A lot of people are very angry about the shooting of Treyvon Martin last month in the old North Florida town of Sanford. I'm one of them.
Florida, as you may know has been a model of old South attitudes toward black people, but was the incident racially motivated as is being loudly asserted or is there racism involved in interpreting what happened?
As you might suspect from his name, Martin was black. He was only 17 years old and when he was accosted one night, dressed as many 17 year old males are, in a hoodie and sneakers and baggy pants; the kind of costume that produces unease and possibly is designed to produce unease, after dark, when worn by someone strolling through your neighborhood.
Young Martin was shot by a "neighborhood watch" volunteer - one of those people who lurk about neighborhoods at night looking for people who don't 'belong' there, but although such groups are often encouraged by local police and like any citizen who qualifies, is allowed to bear arms for the sole purpose of protecting themselves, these volunteers are not and are not allowed to be policemen. Indeed the concealed weapons license course stresses that fact repeatedly.
If you've ever lived in a community that has rules, you've probably chuckled about "Condo Commandos" who delight in the feeling of power they get from reporting you for having your garage door open for more than 5 minutes or failing to take in your garbage can by the required time. I would imagine that such folks would delight even more in taking on the role of protector while walking a beat at night. Does that describe George Zimmerman? Not having all the facts and being unlikely ever to have all of them, I can only speculate.
Mr. Zimmerman, 28 years of age, is being accused by the family of Treyvon Martin of a hate crime and a racially motivated killing. Of course I can't know what was on Zimmerman's mind, but I do read that he is of Hispanic origin and comes from a racially diverse family. There may be many reasons having nothing to do with race for Zimmerman to have accosted the young man and shot him. And of course it's inevitable that Florida gun laws will be blamed for this sad event by those who haven't read them and I despair when thinking about any lesson we should be learning here.
The laws governing concealed weapons here in Florida are rather clear about the right to defend your life when a person has reasonable fear of a lethal attack and it's rather clear about one's right to defend against someone trying to forceably remove you from a place you have a right to be, such as your house or your car. I'm no lawyer, yet I can speculate that a public sidewalk is one of those places one has a right to be. The law is equally clear about your right to use a weapon being severely undermined in a situation where the attack was provoked or 'escalated' by you. In other words, should I draw a weapon and shoot someone I picked an avoidable fight with, or made it worse by remaining when I should have walked away, I won't get away so easily with a self-defense plea as Zimmerman inexplicably seems to have done. The law is also clear about using a weapon to gain advantage in a dispute or as a threat. Simply showing it or even mentioning that you have one is a serious offense in many cases. "Get off my block kid, I've got a gun" is one of those cases.
The rights of a neighborhood watch volunteer extend as far as observing and using a telephone to call the police. They do not include provoking a fight, attempting to chase someone out of a neighborhood, shoving, pushing or physically engaging anyone. From the testimony of Martin's girlfriend who had been talking with him on the phone when Zimmerman 'went after' him and allegedly pushed him to the ground, that may be just what happened and if so, Zimmerman had long since transgressed and his right to use lethal force against an unarmed person had long since departed, at least in my non-lawyer opinion -- yet Zimmerman has not been charged.
Somehow, in the city of Sanford, this possibly unjustifiable use of force seems to have been ignored. I suspect that if there's racism lurking in this case, we'll find it in uniform or carrying a briefcase. Attempts to get around the apparent lapse by law enforcement people by framing the incident as a civil rights violation or a hate crime are not likely to be successful and any chance for justice drowned in the storm of predictable and formulaic accusations.
I think the audio of Zimmerman's initial 911 call speaks volumes to his mental state and intentions. The general glibness and little girl upspeak when he tells the dispatcher, "We've had some break-ins and there's a real suspicious guy...up to no good... with his hand in his waistband looking at local homes..."
ReplyDeleteThe hand in the waistband comment is a lie usually reserved for the very moment of the gunfire. I guess our legal eagle was trying to cover his ass. What else could explain his motive for even calling? It's starting to sound like a pre-meditated murder to me. He only ended up covering his ass with tar. Neither is it any great mystery why his friend the police chief has declined to arrest him. The second article on HuffPo describes fairly well what had been going on at these neighborhood watch meetings with the chief present.
Just imagine the pain that gripped the hearts of his parents and family when they heard Trayvon's scream of absolute terror just one moment before he was shot.
Capt. Fogg,
ReplyDeleteThe kid wasn't armed and had no criminal record – he doesn't sound like the kind of person who would be going around threatening anybody.
The idea that a certain kind of attire is "designed to produce unease, after dark, when worn by someone strolling through your neighborhood" strikes me as wrong. If I suspected every kid who wore baggy pants at night in the area where I live, I'd be doing nothing but suspecting and arming myself to the teeth. Many of them dress like that, even on college campuses as well as in my neighborhood. Personally, I think much of youth fashion today looks stupid and the gangland associations so many young men seem to covet are contemptible bourgeois affectation fueled by amoral corporation advertising campaigns, but I don't feel threatened by their clothing. It's fashion and shouldn't be taken for anything else.
Dino your points about attire are so on target. The teenagers in my neighborhood, regardless of race or ethnicity, wear a sort of basic teenage uniform of baggy pants, t-shirts,and hoodies.
DeleteI think Dino has a point that identifying this youth as some sort of threat because of his attire along with the 911 call where this guy states, "they always get away" does tend to lean toward this guy going after the kid because he was black. And let's not forget the high profile cases in the 60s and 70s where the ONLY prosecution of killers was federal civil rights violations. Seems to me that since this idiot wasn't arrested immediately there will probably be little justice for Martin except at the federal level.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you dino. Although white people may like to characterize it in a certain way or even fear and hate the mode of dress, to Trayvon it was certainly no different than a T-shirt and blue jeans.
ReplyDeleteAs far as evidence, Chief Lee seems to have a fairly narrow understanding of what may constitute evidence. A very possibly damning piece of evidence may be the scream itself. Zimmerman was stupid enough to tell the police that he was the one who screamed. Any acoustician or expert in the human voice could readily identify the screamer from a simple voice sample.
By mentioning the stereotypical clothing, I'm trying to put myself in the head of some self-appointed volunteer vigilante, drunk on his importance and just dying to have a "threat" to deal with. He will find and has apparently found support for the stereotype of his victim because of the costume that hides the face and gives room for carrying all sorts of things concealed. In this sad case, food from the 7/11.
ReplyDeleteYes, of course it's fashion, but when one sees the extremes of it in small rural towns stuck in the 50's, it's quite different than seeing it in some college town or in an urban area where it hasn't reached the status of a tired, sad, old cliche. And yes, we really do have real gangs here and in Florida, extreme wealth is literally across the street from extreme poverty.
I've been to Sanford and the 1850's seem closer than the 1950's in many ways. But really, the kids who slouch around nearby malls trying to look tough run the gamut from the middle class white kids from Stuart and Jensen Beach looking seem like the gang members from White City, to those real gang members with voluminous rap sheets who sometimes mug people in the parking lots or take shots at rival gangs. They'd be thrilled to think that they're scary rather than pathetic. Most teens want to seem tough.
No, it's not part of African American culture any more. I see white grandfathers with the costume, wearing filthy backwards baseball caps or piloting yachts or eating in nice restaurants to the nauseated chagrin of the other customers. Taken out of context, seeing any of these retired hedge fund managers as unsavory and suspicious is only natural and I think it's intentional.
As of now, the Justice Department has decided to "look into" this case and it wouldn't surprise me to find that traditional Florida 'good ol boy' politics and police work is at play here. If as it's being said, the attacker had a record of violence, he can't have been carrying a weapon of any kind legally in the first place.
According to the 911 telephone transcript, Zimmerman was warned by the dispatcher and specifically instructed NOT TO FOLLOW the teenager any further. From that point forward in time, it became a police matter, and Mr. Zimmerman made a disastrous choice with lethal consequences. Furthermore, it has been reported that Mr. Zimmerman made 44 similar telephone calls to 911 over a 2-year period. On one hand, this frequency of 911 calls may seem to be appropriate actions for a self-appointed neighborhood watcher. On the other hand, it paints a picture of a man who gets a vicarious thrill in accosting and bullying strangers in his neighborhood. Mighty suspicious indeed!
ReplyDeleteYes indeed, Florida has the most atrocious record of lynchings and murders compared with ANY state in the south, and this miserable history includes the case of the Groveland Four, the bombing of civil rights leaders Harry and Harriet Moore in their home on Christmas Eve night, and the massacre of the good citizens of Roseland.
With respect to the so-called "Make-My-Day" law enacted in 2005, there have been 13 shooting incidents. Twelve of the victims were unarmed, and one of the victims was a young trick-or-treater shot dead on Halloween night. In all cases, the shooters were exonerated. This is UNACCEPTABLE!
Octo didn't intend to suggest that your figure of 44 calls is inaccurate. There are a lot of news stories out there and one of those that I read said 50 calls but I have since seen others that indicate 44 calls by Zimmerman. I think that we are on the same wavelength about Zimmerman.
DeleteThere is no law that allows a civilian to stop anyone because that person looks "like he is up to no good." Even law enforcement has to have probable cause based on what a reasonable law enforcement officer wold perceive as indicative that there is a reason to stop the person. Some law enforcement officers do not adhere to the law and stop people without probable cause, usually black people. It has resulted in a new crime, "driving or walking while black."
ReplyDeleteA 17 year old male, weight 140 pounds, had far more reason to be concerned about an adult male weighing over 200 pounds following him. Zimmerman is the member of an unofficial neighborhood watch group. Unofficial because is group has never registered with the city. According to the local police, Zimmerman has made fifty 911 calls in the past year most of which have been a false alarm.
Trayvon Martin was dressed as many teenagers dress. What one wears is not an indicator that one is up to criminal activity. I can guarantee that not a single scoundrel on Wall Street was wearing a hoodie when they robbed their clients.
The only offense of which Trayvon was guilty was walking while black. There is no question that Zimmerman perceived Trayvon as a threat.Why? Because according to Zimmerman, he looked like he was up to no good, into drugs or something. Based on what evidence? Being black and wearing a hoodie.
That we have to tolerate this crap in 2012 is unthinkable. Since the election of President Obama, the racist crazies in this country have gotten bolder, gone back to the era of Jim Crow where they believe that they can say and do whatever they like. Ironically, in many neighborhoods Zimmerman himself would be looked at with suspicion; he's half Hispanic. Doesn't make his actions any less racist. Racism is drawing conclusions, generally negative,about a person or groups of people based on external characteristics that provide a basis for treating those people as "other" and inferior to your own group. It is also about having the power to affect the "inferior" group's access to the privileges and rights enjoyed by the "superior" group and to effectively deny the inferior group access to power.
Captain, I hate to do this, but I wouldn't let anyone else slide. Please do not generalize with baseless statements such as, "As you might suspect from his name, Martin was black." I've heard a lot of distinctive and unusual names in my lifetime and I think that it is an unnecessary stereotype to assume by anyone's name what his or her race is. In addition, it only seems to be done for people of color. For example, what race is a name like Newt Gingrich? I've never heard anyone proclaim that you can determine that someone is white based on his or her name.
A few more facts as reported by various news sources:
ReplyDeleteZimmerman pursued Martin against the explicit instructions of the police dispatcher:
Dispatcher: “Are you following him?”
Zimmerman: “Yeah”
Dispatcher: “OK, we don’t need you to do that.” [Orlando Sentinel]
Zimmerman was carrying a a Kel Tel 9 millimeter handgun. Martin was carrying a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea. [ABC News]
Martin weighed 140 pounds. Zimmerman weighs 250 pounds. [Orlando Sentinel; WDBO]
Martin’s English teacher described him as “as an A and B student who majored in cheerfulness.” [Orlando Sentinel]
Martin had no criminal record. [New York Times]
Zimmerman “was charged in July 2005 with resisting arrest with violence and battery on an officer. The charges appear to have been dropped.” [Huffington Post]
Zimmerman called the police 46 times since Jan. 1, 2011. [Miami Herald]
According to neighbors, Zimmerman was “fixated on crime and focused on young, black males.” [Miami Herald]
Zimmerman “had been the subject of complaints by neighbors in his gated community for aggressive tactics” [Huffington Post]
A police officer “corrected” a key witness. “The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help.” [ABC News]
Three witnesses say they heard a boy cry for help before a shot was fired. “Three witnesses contacted by The Miami Herald say they saw or heard the moments before and after the Miami Gardens teenager’s killing. All three said they heard the last howl for help from a despondent boy.” [Miami Herald]
The officer in charge of the crime scene also received criticism in 2010 when he initially failed to arrest a lieutenant’s son who was videotaped attacking a homeless black man. [New York Times]
The police did not test Zimmerman for drugs or alcohol. A law enforcement expert told ABC that Zimmerman sounds intoxicated on the 911 tapes. Drug and alcohol testing is “standard procedure in most homicide investigations.” [ABC News]
In a cell phone call moments before his death, Martin told a teenage girl that he was “hounded by a strange man on a cellphone who ran after him, cornered him and confronted him.” “‘He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man,’ Martin’s friend said. ‘I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run.’ Eventually he would run, said the girl, thinking that he’d managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin. ‘Trayvon said, ‘What, are you following me for,’ and the man said, ‘What are you doing here.’” [ABC News]
Zimmerman was not a member of a registered Neighborhood Watch group. Zimmerman also violated basic Neighborhood Watch guidelines by carrying a weapon. [ABC News]
Octo, thanks for rounding up the available info. I just can't see how the local police simply accepted Zimmerman's word that he shot this young man in self-defense. None of the information released supports his claim. If anything, Trayvon had reason to be fearful of some guy following him.
ReplyDelete"I just can't see how the local police simply accepted Zimmerman's word that he shot this young man in self-defense."
DeleteI don't know you, Sheria, but I'm going to bet that you see perfectly well how the police accepted this white maniac's word about how he came to gun down an innocent black teenager.
After reviewing videos and articles here's what I came away with...
ReplyDeleteZimmerman is modern vigilante.
Travon was unarmed, non threatening, and posed no reason for concern.
The police dispatcher advised Zimmerman NOT to follow Travon. He ignored the police.
People heard Travon in what could only be construed as pleading (or fear) for his life immediately prior to the gunshot.
Zimmerman it would appear is guilty of 1'st degree murder.
Zimmerman should be behind bars waiting arraignment. A swift and speedy, as well as just trial should follow.
I beg to disagree with you. As far as I can tell, Zimmerman was not a vigilante, he was a sick, perverted criminal looking for a black kid that he could get away with killing. This was not an act of a vigilante, it was a thrill killing, and given prevailing criminal standards in Florida, if Zimmerman does not get the death penalty, this will be a colossal injustice.
DeleteIt appears that Sanford, Fla., has a not-so-excellent record of meting out justice when it concerns the African-American community:
ReplyDeleteFrom today's NYTimes:
"Chief Lee has served only 10 months leading a police department that has had a troubled relationship with blacks in Sanford. His predecessor, Brian Tooley, was forced out of the job after a scandal that involved a police lieutenant’s son. The son attacked a homeless man in December 2010 but the police did not immediately arrest him after the episode, which was recorded on video. Even after being sent a video of the attack, Chief Tooley failed to act promptly.
This came five years after two white security guards killed a black teenager. One of the guards was the son of a former Sanford police officer and the other was a volunteer in the department. The security guards claimed self-defense, saying that the black teenager tried to run them over. The teenager died from a gunshot wound in his back.
A judge dismissed the case over lack of evidence. The case inflamed passions in the town about the treatment of blacks by the criminal justice system.
'There is one issue after another here between the Police Department and the black community,' said Turner Clayton, president of the Seminole County branch of the N.A.A.C.P."
I'm a bit depressed that, once again, readers reflexively and predictably fixated on my description of the young man wearing the uniform of a generation as "threatening." Yes, it's no more threatening than the embarrassing things I used to wear in the mid 60's, but at that time, it was perceived so by people we used to call "hard hats" whether or not our social opponents actually wore them.
ReplyDeleteIt was however the uniform of rebellion. In today's weird world, the dress of street gangs and jailbirds instead of urban guerrillas and plains Indians which, in retrospect, seem almost as silly and pretentious as leaving one's underpants flapping in the breeze. The statement is "I'm not a part of the establishment" and all that varies is the notion of who that establishment is. I clearly remember when you could be beaten and sometimes killed for having long hair and don't say it's not true, I'm older and I remember and I've had guns stuck in my face by cops for simply being on the street at night, looking like a hippie. I once had to exit my car and be patted down for allegedly doing 41 in a 40 (with long hair.) Does that put me at fault? Hell no, and anyone who thinks that's what I'm saying is deliberately misreading me.
I may have wanted to look like Crazy Horse and my Black classmates may have consciously dressed like Che Guevara or Huey Newton with camo pants and dark glasses and black berets, but in both cases, it was a way to identify with rebellion. I suspect there's an element of this in the pants around the knees uniform as well and TO CONSERVATIVES, and their self-appointed, dim witted and reactionary vigilantes, this spells threat; Conservatism being, by definition, concerned with maintaining old values, old modes and most other aspects of a desired or imagined status quo.
Not all conservatives however, are murderers and for my own part, although I'm disgusted at what Americans in general see as acceptable dress, I've never yet shot up a restaurant because some unwashed idiot in flip flops and a backwards hat with "Fuck You" on it ruins my dinner.
That wasn't my point anyway, my point is that his apparent murderer is one of those people who sees young black males as a menace and young Treyvon fit the stereotype in his head. Can anyone manage to understand that I'm not condoning murder, whether by the shooter or those who let him off and broke the law by doing so, just because I'm not using approved tropes?
I have no way of knowing if this would have happened had he been wearing khaki pants and a polo shirt or a blue Brooks Brothers pin stripe suit. Perhaps he would have been perceived as "uppity" with similar results.
According to my understanding of Florida gun laws as listed in the literature one is given upon applying for a carry permit, Zimmerman gave up his presumption of self defense by pursuing Martin. The law does not permit this action as much as the Liberal Line insists that it does. It is a serious violation to use a weapon in a fight you instigated or escalated It is illegal to draw or display the weapon to threaten anyone and simply mentioning that you have a gun in order to gain advantage in an argument is a crime. All in all, and as I see it, Zimmerman had no claim whatsoever to have committed justifiable homicide under the law and so it is -- and I hate to say this -- a typical Liberal bias to start blaming the right to self defense for an act that law actually forbids.
By the way, the literature that comes with a Florida carry permit states in bold type that this license does not make you a policeman. Zimmerman was in violation of the law when he began to chase Martin, when he grabbed him or threw him to the ground. Please do not ignore this because by this fact alone, Zimmerman was not exercising a legal right to self defense and therefore condemning the law because someone broke it sort of invalidates some of your arguments and makes that high horse look a bit asinine.
ReplyDeleteThat Jim Crow lives in Sanford and apparently serves as chief of police seems obvious and if there is anything to blame it's traditional southern values, not the law that would have enabled someone to defend himself against a thug like Zimmerman instead of being required to run away. That law allows one to defend oneself in any place one has a right to be -- like at home, in your car or on a public sidewalk. Under prior law, as I understand it. Martin could have been held at fault for not running away rather than resisting and under current law, Zimmerman has committed several obvious offenses along with murder. Please remember that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES CAN SOMEONE CLAIM SELF-DEFENSE WHILE COMMITTING A FELONY and if justice were actually blind, had Martin stuck a knife in him, the law would have called it justified.
This, and I hope I can be heard over the grinding of dull axes, has absolutely nothing to do with the right to defend one's home or person or family against an armed attacker. Most states I believe now have such laws and yet the murder rate keeps declining and for every misapplication by bad law enforcement, there are more people who are still alive because they had the right to fight back. Several in my tiny county of 100,000 people last year alone and where home invasions are common.
RN and Shaw, I quite agree with you. One does not plead for one's life if one has the advantage of having the opponent at gun point. Zimmerman had absolutely no case for self defense against an slight and unarmed 17 year old boy half his size. Zimmerman may be guilty of Murder one and if so, I'd be happy to pull the switch on him, but let's please not blame the law for bigoted prosecutors and cops.
There were 29 armed burglaries in my neighborhood last January and anyone who tells me that an armed burglar kicking down the back door should be immune from the family 12 gauge, or that I'm a murderer for not jumping out a second story window, leaving my wife behind and running away as was previously required doesn't deserve an answer. I've been advised by the local sheriff to keep a loaded gun available and for what it's worth, the current suspects seem to be white.
Eagle:
ReplyDeletevig·i·lan·te
[vij-uh-lan-tee]
noun
1.
a member of a vigilance committee.
2.
any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime.
So what purpose does it serve to say he's not a vigilante but a maniac? They're not mutually exclusive and a committee can have one member.
Understandably, all of us are outraged by this incident. In times like these, I must remind myself to keep my cool and always remember that in our system of justice the guilt or innocence of a person is determined, not in the press or in the court of public opinion, but by a jury (and I certainly hope a jury will have the opportunity to weigh the evidence). Nevertheless, justice will never be served by the simple fact that the Martin family will never get back their precious son.
ReplyDeleteCapt. Fogg,
ReplyDeleteI don't see that anybody is misinterpreting anything you said in your initial post; nobody supposes you think all black or brown kids are criminals.
You seem to think the law in question is just fine. But I've heard that even the man who helped get the Florida law passed thinks he might want some changes made because the stand-your-ground type of law in a number of states is being abused. It isn't that there's anything wrong with self-defense or with the right to own guns; the problem would seem to be that when you craft a law this consequential, it needs to be a good deal more idiot-proof than the so-called "stand your ground" laws seem to be. There's what a law says in the narrow, legal sense, and there's the way average people tend to interpret it. Good lawmakers need to take that into account as well as explain what the intent or spirit of the law is (if one may use such broad terms), and I doubt that they've done so with these laws. The average knucklehead now seems to believe that he can just shoot first in any confrontation and then justify his actions after the fact, bolstered by an absence of witnesses and the credulousness of police eager to side with "law-abiding folk" over presumed "thugs."
Another problem I see emerging is that relevant Florida police officials seem to have bought Z's own narration about what happened, as if they were eager to cast him as an ally of the police themselves, just a law-abiding citizen trying to help keep the neighborhood safe and, therefore, someone whose account must be taken at face value. But what I gather so far, based on what I've read and heard, is that a big, strong, armed adult shot an unarmed, unoffending, not-so-big black kid. I don't see why the alleged assailant ought to be cast as anything but an alleged assailant.
In other words, there seems to be an extremely powerful bias at play (I'm not talking about anyone writing here at the Zone; I'm talking about some of the media and police accounts) in terms of the representation of the subject-positions of the two principal parties. Black kid = potential justice-fleeing criminal thug; the other guy = innocent, put-upon, law-abiding man who's not gonna take this shit from these thugs anymore. Based on what I can understand, that's just plain wrong. Trayvon Martin was by all sane accounts a nice young man; he did not deserve – and posthumously does not deserve – to be "always aleady" cast in such a dreadful subject-position.
I don't say it's just fine and I'm always for review, but in this case the law was clear but was ignored and Zimmerman broke it in numerous ways including unlawful restraint. As it stands it protected Martin - or at least would have had it been obeyed. As the law in question reads, at least to a non-lawyer, Zimmerman is culpable and has committed an unlawful use of a weapon, unlawful display of a weapon, unlawful restraint, aggravated battery and probably a few other things and of course homicide. There is no question but that the existing law requires that he should be in jail right now awaiting trial. I can't blame the law because someone broke it and someone else let him get away with it.
ReplyDeleteThe law may be cutely mistitled as "shoot the avon lady" or "make my day" which is some glaring evidence of bias as repellent to me as any of the Republican name games. The presumption that shooting an armed home invader or rapist or kidnapper has become a recreational activity is an unwarranted flight of fancy in my opinion.
I should point out, that my reading of Florida law shows that carrying a gun is so perilous in terms of the trouble you can get into inadvertently, I simply don't do it. I'm more afraid, under normal circumstances of accidentally running afoul of the law than of armed marauders, and it puzzles me that people think it's so lenient. For the most part they haven't read it, but only TV accounts of how lax it is. But it's very, very far from giving the permit holder a free pass.
What we need most is to get the good old boy, old time racists out of positions of power and put in people who will enforce the law as it was meant to be. As the flyer that comes with your permit says: you are not a policeman, you are not authorized to enforce the law -- and as the fellow teaching the course told us, if some thug in a dark parking lot says he's going to kill you and reaches for something in his pocket and you shoot him down and it turns out to be pepper spray -- you're going to stand trial for murder. The law was simply ignored in Sanford. In this case I don't think it was loosely defined or unclear. The attitude of the authorities is obvious since he got away with previous offenses that might have got a black man 20 years behind bars - but here, my prejudices concerning American justice are showing.
Of course there have been some disturbingly similar tragedies in NYC and other places which do not allow handguns or CCW permits to anyone but cops and police have also gotten away with it. But when I think this time perhaps, when the Justice Department finishes with the Sanford PD, some people are going to jail along with that SOB Zimmerman.
Octo lists only a few of the ugly bits of Florida's racist history, by the way and it's obvious that Jim Crow, like the wild west, has retired and moved to Florida -- especially North Florida.
Captain I just want to echo Dino's observations. I certainly didn't perceive that your statements
ReplyDeleteindicated in any way that you identified all black and brown teens as criminals.
Dino, I think that your statement sums up the problem with a lot of laws very well: There's what a law says in the narrow, legal sense, and there's the way average people tend to interpret it.
These stand your ground laws leave themselves open to a lot of misinterpretation.
Just read the Florida statute. It's very similar to North Carolina's. I concur with the Captain that the provisions of this law does not apply to the facts established in Zimmerman's shooting of Trayvon.
I'm touchy, sorry -- but I'm glad you agree about the law in this case. It was designed to protect people like that unfortunate kid and relatively helpless people like elderly me from dangerous attackers even though it's true that there are times at which it can be hard to determine if a shooting is justified. That's true and has been true for a long time where police are concerned, yet nobody is suggesting that we should not have cops or allow them to carry arms because of a bad cop somewhere. Ambiguities should be and can be cleared up and that's why we have legislatures and lawyers and why rational people don't keep calling for the dismantling of government every time something breaks. I don't think we should forget that prior state laws penalized people for saving their own lives -- if they survive to be penalized, that is. Do we really want to require that grandma climb out a second story window while Joe the rapist or Harry the Murderer comes through the back door with a shotgun? Do we really want her to go to jail for harming an attacker? The 'castle doctrine' was about preventing such miscarriages of justice and no it isn't flawless or perfect. No law is.
ReplyDeleteI'll only say in self defense that the clothes people wear and the cars they drive and most of the childish things they do to "make a statement" make me want to change my species on a daily basis. But enough. . .
Someone like Zimmerman should absolutely not be given a free pass. I don't think the law actually does give him one and in this case -- with a diminutive unarmed victim who was apparently walking away from a confrontation, the idea that Zimmerman's life was in immanent danger is absurd. I think there must always be some sort of investigation as there is when a cop shoots someone in the line of duty.
What irritates me the most is that such incidents always bring out the nuts who think their guns will be confiscated by that tyrant Obummer, the nuts who want to confiscate all guns and hordes of others each with an axe to grind and political agenda to promote, parading in the streets with torches and pitchforks. Yes, this is a tragedy, but in a nation of -- what is it -- 330 million people? all kinds of tragedies and miscarriages of justice will occur and we need to fix these things rationally, deal with bad or corrupt law enforcement, improve the wording of laws and do our Democratic thing without hysteria.
Yes, the country still has racists in small town police forces ( and some big ones too.) It's no surprise to anyone over the age of 5, but there is a way to change that and surprise, surprise, the Federal government can help. I trust it will.
re: Capt. Fogg
ReplyDelete//I have no way of knowing if this would have happened had he been wearing khaki pants and a polo shirt or a blue Brooks Brothers pin stripe suit. //
Yes, it would. A good friend, college administrator, collegiate hall of fame basketball player, relates being hounded by the police his first five years in town.....wearing oxfords, a tie, and carrying an umbrella. A 6'7" black man is 'scary' no matter what he wears........to some folks.
You're probably right -- and to me, any 6'7" guy is scary, but you don't get to shoot someone for being scary, or there would be a big ammunition shortage.
ReplyDeleteI think it should be pointed out that Zimmerman did not 'mention' either Martin's dress or race as a reason for suspicion. He cited his behavior. (I would hazard a guess that talking on a hands free earpiece looked like a crazy/stoned person talking to himself. )
ReplyDeleteHis only references to Martin's dress and race were in response to direct questions from the 911 operator.
Mother Jones has a transcript of the 911 call online, sorry no link but on break, no time.
Jon