), a married middle-aged white female gun owner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvrpp4SODBE
http://www.npr.org/2013/07/16/202566703/juror-b-37-speaks-out-about-zimmerman-verdict
When
asked if race played a role in Zimm's actions, the juror said that,
"[it wouldn't have mattered to Zimm if Trayvon was] Spanish, white,
Asian..." Do we want to trust the verdict in a racially-charged trial to
a person who can't even articulate the major ethnic groups? Heck, as
the defense joked, the main criterion for juror eligibility was a lack
of prior knowledge of the incident. This was the case with previous
high-profile trials as well, but that's kind of scary that the court has
to select the most un-informed and apathetic among the juror pool. The
interviewed juror also admitted that she did not follow the judge's
orders when coming to a verdict. The judge ruled to disregard the lead
investigator's (Chris Serrino, sp?) testimony that he felt Zimm was
truthful, yet the juror said that quote made "a big impression" on her
decision because of Serrino's experience. Justice definitely served.
Lastly, the juror said that of the 6 women, 2 initially believed Zimm to
be guilty of manslaughter, but eventually were persuaded to join the
acquit crowd (1 of the 6 abstained or still supported manslaughter). You'd think that harassing and brandishing a firearm to an unarmed minor on a public street would break some sort of US law.
Like the Ted Stevens and OJ trials, I'm getting tired of
prosecutors wetting the bed. Trying to make a name for themselves or
under external pressure, they over-reach with big charges that may not
have enough evidence to support them. And then they totally botch the
execution too. How can they agree to a jury of all women and all having
common ethnicity with the defendant, but not the victim? How can they
not prepare their witnesses better (the defense basically turned them
over), and not put Zimm on the stand himself? I am fairly ignorant about
legal matters, so I'm sure other factors were at play, but I'd like to
see an explanation or expert evaluation of their decision/performance.
Just not from a juror's book deal.
I think this trial did produce a conviction on US society. We are guilty of tolerating and perpetrating a culture of hostility, fearful stereotyping & over-reactions, shoot first, and "violence solves problems" that will continue to result in civil rights violations, misunderstandings, and tragedies (if not actual crimes).
-----------
From all objective legal accounts this couldn't have gone any other way.
The judge instructed them that Z was within his legal rights, per
Florida state law, to follow Martin, approach him, etc. And once a
scuffle ensued if he felt threatened it would not be manslaughter to use
his weapon. Florida does not require you to retreat as part of a self
defense act. Given no other witnesses to the activity, relatively poor
circumstantial evidence, etc how could someone not have a reasonable
doubt that this was a legal act as opposed to manslaughter? Are we
saying there is NO reasonable doubt that Z started the fight?
And the ethnicity thing is killing me. So all the women
were half hispanic? Is there some evidence somewhere that this was
motivated by race? Zim has previously stood up in city council to
berate a white officer whose son attacked a black homeless man. Not a
particularly racist thing to do. Profiling sure, i'll grant that, but
those aren't the same thing.
----------
I agree with you about the verdict - it's pretty much a
slam-dunk actually, and the prosecution were morons for trying to pin
him with murder 2. By the strict interpretation of the law, he was not
guilty. I am not sure how the verdict would have changed in NY or CA. I
never said that Z was a racist and I do think his actions were motivated
mostly by a "civic duty" to protect his community from crime. But from a
jury standpoint, it's hard to believe that race played zero role in
their decision making process, even though the lawyers did their best to
avoid the issue. Humans have biases, so if we can't remove them, at
least we should balance them out and cancel them out. I'm not saying the
jury was all racist either, but we tend to relate better to people who
are similar to us. Isn't that why it's rare to have a very homogeneous
jury? I don't know why it was only 6 instead of 12 people (maybe FL
law?), but I think a mixture of backgrounds is often good to avoid
tunnel vision and groupthink. Despite the racial makeup of the jury, 2
of them were initially favoring manslaughter for Z anyway, but were
persuaded to change.
You'd think that harassing and brandishing a firearm to an unarmed
minor on a public street would break some sort of US law (or it should,
right?). I guess this trial did produce a conviction of US society. We
are guilty
of tolerating and perpetrating a culture of hysterical hostility,
fearful
stereotyping & over-reactions, shoot first, my gun is my freedom,
and "violence solves
problems" that will continue to result in civil rights violations,
misunderstandings, and tragedies (if not actual crimes).
-----------
Listen to the 911 call and tell me about harassing him.
And no one has any factual reports that he pulled his gun anytime but
the last minute as far as i know.
He would be guilty for sure in ca or ny or any of the more narrowly defined self defense law states.
-----------
I have not been following the case closely, but while
Martin was on the phone with his friend, couldn't you hear him say
[presumably to Z], "Why are you following me?" That could suggest there
was harassment (and who knows what else happened that wasn't caught on
tape?).
Based on Z's initial 911 call and his motivation for being a
"watchman", I think we can assume that he prejudged Martin and
confronted him with the intent to run him out of the neighborhood
(ostensibly to thwart a crime), possibly by intimidation/threat.
I wasn't a witness obviously, but I find it doubtful that
Martin would just suddenly attack an adult stranger who
approached/followed him on a dark night. So I think it's plausible that Z
did something to scare/provoke Martin, and made the teen feel the need
to react and "defend himself" first. But that's the problem with
fighting... how do you differentiate between attack and defense, because
a punch is a punch? Even straddling and pummeling a person could be
defensive, if the purpose was to prevent the person on the bottom from
drawing a deadly weapon.
There are "good Samaritan" laws to prevent people trying to
help in a volatile situation from getting sued later if they
accidentally did harm. But I think there are limits to that protection,
like gross negligence voids it. I would hope that SYG laws have limits
too - if the shooter puts him/herself in a bad situation and escalates
it (if that can be proven), then he/she is no longer covered. Otherwise
the law incentivizes violent confrontation, regardless of intent. What
if I went into Little Havana with a loudspeaker and started to yell
pro-Castro slogans? Assuming people took enough offense to approach me
with demonstrable intent to physically harm, I can just shoot them
legally? I am not an expert in SYG so maybe there are such common sense limits.
And just when you thought things couldn't get any more effed
up in FL, this is another case where a jury (racial composition unknown)
found a woman defendant ineligible for SYG protection. She is a PhD,
mother of 3, with no prior record, and black. She previously took out a
restraining order against her husband for abuse. During their latest
alleged altercation, she retrieved a gun in her home and fired a warning
shot (according to her) into the ceiling to keep him away. But the
court decided that she could not prove she was in imminent danger, so
instead she was sentenced to 20 YEARS. I am not sure what the charge
was, possibly attempted murder of the husband and/or child endangerment
(since their kids were present). This is because FL has mandatory
minimum sentences for crimes involving guns (10 years if you have a gun,
20 if you fire it). Some have alleged that mandatory minimum sentences
are immoral and maybe racist. So I guess FL enables "lawful" gun owners
to have a lot of leeway, but throws the book at gun "criminals". Based
on circumstance, economics, etc., one of those populations is
predominantly darker skinned and poorer.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2143313/Abused-Florida-wife-sentenced-20-YEARS-firing-warning-shot-husband-Stand-Your-Ground-defence-fails.html
