Last night, after sixteen hours of deliberation, a jury composed of six women acquitted George Zimmerman of second-degree murder. The jury also declined to convict him of manslaughter. I had thought he might be acquitted, not because I thought him innocent, but because of the high standard "beyond reasonable doubt" required to convict anyone of anything. But I have become sure of this: no matter what the verdict, justice would lose.
I first heard details about the case on the Lawrence O'Donnell show, a program which, like me, I'm not ashamed to say, espouses progressive viewpoints. O'Donnell portrayed Zimmerman--in no uncertain terms--as a white, racist thug who gunned down Martin simply because Martin was black. Martin, 17 years old at the time of his tragic death, was shown, many times during the program and elsewhere, in a photo taken several years earlier when he was a boy. He was smiling in the photo and looked completely harmless. According to this view, Zimmerman was a vicious, adult racist thug who murdered a boy in cold blood largely because he was black and wearing a hoodie.
At this point, I feel I must reveal that I am a white man married to an Indian with an adopted black son. Needless to say, I was enraged. Especially at those in Florida, where this awful event occurred, who decided that it was indeed self-defense. No charges would be brought. Here we go again, I thought; this has got to stop.
I soon learned, however, that the case was more ambiguous than I had thought. (I recalled a murder that took place in Texas where a racist white man shot a black man, who, attached to the bumper of the racist's car, was dragged down a road while still alive. Now that is an unambiguous case.) I learned that Zimmerman was not white but Hispanic; I learned that it was possible that Martin was beating Zimmerman at the time the former was shot; I learned that Zimmerman had no history--at least no overt history--of being a racist. I found it very unlikely that Zimmerman would have shot Martin simply because he was black, (I think it quite possible, however, that racial profiling had a role in the way Zimmerman behaved.) I do think Zimmerman had many opportunities to prevent what happened; for instance, he could have decided to report his suspicions to the police and let officers handle it. Zimmerman, in the court of conscience, is far from being innocent.
Yes, there is much, much more racism in this country than most whites imagine, and no, the Zimmerman affair is not a test-case illustration of this fact.
The trial has become another sad Rorshach text exposing the political and racial divides in this country. Die-hard conservatives see it one way; die-hard liberals see it another. Like horses wearing blinders, neither gets enough perspective to analyze the case objectively.
This article is not an analysis of this tragic event, other than presenting it as an occurrence that eludes a knee-jerk reaction. I wish to briefly discuss why, no matter the verdict, we all lose.
Our judicial system emphasizes individual responsibility while neglecting factors that may have enabled the individual to act the way he did. This is my point: what should have been on trial was the Florida Stand Your Ground law, without which Trayvon Martin would most likely be alive today. The law states that a person can use deadly force, that is, shoot someone, when he fears he is in danger,--even if safely retreating from the confrontation is a possibility! That law is much more responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin than Zimmerman was. If you aren't convinced, ask yourself this: if Zimmerman and Martin had both been Canadians living in Canada, how likely would it be that a death would have occurred?
The death of poor Trayvon--my sympathies are with his family--reminds me of the recent recession from which we are recovering painfully slowly. Unregulated banks came up with ways to snooker the market and caused a horrible recession. They profited from it, while the rest of us continue to pay dearly. They remain unregulated; it will happen again. Similarly, our politicians are unable to pass much needed laws regarding firearms, resulting in many, many deaths every day. It is a "crime" that our entertainment-based culture focuses on the things such as the Zimmerman trial, while ignoring the epidemic of violence in this country. 30,000 deaths from guns every year! 30,00 deaths from guns every year!
Zimmerman should not have had a gun. Even if he panicked, I do not believe he was in mortal danger. (That his injuries were minor is not significant. One could panic when one discovers that, while bathing in the ocean, one can no longer touch bottom. This could induce a panic even though, after paddling a few inches toward shore, one realizes that there was really no danger.) I repeat: Zimmerman should not have had a gun.
The only way I see progress here is if a law is passed, Trayvon's Law. The law would forbid neighborhood watchmen from having a concealed weapon. This would be ideal, but I doubt that such a law would be passed under current conditions. Second best would be a law requiring extensive training for citizens patrolling neighborhoods. They should be instructed to inform the police and not to confront "suspects." The training should be all the more intense in those States that allow, even promote, carrying a concealed weapon.
I think our justice system should be turned upside down; it should emphasize prevention and rehabilitation , not punishment. Rather than Zimmerman, I would much rather see some of those irresponsible bankers be put in jail--this would help prevent recurrences--rather than Zimmerman. What good would that do? Most of all, I'd like to see the establishment of some form of Trayvon's Law. What good would that do? Plenty.
It is not productive to assert that if Trayvon had behaved differently, he too could have prevented what happened. Let's posit that he lost his temper and attacked Zimmerman. One must not forget that Trayvon was a kid. If Trayvon lost his temper because he assumed he was being pursued by a white man for no other reason than he was black, I can certainly sympathize with him. Trayvon was a kid and kids are impulsive. If he struck Zimmermn first--and I am not at all sure this is what happened--this does not mean that he was heading toward a life of crime. It would be far more likely, even in this worst case scenario, that Trayvon would have matured into a responsible adult, following the examples of his mother and father. The horror of it all is that Trayvon will never get this opportunity.
There are many Zimmermans out there. There are many Trayvon Martins out there. The murderous lack of reasonable gun-control is bringing them together in a dance of death. This is the real crime.
I first heard details about the case on the Lawrence O'Donnell show, a program which, like me, I'm not ashamed to say, espouses progressive viewpoints. O'Donnell portrayed Zimmerman--in no uncertain terms--as a white, racist thug who gunned down Martin simply because Martin was black. Martin, 17 years old at the time of his tragic death, was shown, many times during the program and elsewhere, in a photo taken several years earlier when he was a boy. He was smiling in the photo and looked completely harmless. According to this view, Zimmerman was a vicious, adult racist thug who murdered a boy in cold blood largely because he was black and wearing a hoodie.
At this point, I feel I must reveal that I am a white man married to an Indian with an adopted black son. Needless to say, I was enraged. Especially at those in Florida, where this awful event occurred, who decided that it was indeed self-defense. No charges would be brought. Here we go again, I thought; this has got to stop.
I soon learned, however, that the case was more ambiguous than I had thought. (I recalled a murder that took place in Texas where a racist white man shot a black man, who, attached to the bumper of the racist's car, was dragged down a road while still alive. Now that is an unambiguous case.) I learned that Zimmerman was not white but Hispanic; I learned that it was possible that Martin was beating Zimmerman at the time the former was shot; I learned that Zimmerman had no history--at least no overt history--of being a racist. I found it very unlikely that Zimmerman would have shot Martin simply because he was black, (I think it quite possible, however, that racial profiling had a role in the way Zimmerman behaved.) I do think Zimmerman had many opportunities to prevent what happened; for instance, he could have decided to report his suspicions to the police and let officers handle it. Zimmerman, in the court of conscience, is far from being innocent.
Yes, there is much, much more racism in this country than most whites imagine, and no, the Zimmerman affair is not a test-case illustration of this fact.
The trial has become another sad Rorshach text exposing the political and racial divides in this country. Die-hard conservatives see it one way; die-hard liberals see it another. Like horses wearing blinders, neither gets enough perspective to analyze the case objectively.
This article is not an analysis of this tragic event, other than presenting it as an occurrence that eludes a knee-jerk reaction. I wish to briefly discuss why, no matter the verdict, we all lose.
Our judicial system emphasizes individual responsibility while neglecting factors that may have enabled the individual to act the way he did. This is my point: what should have been on trial was the Florida Stand Your Ground law, without which Trayvon Martin would most likely be alive today. The law states that a person can use deadly force, that is, shoot someone, when he fears he is in danger,--even if safely retreating from the confrontation is a possibility! That law is much more responsible for the death of Trayvon Martin than Zimmerman was. If you aren't convinced, ask yourself this: if Zimmerman and Martin had both been Canadians living in Canada, how likely would it be that a death would have occurred?
The death of poor Trayvon--my sympathies are with his family--reminds me of the recent recession from which we are recovering painfully slowly. Unregulated banks came up with ways to snooker the market and caused a horrible recession. They profited from it, while the rest of us continue to pay dearly. They remain unregulated; it will happen again. Similarly, our politicians are unable to pass much needed laws regarding firearms, resulting in many, many deaths every day. It is a "crime" that our entertainment-based culture focuses on the things such as the Zimmerman trial, while ignoring the epidemic of violence in this country. 30,000 deaths from guns every year! 30,00 deaths from guns every year!
Zimmerman should not have had a gun. Even if he panicked, I do not believe he was in mortal danger. (That his injuries were minor is not significant. One could panic when one discovers that, while bathing in the ocean, one can no longer touch bottom. This could induce a panic even though, after paddling a few inches toward shore, one realizes that there was really no danger.) I repeat: Zimmerman should not have had a gun.
The only way I see progress here is if a law is passed, Trayvon's Law. The law would forbid neighborhood watchmen from having a concealed weapon. This would be ideal, but I doubt that such a law would be passed under current conditions. Second best would be a law requiring extensive training for citizens patrolling neighborhoods. They should be instructed to inform the police and not to confront "suspects." The training should be all the more intense in those States that allow, even promote, carrying a concealed weapon.
I think our justice system should be turned upside down; it should emphasize prevention and rehabilitation , not punishment. Rather than Zimmerman, I would much rather see some of those irresponsible bankers be put in jail--this would help prevent recurrences--rather than Zimmerman. What good would that do? Most of all, I'd like to see the establishment of some form of Trayvon's Law. What good would that do? Plenty.
It is not productive to assert that if Trayvon had behaved differently, he too could have prevented what happened. Let's posit that he lost his temper and attacked Zimmerman. One must not forget that Trayvon was a kid. If Trayvon lost his temper because he assumed he was being pursued by a white man for no other reason than he was black, I can certainly sympathize with him. Trayvon was a kid and kids are impulsive. If he struck Zimmermn first--and I am not at all sure this is what happened--this does not mean that he was heading toward a life of crime. It would be far more likely, even in this worst case scenario, that Trayvon would have matured into a responsible adult, following the examples of his mother and father. The horror of it all is that Trayvon will never get this opportunity.
There are many Zimmermans out there. There are many Trayvon Martins out there. The murderous lack of reasonable gun-control is bringing them together in a dance of death. This is the real crime.
No comments:
Post a Comment