Trayvon Martin’s death has been called a tragedy. It has been called a murder. It has been called justifiable homicide. His killer, George Zimmerman, has been called a murderer, a racist, and a vigilante.
NEW YORK, NY - MARCH 21: Demonstrators chant in support of slain teenager Trayvon Martin at the Million Hoodies March on March 21, 2012 in New York City. Hundreds of protesters marched from Manhattan's Union Square, calling for justice in the killing of Trayvon Martin, 17, who was was pursued and shot on February 26 in Sanford, Florida by 'neighborhood watch' member George Zimmerman, reportedly because the teenager's hoodie made him look suspicious. Under Florida's 'Stand Your Ground' law, Zimmerman has not been charged with a crime in the shooting. (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)
The silence from white evangelicals has been deafening. The clamor from the african-american community has been building to a roar. Bloggers like Drew Hart are rightly asking, “Where are the protests from white religious leaders across the nation?”
There is even cross-talk from the LGBT community regarding the potential dangers for homeless LGBT teens who “may appear suspicious due to their homelessness, having been exiled as it were from house and home by their families.
So quickly, concerned individuals seek to make this about a cause; or about a color. The details of this confrontation that left a 17-year-old dead are swirling. The facts are being reported as gospel. The authorities are being second-guessed (and perhaps with good reason).
What happened? Any number of people will offer you their opinion as flat, unadulterated facts. I am not one of them. I do not know.
I have not called for the arrest of George Zimmerman. I didn’t call for the arrest of Trevor Dooley when a similar event occured in September of 2010.
Racism is wrong. Did it play a part in Trayvon’s death? I don’t know. I have my suspicions. [EDIT: The recently released 911 recordings may reveal that George Zimmerman used a racial slur to describe Trayvon Martin.] Did it play a part in Michael Whitt’s death? I have no idea.
Is it wrong to allow one human being to apply deadly force to another human being because the first person feels threatened? I think that the current law, as it has been reported by the media, needs to be reconsidered. Stand Your Ground is a variation on the Castle Doctrine, and one that needs immediate attention. That is a task for lawmakers in Florida, and one that demands immediate action.
Racism is a wrong that will not be righted until we decide to deal with each other as individual persons, human beings instead of white or black. And we, as a nation, perpetuate a myopic view of each other when we draw lines of race and lifestyle around the tragic and perhaps even wrongful death of one human being at the hands of another.
To say that a death is wrong is one thing. Obviously, Trayvon’s death was wrong. But was Zimmerman’s action criminal? Was it motivated by race? Again, I don’t know. We will see.
The sad part is that, at this point in our history, we don’t have a choice about our myopic attempts to address this. If Zimmerman’s motive was racial, then the lines must be drawn. To erase those lines, we must know where they exist. To reach a solution, we must continue to address the problem.
In the meantime, we cannot afford to be colorblind. Neither can we afford to draw conclusions without first answering questions.
Related articles
- Zimmerman Attorney To Anderson Cooper: Trayvon Martin Broke My Client’s Nose (mediaite.com)
- Trayvon’s Killer Walking Free Because of The Colour of His Skin (socyberty.com)
- Justifiable Homicide: Modern Day Lynching by Nova Giovanni (mranalytical.wordpress.com)
- Geraldo Rivera finds real culprit in Trayvon Martin slaying was The hoodie . (gangsgoonsandgunz.rahrahrecords.com)
I disagree that this has anything to do with the Stand Your Ground law, even though the notoriously inaccurate and biased media wants to spin it that way. Either George Zimmerman was getting his rear handed to him, and chose (poorly) to use a firearm to defend himself. Or, he purposefully shot and killed Trayvon Martin. The second is a clear violation of the law. The first may or may not be based on information we do not have, and the police may not have either. The Stand Your Ground law makes it clear that there must be enough evidence to point to a possible violation of the law, rather than simply arresting someone and letting the State Attorney charge them, incarcerate them and ruin their lives, then to let them go when it is determined that there is not enough evidence to convict.
Second, why do I have to, as one of those white clergy, rush to judgment when the only information I have comes from poorly-written, incomplete articles, and not actual statements from witnesses, forensic evidence, and anyone involved?
here is so much at play in this tragedy. I’m bothered as much or more by the way the authorities handled the case as I am by the shooting. I’m bothered by a law that punishes a police officer for investigating an incident that ends in death. I’m bothered by the fact that the “stand your ground” law was packaged by the NRA and promoted to states across the country. I’m really bothered by the reality that if that law shows up in Nashville we don’t have elected officials with the courage to say “no to the NRA.I’m bothered by the fact we have so many laws protecting our guns but don’t adaquatly protect our kids.
I pray this is a “stop and think about what we are doing to ourselves” moment.
Mike,
I agree with your assessment of the white clergy requirement. As I said in the article, I don’t feel a need to label anyone right or wrong in this case, although I’ve recently learned that Zimmerman was fond of the word “coon” and used it in reference to Trayvon. That was racist to the point of being sickening.
His use of that phrase, recorded on the 911 call, would be sufficient grounds to have detained him, in my view. He is clearly entitled to a trial, but that would provide the motive of racial hatred. All it takes for an arrest is motive, means, and opportunity. He had all three.
Larry,
You raise excellent points about the law’s nature as “pre-packaged” and the unwillingness for many communities to resist legislation of this nature. We cross quickly into the area of politics with these questions (which is fine by me).
Given the nature of the killing, I’m much more concerned with the racial implications this law brings to bear. Can I draw my weapon just because I see a group of teen-age boys walking down the sidewalk towards me? What if they are dressed like white prep school kids? What if they are dressed like gang-bangers?
I’m curious to know what the law would allow in situations like these. Is the fear of physical harm objective or subjective?
Larry, I am not sure exactly what news reports you are hearing from, and how accurately they portray Florida law. I happen to be up on this particular law, and find it interesting that a law which essentially says that you cannot arrest someone without having some evidence that points to probable cause is wrong. Supposedly, we have a legal system which says one is innocent until proven guilty. What has happened in self-defense cases has been that Law Enforcement arrests the person who defends themselves, and lets “the law sort it out,” even when evidence points to their defending themselves legally. The aftermath has been lives which were destroyed by decisions which made people have to prove their innocence-the exact opposite of what our legal system says (innocent until proven guilty). There are LOTS of questions in this case-whether or not Zimmerman was the aggressor, evidence which may or may not point to him defending himself, language which may or may not include racial epithets, an investigation by the Sanford PD which may or may not have been satisfactory, even people questioning the motives of those who are witnesses if they don’t support “their” point of view. I don’t personally believe the Stand Your Ground law is the problem here.
Joey, Florida law is clear that one must be reasonably in fear of death or grave bodily harm, or attempting to prevent a violent felony. A group of teenage boys COULD be considered a threat (disparity of force, for example, 5 or 6 on 1, which happened recently in FL when 3 or 4 teenage GIRLS stomped someone and put them in a coma). The other problem is that when does physical violence become life-threatening? Most people would say that a thrown punch is not something one should fear. Yet, there are multiple examples where ONE punch killed someone. The size of the aggressor, a lucky punch, someone who is knocked down and strikes one’s head are all ways in which ONE punch becomes a fatal blow.
So many factors come into play that it is not a one-size-fits-all. Trayvon Martin’s death is deeply tragic at so many levels that it raises the emotions of us all. Oh, for a day when we study war (in any of its forms) no more!