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.
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.
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.
-----
Maybe you saw last night's Daily Show: http://www.thedailyshow.com/
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?
http://www.npr.org/2013/07/16/
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. 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.
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/
No comments:
Post a Comment