"I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift
or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to
the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to
them all."
I'd suggest the same observation is true of the quest for justice. It either happens or it doesn't and sometimes we don't even know the difference because we never stopped to think. We haven't come close to hearing the end of the Treyvon Martin/George Zimmerman opera and if the media whores can help it, we won't for a long time, the war of all against all being so very profitable.
Pictures of a gun and some hemp plants on Martin's cell phone along with text messages show "he was a violent, angry young man" is what you'll hear in one corner. "It's all a racist scheme to prejudice the jury" shouts the other team's supporters. It doesn't matter if either or neither is right because it's not about who was wrong and who is culpable nor about what constitutes justified self defense. It's about politics. It's about some people thinking a law that protected the victim, not the attacker, justified the attack -- was responsible for the attack!
CNN is telling us that the Florida "stand your ground" law gave Zimmerman the right to shoot an unarmed boy he'd been chasing simply because he felt threatened. No it doesn't, not the way I read it. In actuality it simply states that you don't have to run away and have the right to defend yourself appropriately if someone tries to remove you from some place you have a right to be in. Unfortunately, bringing a knife to a gun fight is not only an old cliche, it's the truth and Martin only had a fist to bring, but he had a right to be there and a right to defend himself and he apparently did and apparently failed. But hey, who's listening? If you're on the Right, you piss to the left and vice versa and pretty soon it starts to get smelly in here.
Was Martin belligerent? Bellicose? Did he have a history of being that way, as one side is saying? Could very well be, but it doesn't matter. The question is whether one has the right to shoot an unarmed person you've been chasing with a gun in your pocket and the answer is no. The mugger can't claim self defense under the law, and I don't think Zimmerman can either, particularly after law enforcement specifically told him to stay in his car; particularly because Martin was unarmed. No one has the right to kill someone for slapping him in the face or picking his pocket and under Florida law, if you started the fight, or even escalated it, your right to claim self-defense -- even your right to display a weapon -- is without merit.
Did Zimmerman pull the gun before he was hit or after? Either way his action would be questionable under the law which specifically forbids displaying a gun or the threat of a hidden gun to "gain advantage" in an argument. You don't even get to say "get out of my neighborhood, I've got a gun."
Is deadly force ever justified because an unarmed person you've cornered gives you a bloody nose or pushes you down? I don't think so and I'm not sure a jury would buy it, but this isn't really about the law and the law doesn't seem all that unambiguous anyway.
So I do have to wonder at people who don't like the idea that Martin wasn't legally required to run away, yet think he was a victim of racism, a victim of the "gun culture," a victim of his own civil rights! I have to wonder at people who oppose their own right to resist an attacker. I have to wonder just as much at people who say Zimmerman somehow had the right to stand his ground when it wasn't his ground and he was stalking someone who did have the right to be there. I have to wonder at people who defend Zimmerman and claim he had the right to kill because he was pushed or struck no matter how many times they're shown it isn't true.
I have to wonder at people who might have had some claim to be considered rational until their knees started jerking to the political rhythm and their jaws started flapping and mouths started foaming in true American fashion. Justice? Sorry, as the song goes, "nobody's right if everybody's wrong" and ain't it the truth.
I think the Florida AG did the right thing when she avoided the grand jury. There was a very real chance given the heat of the moment that Zimmerman might never have stood trial. A hung jury is still a possibility. But a hung jury does not an acquittal make. I think no matter how much Zimmerman shimmies and shakes for the camera and all of the fun his shyster lawyers have playing games, it's only a matter of time before he should be swinging on the gallows pole figuratively speaking.
ReplyDeleteThe law may be very clear to you, Captain but it seems that juries and judges have a much harder time with it.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tampabay.com/stand-your-ground-law/
Zimmerman is a murdering piece of shit. I doubt that he will be convicted of being a murdering piece of shit. The law, as written, IS unclear as to what, "is", is. But I would bet that drilling down into the 200 cases looked at by the Tampa Bay Times would indicate that there was racial disparity in both prosecution and conviction rates.
If Trayvon Martin had turned out to be a 17 yo blonde girl, visiting her parents, walking home with her bag of skittles and MD and running from a man who was stalking her, Zimmerman would BE the scary black man with the gun.
You're probably right about that. I hope the jury isn't biased, but I wish every damned thing weren't like a Rorschach test where people see what they are predisposed to see no matter what ink blot you show them. Prejudices are usually confirmed.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, although the Sheriff here tells us we should have a neighborhood watch program, nobody will even consider being part of it because of this sad incident. I'm inclined to prefer a bit of vandalism to having someone badly hurt or worse.
ReplyDeleteDC:
Florida is the South, the large infiltration by Yankees notwithstanding and You're probably right. My bet is still that Zimmerman will be convicted of manslaughter at least, but it's a small bet because my confidence in the Florida courts is low.
For those saying that carrying a gun isn't worth it in most cases, I have to sigh in agreement.
I recall this incident some years ago: A kid, making the traditional trick-or-treat rounds on Halloween night, was killed by an old codger who invoked his right to kill with impunity under Flori-Duh’s stand-your-ground law.
ReplyDeleteTwo years ago in my former neighborhood, an honors student from Sebastian High School left a graduation party and returned later - to the wrong house where he was promptly blown away by shotgun blast.
Is it possible for an entire nation to have an ANGER MANAGEMENT PROBLEM? I believe it is, and this country has turned itself into a primary example. Notice the bellicosity of the tea party movement; the loudest and most hostile voices win elections. Angry people and irrational laws that appeal to a raging public – a volatile concoction.
It's not a new thing that someone like Billy the Kid would claim self defense when shooting someone in the back. Please let's not say we need to get rid of our fundamental, self-evidently endowed right to go on living because of it. I can tell the judge I thought that the I80 sign meant the speed limit, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of speed limits, signs or cars for that matter.
ReplyDeleteI think that first incident was in Louisiana -- a Japanese kid in a Halloween costume who didn't speak good English, but bad judges and expensive lawyers and racist juries are the problem when people get away with it and the kid would have been shot no matter what the law said.
Angry fear-soaked haters of all kinds are the problem, not the legal right to use force to protect your home and family from armed or violent intruders when it's necessary.
The law does not, does not, does not: DOES NOT and never did give you the right to shoot some unarmed kid who comes to your door by accident -- or the Avon Lady or the Mormon Missionary. It does not give you the right to chase someone down the street and then shoot him because he pushes you. It does not make you Capt. America or the police or a militiaman or give you double O privileges.
Are we anger addicts? Damn right. It's dished out wholesale by the media, by the political parties and usually with a super-size order of lies. The NRA hands it out free and so does Michael Moore in his own way. The only way to fight it is to stop thinking it's all them and not us - that them being wrong doesn't make us right.
Ever find yourself frustrated when the morning's news doesn't bring you some outrage? Need a good scandal fix? Chances are if you do, you're an addict, like me, whether you secretly love it when Limbaugh farts in the face of justice or when Obama forgets to salute a Marine. It feels good to be angry -- gives you a feeling of having a mission -- justifies your prejudices.
Can we please stop insisting that the ancient right to self defense promotes murder particularly when the statistics show less and less murder? Please?
The Stand Your Ground law is about protecting the small, the weak, the helpless against violent aggression rather than a smug "let them run away" nod to Marie Antoinette. Yet all we'll read or choose to read is the occasional and desperate attempt to claim self defense while all the legitimate claims go unmentioned. We're bloggers, it helps to be angry but I'm tired of being angry even if it means I have to go back to writing haiku.