The world is full of mysteries, great and small. I hope to understand a few of them in what remains of my lifetime, but I'm not sure that there are some questions that shouldn't be left unanswered. Those have to do with human behavior and in particular the question of how and why people arrive at and maintain some of their opinions.
Take attorney Craig Sonner, long time friend of George Zimmerman and his family, who insists that not only is Zimmerman not a racist, but that when many listeners to the 911 recording discerned Zimmerman's voice calling the unfortunate Trayvon Martin a "fucking coon," what they really heard was a term of endearment. Yes indeed, said Sonner to ABC News, amongst the teenagers who reinvent our English language anew every day, "goon" is a term of endearment and that's just what Zimmerman was calling his victim as he prepared to shoot him to death. Most terms of endearment of course are preceded by the gratuitous, yet nearly ubiquitous "fucking" and followed by gunshots. Makes sense, right?
Perhaps it will play a part in Zimmerman's defense if Federal charges are filed and it no doubt will if the charges need proof that the shooting was "racially motivated" but as a pure example of deriving an argument by rectal extraction, and of the ability to state the preposterous with a straight face, this one is remarkable.
There is always the remote possibility that Zimmerman might have done the same to any person wandering the neighborhood. It's possible that he just hated kids, a group probably not intended to fall into a category protected by hate crime legislation, but the problem with hate crimes is that it isn't the crime on trial but rather the motivation and it's very hard to prove motivation. And yet, the kid is dead.
Is it possible, in our emotionally driven and politically directed society for Zimmerman to get a fair trail? I think the facts speak for themselves and I fear that minds are long since closed as usually is the case with witch hunts and lynch mobs and of course those with institutionalized agendas have already reached conclusions that make their causes the root cause of all evil.
It may evolve that there is no clear cut motivation that explains it all, no loophole in Florida gun laws, no ties to the KKK and little more than laziness on the part of the authorities. It may be quite the opposite, but people parading around in hooded sweatshirts or baggy pants or lace up shoes without laces or calling each other goons and calling for gun bans or simply indulging in public cultivation of anger is not going to help justice. The rusty gears of the system are turning and there's no rug big enough to sweep this or any other mixed metaphor under. It's time for the party to end and for dispassionate, blindfolded process justice to begin.
There is probably a very good case to be made for the fact that the color of Trayvon's skin played a pivotal role in this horror. That being said, I am not now or ever have been a proponent of so called "hate crime" laws. If you murder someone of the same color or gender is that a love crime? All crime is hateful and I think sometimes using hate crime legislation detracts from the root of crime - which is Zimmerman, an evil little toady if ever there was one, flaunted the law and deliberately went out into the streets armed and ready to shoot someone. He was not going for a walk or to the store or visiting - he was trolling the neighborhood looking for a victim. He committed cold blooded, first degree murder. With his preparations before leaving the house and the 911 calls I think a very good case could be made that this was premeditated. Why? Who knows, who cares, the kid is just as dead for no good reason. It may well have been racially motivated in whole or part but focusing on this will pull attention away from the tragic loss of Trayvon Martin, a 17 year old kid with nothing on his mind but getting home to sit in front of his computer and talk to his girlfriend on the phone. A precious human being was lost and justice needs to served even though it will never compensate for that loss.
ReplyDeleteYou know, the Sheriff here has advised my community to start a Community Watch program. So far, nobody's interested and the worst transgressions involve teenagers sneaking down to the docks to drink beer and smoke dope, which of course leaves us all liable if someone gets hurt and falls off the dock. on very rare occasions, things have been swiped, but as I said, nobody wants to play cop and I think most are like me, remembering being a teenage idiot and lucky to get away with things that horrify me today. Nobody wants to ruin some kids life over making noise in the night. I certainly don't. But it only takes one guy and maybe one Sheriff to excuse him. I'm hesitant to damn hundreds of millions of people -- our society itself -- because of the backwardness that still exists.
ReplyDeleteYes, sure, some neighborhoods have crime problems; bad ones but licensed or not, I sure as hell would not carry a gun around the neighborhood just because things happen. Even good people can panic and do regrettable things. Trust me, when your finger is on the trigger and you're getting emotional, that trigger just seems to pull itself -- even with a 7 0r 8 pound trigger pull. Right to self defense or not, we, as humans tend to see danger differently and perhaps more often when we have the capability of eliminating it.
I think bona fide neighborhood watch people should think carefully and under most normal conditions stick to cell phones and maybe handy talkies. You don't kill someone over a property crime and suspicion that because one is young and black and has his face covered or won't grovel in front of some thug isn't any kind of self protection. It's murder, premeditation, panic, mistake -- that should all be up to a court to decide and it's not up to some small town sheriff to excuse it, nor, despite what some axe grinders say, is it the result of any 'castle doctrine.'
Zimmerman has the right to hate or fear anyone he likes. I have the right to hate him or see him as a martyr, as many will do if he's prosecuted, but to me, it's crystal clear: if the facts I read about are true, he shot an unarmed boy with no ability to be a mortal threat. It's murder and true facts or lies, he needs to stand trial.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the lawyer was lying.
ReplyDeleteCaptain, I didn't realize that you had just posted about Trayvon when I posted my piece. Sorry about the overlapping. I wrote the post for my personal blog and also decided to post it here. After I had done so, I realized that you had also posted a new piece.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if Zimmerman is a racist. I worry that we may use that term too readily which takes away some of its meaning and credibility. I do think that Zimmerman acted based on biases of which he may not be consciously aware. He saw a tall, lanky black male on the cusp of manhood as a threatening figure. Perhaps he didn't even know exactly why he thought Trayvon was suspicious. However, I think that you hit on the heart of the matter, no matter how Zimmerman felt, he has no right to act on his unsubstantiated beliefs.
My bottom line issue is exactly as others have clearly stated, whether or not Zimmerman's actions were reasonable is a question to be decided by a jury, not the police chief.
Rocky, I do support the concept of hate crimes. Motive is an element of every crime. The difference in degree of 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter etc. is ased to some extent on the differences in motive. A hate crime is simply a crime where the victim's race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, mental disability ca be said to be a motivating factor in the perpetrator targeting that victim. All murders don't necessarily involve hate, just a disregard for human life. The outraged spouse who kills the other spouse after catching that spouse in the embrace of another doesn't necessarily hate the victim. It is a crime of passion, a crime committed in the heat of the moment not a premeditated act committed against the victim because of some external characteristic of the victim.
In the law, the reason for targeting the victim is not a new consideration and labeling an act a hate crime calls for a higher level of punishment for that crime. A drunk driver who hits and kills a pedestrian is guilty of a very different crime than a driver who runs someone down specifically because that person was black or gay.
Sheria,
ReplyDeleteNo reason to apologize - your post is part of a dialog and very welcome.
My reason for discomfort with hate crime laws is the difficulty in dealing with motivation under rules of evidence and juries and the public may have reasons to hate or not to hate the hater and to assume thoughts and attitudes based on their own prejudices. It's not that I have any sympathy for the Klan or Aryan Nation or Allen West Republicans.
I too worry about overusing "racist" and it seems already to have blurred over into discussions of national politics and cultural matters. It's not racist to dislike the policies of, for instance, the Japanese government nor to comment on changes in Hispanic-American culture over time, but I've been accused of it for doing that. Even the word 'race' is so politicized and twisted out of shape that one runs the risk of any use of it being misunderstood.
Unfortunately, we all bring our lifetime accumulation of baggage when we jump on any train.
"that should all be up to a court to decide and it's not up to some small town sheriff to excuse it, nor, despite what some axe grinders say, is it the result of any 'castle doctrine.'"
Yes, indeed, absolutely and I'm glad it's someone with a law degree saying that, because usually, any voice of reason is called a "gun Nut" by pretend liberals. That doctrine was meant to protect the victim, not his pursuer and by having pursued that victim and deliberately escalating the conflict, I believe Zimmerman gave up his right to use force and get away with it.
Martin had the right to be where he was and Zimmerman was trying to chase him from a public place he had the right to be in - yet the notion that guns and the use of them is uncontrolled and guns are given out free on every street corner and you can shoot the Avon Lady for knocking on your door is heavily ingrained in half of America and no facts or logical application thereof will change it. Sure the law sometimes fails to protect people, but you don't define a law as bad because some bigoted cops and courts misapply it.
I'm saddened to see the Martin family jump on the bandwagon and go to Washington today to protest something meant expressly to protect them from violence, but I've long since lost the illusion that Liberals, Conservatives and all the rest of us aren't the same kind of unthinking, emotional and stubborn fools only humans can be and I think
I'd like to be
under the sea
in an octopus' garden
in the shade
Sheria - I appreciate the intent of the law but I still think it falls short of its goal. Motive is the all illusive holy grail in law, isn't it? Too many times, motive cannot be proven or even discerned. Crimes of passion are a crock; how many cheating spouses have been caught and yet they all don't get killed for it. No, you really have to hate someone to pull the trigger.
ReplyDeleteIf all the information coming to light is true then Trayvon Martin was murdered in cold blood. If in fact his ethniticity was also a factor then there was also a federal crime committed. I do think it is especially henious and hateful when a person is targeted for gender, color, sexual orientation, etc. but sometimes the horror of the crime gets lost in the debate over motive and that's what gives me pause in fully supporting hate crime laws.
A terrible crime was committed here and I don't want to see Trayvon's death get lost in a debate over racism and hate crimes.
Rocky and Captain, I understand the reservations about hate crimes. Many people have them. The only thing that I would add for your consideration is that prosecuting a hate crime does not mean that if that particualr motive cannot be proven that the defendant automatically goes free. No one is charged only with a hate crime. The concept of hate crime was added to cases to enhance the penalty in some violent crimes. For instance in assault cases where the penalty may be realtively minor but if it can be proven that the perpetrator selected the victim because of his or her race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual oreintation then additonal time may be added to the sentence. So often with the sentencing guidelines, people commit pretty heinous actsof cruelty or humiliation of another and receiving relatively light prison terms. I would never support hate crime laws if they resulted in fewer convictions for violent crimes.
ReplyDeleteIn Trayvon's case, it may end up that the federal hate crime laws are all that there is. Arguably, Zimmerman may be able to preserve his self-defense argument under the stand your ground statute. ID =F so , the only possibility of successful prosecution will be if it can be shown that Zimmerman targeted Trayvon becasue of his race, I cna't say that it would result in a conviction with absolute certainty but it would make it a rasonable possibility that there could be a finding that zimmerman's engaging in a hate crime negates the protections that he seeks under the stand your ground statute. His reasonable fear of imminent harm argument would be undermined if it could be shown that he was motivated to stalk Trayvon based on his beliefs about race.
If Zimmerman can prove that his life was in danger from an unarmed kid and that he had no recourse but to kill him, I might as well start packing my bags because it's all over. If there's a jury dumb enough to buy the fact that someone was standing his ground by chasing someone else who had a right to be there and was committing no offense, it's time to leave. He'd have to prove that Martin was using deadly force to remove him from the neighborhood and he cannot.
ReplyDeleteActually I have more sympathy for Zimmerman who probably just panicked as bullies do when they're stood up to, than I do for the cops in this case, but his actions meet no test for justifiable homicide. Feeling threatened is not sufficient, getting punched in the nose is not sufficient and Zimmerman, by having provoked the conflict and attempted to impede the lawful activity of Martin was not justified, even had Martin pulled a weapon. It's like claiming self defense when you shoot a cop who was trying to prevent you from committing a crime. The only "stand your ground" party here was the victim.
But of course we're talking about North Florida here.
My dear Captain, one of your more endearing qualities is your code of ethics. I don't at all disagree with the rightness and sensibleness of what you say. I just don't have much regard for the ethics of many members of our society. There have been too many juries that have acquitted in spite of egregious evidence that supports a finding of guilty because the victim was black and perceived as a dangerous person. A woman around my age commented yesterday on a friend's Facebook post. She wanted to point out that Trayvon wasn't a child, he was a man.She reasoned that he was over six feet tall and that Mr. Zimmerman was no doubt frightened of him. I was way too tired to waste my time trying to explain reality to her so I just ignored her comment.
ReplyDeleteThe statute is written with far too much ambiguity. If Zimmerman's lawyer is reasonably competent, the logical argument for him to make is that the only standard of proof that his client has to meet is to demonstrate that he had a reasonable fear or imminent harm or death. On the plain face of the stature, that's all that is required in the one section that is applicable, Section (3). The rest of the provisions require that the person using deadly force be at a residence, dwelling or in an occupied vehicle.
If the jury wants to acquit, it will find reasons to do so. It's already started. Non-relevant stories focus on Trayvon's possible pot use, tardiness at school, cutting of classes and suggest that he was not a nice boy and was the one who attacked Zimmerman. The cops brought that version of events. Some of the neighbors have now declared that they say Trayvon pounding Zimmerman's head on the pavement. Of course, any one of us might have done the same to a man with a gun but that may not matter at trial. Over the years, I've learned not to engage in optimism. When I don't expect anything the disappointment doesn't hit so hard.
With regard to hate crime laws, I thought that part of the deal with them was to make it possible for the feds to do something about an injustice when local or state authorities refuse due to bias and callousness. Is that correct, or do the states themselves most often try to pursue such charges?
ReplyDeleteCapt. Fogg,
ReplyDeleteI think it's correct that any invocation of the so-called stand-your-ground law in the present instance would be preposterous -- based on everything I've heard, it just doesn't make sense to apply it.
"When I don't expect anything the disappointment doesn't hit so hard."
ReplyDeleteI know just what you mean, Sheria and expecting progress has been the heartbreak of my generation.
Dino,
Nor does it to me. Chasing someone away isn't standing your ground and my non-lawyer eyes read the law as charging the person with a weapon with avoiding conflict. If initiating or escalating an argument is a crime, then one has no more right to stand one's ground than a bank robber gets to kill a guard in self defense.
As to the hate crime law, while I, once again, have no credentials, I agree that in sentencing, it's about determining the danger to society a violent racist poses.
One last thing and then I'm done - this is not about mathematics and showing that the system has failed us in one way, does not argue that we need to scrap everything from the police to the law. One murder does not damn the country or it's law enforcement or it's laws and since justice is denied every day over a wide range, we shouldn't obsess over this or use it as a platform to air our grievances about everything that bothers us, from fashion to teenage behavior. I prefer to have the courts handle it rather than mobs in the street or news readers dressing like idiots and crying crocodile tears.