Anyone familiar with the meaning of the term “universal” and the debate that has followed the trail and acquittal of Trayvon Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman, can only be surprised by the “profound distaste” expressed this week by Spectator columnist Jeremy Brier. Brier has called foul in relation to how the “American Left…have reacted to a jury decision with immediate and universal cries of ‘miscarriage of justice‘”.
Perhaps by profiling one’s ideological opponents as a homogeneous group ‘out to get’ its opponents, rather than considering their individual viewpoints rationally and on their merits, one can fire off articles in a faster and more self-soothing, self-affirming manner. But assumptions based on profiling, and the logical conclusions that can follow them, are frequently flat out wrong.
In the case of George Zimmerman, the consequences of profiling and unthinking emotional reactions proved lethal for a teenage boy, Trayvon Martin, who was walking home from a candy store to his father’s neighborhood residence. Lethal but not illegal, at least not in Florida – and therein lies the real source if outrage in this case.
It is not that Zimmerman didn’t get a fair trial and was wrongly acquitted. To the contrary, by receiving a technically fair trail, Zimmerman’s acquittal was entirely unsurprising given the rules of the road in Florida. Now, consider that stinging reality, particularly from the perspective of a Floridian parent of a teenage African American boy.
The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates captured this sentiment more forcefully than most when he opined:
It is painful to say this: Trayvon Martin is not a miscarriage of American justice, but American justice itself. This is not our system malfunctioning. It is our system working as intended.
…if you are simply focusing on what happened in the court-room, then you have been head-faked by history and bought into a (sic) idea of fairness which can not (sic) possibly exist… The jury’s performance may be the least disturbing aspect of this entire affair. The injustice was authored by a country which has taken as its policy, for the lionshare of its history, to erect a pariah class. The killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman is not an error in programming. It is the correct result of forces we set in motion years ago and have done very little to arrest.
On a similar theme, The New Yorker’s Amy Davidson tweeted this tellingly unanswerable question: “What was Travon Martin supposed to do?”
Yet help answer this question the parents of American youths must, particularly if their kids “look suspicious” in states where citizens are not only armed but emboldened by laws like Florida’s far from unique Stand Your Ground legislation. The Guardian’s Gary Younge provides more of the context for the terrifying parenting dilemma confirmed by Zimmerman’s trail.
There is no doubt about who the aggressor was here. It appears that the only reason the two interacted at all, physically or otherwise, is that Zimmerman believed it was his civic duty to apprehend an innocent teenager who caused suspicion by his existence alone.”
Since it was Zimmerman who stalked Martin, the question remains: what ground is a young black man entitled to and on what grounds may he defend himself? What version of events is there for that night in which Martin gets away with his life?
Imagine you are the father of a black teenage boy living in the United States, particularly in states with “Stand Your Ground” laws in addition to citizen vigilantes legally authorized to carry concealed firearms. What would you advise your child to do in the event of realizing they’re being stalked, after dark, by a civilian, possibly a racist, and possibly an armed one at that?
Run away? Surely that would only heighten suspicions.
Perhaps black kids should walk in groups? “Gang!” (Does anyone really think Trayvon Martin would have looked less suspicious to Zimmerman had he been accompanied one or two black friends?)
If eventually confronted, should you advise your kid to fight (back)? Trayvon Martin stood his ground when confronted by Zimmerman and even, it seems, gave him a bit of a pasting. His stalker shot him dead – yet his killer had Florida’s law on his side. As TNC explains:
I can bait you into a fight and if I start losing I can legally kill you, provided I “believe” myself to be subject to “great bodily harm.
Children should be raised to challenge authority that abuses its power, particularly when they are direct witnesses to, or victims of, abuse. Yet Zimmerman’s ability to successfully justify killing an unarmed black youth who was suspicious, it seems, simply because he was a black youth shatters the neatness of such a romantic worldview and that hurts us all.
The only certain conclusion available to the parents of children who look suspicious to George Zimmerman is that following his acquittal the Florida authorities have returned him his gun.
UPDATE:
This video showing a black father discussing the difficulty he faces explaining the death of Trayvon Martin to his teenage sons is bang on target per the discussion above (Hat Tip Natasha N.)
Strategic Communications Consultant, located in Washington, D.C.
Discover more from Slugger O'Toole
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ruari: Trayvon Martin stood his ground when confronted by Zimmerman and even, it seems, gave him a bit of a pasting.
Surely it was Trayvon who ‘confronted’ George? And it was Trayvon who initiated violence? And George’s defence in court was ‘self defence’, not ‘stand your ground’?
By all means, reverse the colours of the protagonists – the verdict should be the same.
Reader, I really don’t see how anyone could suggest that Trayvon was the “initiator” here. That’s in may ways the whole point: By simply looking suspicious, i.e. for being black, in a hoodie, in a gated community, Zimmerman decided to follow him. He even ignored police dispatcher orders to stop following him. How the two ended up in a violent confrontation no one can say for sure as there were only 2 witnesses, one of whom killed the other.
So I ask you (again), faced with a stalker (at least – we don’t know what Zimmerman said and/or did as he “made contact”), what was Trayvon supposed to do?
If you’re the parent of a black teen whose reviewing this episode, tell me, what advice would you give your kid should he find himself being followed by someone after dark?
Ruarai: If you’re the parent of a black teen whose reviewing this episode, tell me, what advice would you give your kid should he find himself being followed by someone after dark?
Complete your journey if your destination is nearby. If you feel there is a threat go to a public place or a lit house for refuge (the advice is the same from white parents, of course)
Was my advice meant to be “set up an ambush, or if the person behind you is too close, attack”? I’ll pass that on to my daughter.
Ruarai: How the two ended up in a violent confrontation no one can say for sure as there were only 2 witnesses, one of whom killed the other.
There were several witnesses who heard much of the incident or saw the aftermath. A lot of it was taped. Photograph’s of George’s injuries were shown in court. The jury, having heard all of this evidence, decided that the prosecution hadn’t udermined the defence case. I don’t think you are better placed than they are to make that call.
Oh Jesus there is nothing as depressing as the knee-jerk assumption by Irish liberals that every problem involving a black person in the US is due to racism.
Zimmerman was acquitted because the prosecution case was hopeless from the start, he would have been acquitted if he’d stood trial in the UK, Ireland or indeed South Africa.
Indeed if there was any injustice it was the shocking abuse of privilege by the entire media, the celebrity class, the Department of Justice (let us pause to let sink in the appalling scenario where the Department of Justice actually sent rent-a-mobs to Florida to whip up agitation for what was little more than a show trial), politically motivated prosecutors and even the president himself all intent on the legal lynching of a mixed-race hispanic who became the poster boy for an imaginary class of white oppressors.
It’s hard to know where to start with the above, from the distaste that a free-born citizen should be somehow “emboldened” to stand his ground, shock horror, do these serfs not know their proper place in the liberal heirarchy? Or the deliberate mis-characterisation of the deceased Martin, who was not the cherubic wee, angel-faced 12 year old the media portrayed him to be.
Thank God for one of the few bastions of the US Constitution that the US left hasn’t yet managed to overthrow. Trial by jury worked, its days might now be numbered given the current politicisation of the US legal system.
The entire post, plus the link to TNC, makes exactly the point that the trail result was fair – and that the trail verdict wasn’t the issue.
Maybe you could get someone to read it for you Nice. And. Slowly. Harry?
“the trail result was fair”
Then there is nothing more to discuss, Zimmerman is an innocent man, despite the politically motivated attempts by the establishment to railroad his conviction, the jury has spoken and that is the end of it.
But no, the left gnash their teeth at the thought that twelve, honest, individual citizens should be free to sit and judge for themselves the facts of a case and come to their own conclusion.
No, we must change the system because the system is “flawed”, we must interfere until we get the politically acceptable solution to a non-existent problem that we perceive from our politically biased viewpoint.
We must remove even more of the basic God-given rights of free-born citizens in order to get the “correct” political result we want.
Shocking, absolutely shocking. To think the ideological left have the audacity to refer to themselves as “liberals”.
It’s actually the “civic duty” of all citizens to challenge suspicious people in their community (it’s called being a good neighbour I think). I expect many of those challenged turn out to be innocent.
That, unfortunately, is the price we pay for not being in possession of the super hero gene and the ability to unerringly identify and focus on the bad guys alone.
I’m not overly knowledgeable about this particular case. Was evidence produced of Zimmeran’s racist attitudes? Did he only challenge black people? Was he not some kind if neighbourhood watch member who was ‘duty bound’ to take action when he felt it merited it?
“”But no, the left gnash their teeth at the thought that twelve, honest, individual citizens should be free to sit and judge for themselves the facts of a case and come to their own conclusion.”
Actually there’s only six on a Florida jury, one thing I learnt from my not very exhaustive reading on this issue.
He was an Obama voting hispanic with mixed-race ancestry and a Jewish name.
A strange choice of poster boy for the cracker racist the media painted him as. But just for the record SoS, no not a single shred of evidence has been produced to show that Zimmerman was a racist.
There is ample evidence however that Martin was not the innocent wee lad the media painted him as.
Jeez, the media slant an issue in favour of a liberal-left agenda, I’m shocked! Shocked! I tell you.
“Zimmerman’s ability to successfully justify killing an an unarmed black youth who was suspicious, it seems, simply because he was a black youth”
….this is a gross misstatement. Where is the evidence that he killed him just because he was black. The jury heard the evidence and rejected this argument
Has a Trayvon mural gone up on the Lower Falls wall of mopery yet?
I’m no expert regarding this case, but I have a friend employed in the legal field in the US, who is somewhat familiar ( although admittedly not with Florida law specifically. )
She seems to think that the issue uis not whether Zimmerman was guilty of a crime – but more that he wasn’t guilty of the crime he was tried for. She’s convinced that had the state pushed for a Manslaughter conviction, Zimmerman would have been found guilty.
As to the bare facts of the case, a 17 year old unarmed boy ( and he was a boy albeit a big one – we may all think we’re grown up and know it all by 17, but those of us at a substantially more advanced stage will look back and realise we were children ) was challenged walking home by an armed man. He took exception to this, a scuffle ensued, one part was injured and the other was killed.
The ridiculous release of photos on Trayvon Martin as an angelic cherub as well as more recent stories regarding his past have no real bearing on this incident.
Doug the prosecution threw everything they had at Zimmerman when they realised they weren’t going to get a murder conviction, they tried manslaughter, they even, obscenely, went for child abuse of all things.
Thankfully the jury saw through this blatant case of political prosecutions and threw the entire farrago out.
Of course that’s not good enough, now the left want him tried in a federal court for civil rights abuse, which would be the first time ever a private individual was charged with breaching civil rights.
There was a scuffle between two young men in a dark night, one of the men was killed, the survivor said he killed the other in self defense, the police investigated, the case went to trial, the facts were laid before a judge and jury and the man was acquitted.
There the story should end, and would do so were it not for the professional race-baiting lobby.
Regarding the accusation of racial profiling, Zimmerman’s neighborhood had apparently suffered a rash of burglaries. The available information from witnesses was that the perpetrators were young black men.
I daresay Zimmerman might have therefore been that bit more on the lookout for young black men. I don’t think it was completely irrational of him to do so either.
If the witnesses had said the perpetrators were tall and blonde, and Zimmerman was that bit more on the lookout for tall blonde men, then frankly I’d be saying the same thing.
Having said that I don’t think Trayvon’s race was actually decisive in him being profiled. I suspect Trayvon being young and male had more to do with it. Call me crazy, but I don’t a middle aged women, even blacker than Trayvon – but not six foot+ and attired in a hoodie – would’ve aroused the same suspicions.
As for who initiated the fight, a lot of that hinges on the manner in which Zimmerman confronted Trayvon, and if he did indeed confront Trayvon rather than vice versa. As far his testimony goes, it was not with gun drawn, like in the ludicrous political cartoons about the case. I don’t think swastikas were burning in his eyeballs either.
My understanding is that Zimmerman did not actually tail Martin after being hinted that he shouldn’t. He got out of the vehicle to confirm to check the address to confirm his location to the dispatcher. Trayvon, according to the defense, doubled back and confronted Zimmerman.
We don’t know how the confrontation started, but it’s not exactly impossible to believe Trayvon doubled when ZImmerman got out of the car. According to Martin’s phone he was pretty heavily into a gangster identity for himself and may well have been wondering who this guy in the car thinks he is.
Of course the phone evidence was totally shut down by the court I think the judge said anybody could’ve sent the messages. It would’ve been possible to ID Martin’s friends by the messages they sent and call them into court to ask them why they were talking about guns, drugs etc., but it was deemed that this would prejudice the jury more than it would help the jury. I’m only bringing it up because frankly it’s not impossible to believe Martin would’ve been angered and aggressive enough to double back.
Trayvon didn’t deserve to be killed of course, though I don’t think Zimmerman deserved to have his head beat in for merely following somebody he thought was suspicious. Trayvon, let’s not forget, was meting out his own “justice” too, and if he had walked away from the encounter he may well have been getting done for some sort of serious assault.
“There the story should end, and would do so were it not for the professional race-baiting lobby.”
…..this all sounds very familiar. Was there a Human Rights Lawyer (TM) Involved?
Harry, I understand that the Prosecution suggested that a charge of manslaughter also be considered.
I’m just repeating the opinion of s omeone who’s opinion I’d trust in matters of U.S. Law.
Her opinion is that had the Prosecution simply gone for a Manslaughter charge rather than elevating it to one of Murder ( with Manslaughter as, for want of a better word, a contingency ) – they would have had a much stronger chance of a conviction. As was, when the trial began, she dismissed any chance of a conviction in coversation.
I realise it’s purely anecdoatl, but just thought I’d offer an opinion of someone actually practicing law in the US.
As to the ury seeing though the whole thing, I understand that they had asked for clarification of the manslaughter law, but were instructed by the jude that general info would not be provided and that they could only receive advice and clarification on details SPECIFIC to the case in hand. Just to play Devil’s advocate – would the Jury’s request for clarification not suggest tha they thought maybe there WAS a case to answer, even if not the primary charge?
By the way folks – I’m using a ridiculously unresponsive keyboard on an antiquated, steam driven P.C. in work, so please forgive some of my more creative spelling.
“There was a scuffle between two young men in a dark night, one of the men was killed, the survivor said he killed the other in self defense, the police investigated, the case went to trial, the facts were laid before a judge and jury and the man was acquitted.”
They didn’t bump into each other in a narrow alleyway, one was an armed man who went chasing after a unarmed teenager for no reason other than he didn’t like the look of him.
He’s as innocent as this guy.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Jury-acquits-escort-shooter-4581027.php
There is no doubt that this was a complete tragedy, however having watched some of the closing arguements in court live on TV, there is also no doubt that a conviction in this case would (as Zimmermans lawyer stated) simply have turned a tragedy into a travest of justice.
There is no way Zimmerman could have been convicted of murder or even manslaughter. He was being a good neighbour – the kind of neighbour most of us would be very glad to have – and was seriously assaulted when he confronted someone he thought was acting suspiciously in his neighbourhood. If Trayvon Martin had not been black this case would never have received the attention it has. Terrible tragedy, but putting Zimmerman in jain for what happened would have been completely wrong. The whole racism angle was always a red herring.
“If Trayvon Martin had not been black this case would never have received the attention it has.”
I dunno. I’d like to think the fact that he was 17 would have ensured some fairly substantial coverage.
I see Sp12, you were there in the trial were you? You have a better understanding of the law and the facts relating to the case than the jury who sat through the trial heard the prosecution and the defense’s evidence and then spent hours weighing up what they heard and discussing their verdict before reaching their collective decision.
Hey who needs trials and juries let’s just let celebrities, politicians and internet jockeys decide who is innocent and guilty shall we?
DerryDave,
you could barely be more wrong when you suggest “If Trayvon Martin had not been black this case would never have received the attention it has.”The entire reason the community and then the media focused on this affair was BECAUSE THE COPS DIDN’T EVEN ARREST the shooter for 41 days – and not until the attention you dismiss demanded it. It took a Change.org petition of 2.2 million signatures and a series of public demands for action.
That’s what this is about: It was simply okay for a man to confront a kid – who was doing nothing except existing -thereby initiating a confrontation that lead to a fatal shooting only for the killer to be excused on the basis that he felt in danger. That was accepted by the cops as sufficient explanation for the corpse of a 17 year old boy. How must the parents of black teens raise their kids if their very presence is enough to spook action heroes like Zimmerman into armed confrontations?
Put another way, forget media attention for a second, and consider the vital attention that wasn’t paid for 41 DAYS: Do you think that cops would have waited even 41 seconds before arresting a black male who killed a kid in Zimmerman’s circumstances or similarly, had the kid killed by Zimmerman been white, would the inattentiveness have been so stark? The question answers itself, doesn’t it?
Reader, your advice is exactly what he was doing already: walking (while black) through the neighborhood. This was enough not only to raise Zimmerman’s suspicions and heckles – “these punks always get away” – it was an activity Zimmerman was determined to ‘interrupt’ – what do you do at that point?
SOS,
“Did he (Zimmerman) only challenge black people?”
Great question. Zimmerman had a call history. He made 46 calls about “suspicious activity”. Guess how many times he called about black kids? All of them.
But this is the least of it. Consider part of the reason the prosecution had a lousy case: the cops upon arriving and finding a dead black male and a confessing shooter…saw no reason to arrest Zimmerman after hearing his explanation. 41 days went by until public outcry compelling the police to investigate- by which time they’d missed the boat on crime scene forensics, properly gathering witness testimony, etc.
Cynic.
Prosecution simply had to prove that Zimmerman’s felt in mortal danger –which he may well have done (and probably will do for the rest of his days). How and why he put himself AND the boy in such danger wasn’t on trail.
“I see Sp12, you were there in the trial were you? ”
No, but unlike your heavily slanted description of what you think happened in a scenario where one of the only only two witnesses was shot by the other, I stuck with what was actually factual and recorded. Of course I did leave out the bit where the armed man was advised by the police dispatcher not to chase or confront the unarmed teenager.
Like I said, he’s as innocent as the guy that shot the escort. Clever lawyers and bad laws.
“Hey who needs trials and juries let’s just let celebrities, politicians and internet jockeys decide who is innocent and guilty shall we?”
Sure, instead let’s use lazy arguments when people raise concerns about bad laws.
The issue of Trayvon Martin’s race, I think, is being heavily over emphasised. It was, of course, the key reason for George Zimmerman initiating the conflict but it was not, as the American media and public insist, a simple case of ‘white beats black’ which lead to Zimmerman’s acquittal. This decision has a far more prevalent pro-gun, rather than anti-black agenda to it. If Zimmerman had been convicted then it would have served as efficient ammunition (I know, ironic) for American liberals targeting the second amendment. In deep south, NRA, GOP, Tea Party Florida with its deep south, NRA, GOP, Tea Party judiciary and politics, this was more than undesirable and the reality is that Zimmerman was always going to walk away free not for his own sake, but for the sake of the security of the second amendment.
This is hardly the first time the American justice system has been faced with allegations of racial prejudice- it can deal with these remarks. As I see it, they are only too happy for American society to tear itself apart with racial suspicion and hatred so long as the real pro-gun agenda remains mostly unnoticed. As an added bonus, more conflict, more hatred and more violence inevitably lead to more gun sales.
Ruarai: Reader, your advice is exactly what he was doing already: walking (while black) through the neighborhood.
My advice was that Trayvon should have completed his journey. I did not suggest he should turn back to confront George.
By the way. We’re not a million miles apart in principles, but we differ on the facts of the case. So far as I am aware the court accepted, to a sufficient extent, that Trayvon turned back to confront, or maybe even attack, George. Hence my wording – ‘complete his journey’. You’re also being a bit slippery about that word ‘confront’ – your choice of wording seems to imply that George prevented Trayvon from completing his journey, and I don’t think the evidence backs that up at all.
Reader,
rather than retrying the case (either of us) indulge me on this. Let’s say that a Zimmerman-type character did confront a Martin-type kid, at the very least disrupting his journey (after following him in the manner we know from the tapes – a scared kid and an angry pursuer).
In short, simply “walking on, head down” wasn’t an option on the table, what should Martin do then?
I think, after this trail, we can be confident that Zimmerman-type characters have been given reason to be more confident about confronting people that “look suspicious” to them – so parents really do need to think and worry about this.
Ruarai,
He should do exactly what you should do if a black hobo follows you with an angry look on his face. i.e. have a verbal exchange to see what’s happening.
Getting pursued by somebody is not justification to “defend yourself” by immediately resorting to battering them. It’s frankly bizarre that people are acting as if Zimmerman following Trayvon was in itself tantamount to some sort of immediate aggression that Trayvon had to violently defend against.
“It’s frankly bizarre that people are acting as if Zimmerman following Trayvon was in itself tantamount to some sort of immediate aggression that Trayvon had to violently defend against.”
Almost as bizarre as people pretending to know who attacked who first.
As with others commenting here, neither do I know how the confrontation started or which party initiated it. Zimmerman’s manifest injuries only suggest that Martin was capable of more than holding his own in a ruck which may, or may not, have been initiated by the accused. Perhaps then, we might think, Zimmerman ought to be given the benefit of the doubt – as indeed it appears that he was.
So far, so good (or so bad if you prefer).
Let us then consider this scenario :
A tall, well-built white youth takes a short-cut through a black neighbourhood and is confronted by one of that neighbourhood’s anti-crime patrollers. A struggle ensues during which the black resident sustains injuries which compel him to believe his life is at risk. He draws a pistol and shoots the white youth through the heart causing instant death. The shooter is arrested and charged with the white youth’s murder
Now which of you, in all honesty, would care to speculate on the outcome at trial being a not guilty verdict in such a case ?
Sp12,
Zimmerman could well have swung first, he could well have spat at Trayvon’s feet and called him a stupid nigger given what an awful, awful closet Klansman he apparently is. As it is we can only go on the testimonies and on what we know. Feel free to color things in to suit yourself though.
“Zimmerman could well have swung first, he could well have spat at Trayvon’s feet and called him a stupid nigger given what an awful, awful closet Klansman he apparently is. As it is we can only go on the testimonies and on what we know. Feel free to color things in to suit yourself though.”
Hyperbole much?
Leave out the automatic defence against charges of racism. I haven’t mentioned race in any of my comments.
Let’s try discussing this without the knee jerks. It’s a badly crafted law exploited by the clever lawyers of an armed man who felt the need to follow an unarmed teenager whom he subsequently shot dead.
Like it was exploited in another state by the clever lawyers of a man who shot an unarmed woman working as an escort as she walked out of his apartment because he felt that her leaving without having sex with him after payment was enough to invoke the stand your ground law.
Which, it was.
Is it ok if I mention the second case without you going all defensive like I’m accusing you of misogyny?
Sp12: It’Like it was exploited in another state by the clever lawyers of a man who shot an unarmed woman working as an escort as she walked out of his apartment because he felt that her leaving without having sex with him after payment was enough to invoke the stand your ground law.
But GZ used ‘self-defence’, not ‘stand-your-ground’ as his defence in court. ‘Self-defence’ isn’t also a bad law, is it?
“But GZ used ‘self-defence’, not ‘stand-your-ground’ as his defence in court. ‘Self-defence’ isn’t also a bad law, is it?”
No, of course it’s not.
The stand your ground law has effected the instructions given to jurors. If the stand your ground law didn’t exist he would not have been able to claim self defence as he would have to prove he did not have the option of retreat open to him. But because of the stand your ground law, he now can.
He may not have explicitly used the law as he defence in court, instead his clever lawyer realised that thanks to the stand your grounds effect on other laws, he could base his defence on a law where the burden of proof was even higher for the state to convict him thanks to the revised instructions for jurors.
It’s not just a bad law in and of itself, it also has had a bad effect on good laws like self-defence.
Zimmerman was acquitted because the prosecution case was hopeless from the start, he would have been acquitted if he’d stood trial in the UK, Ireland or indeed South Africa. claims Harry Flashman
The much publicised case of Tony Martin, which Harry may have missed, suggests otherwise certainly in the UK.
From Wikipedia: “Anthony Edward “Tony” Martin (born 1944)[1] is a farmer from Norfolk, England, who shot a burglar dead in his home in August 1999.
Martin was convicted of murder, later reduced to manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility, and served three years in prison, having been denied parole. He has since lived at a secret address, and there are reports of a substantial price on his head from the dead man’s family and friends, who are members of the Traveller community.”
In the Republic of Ireland, following upon an initial “Guilty of manslaughter” verdict the verdict was overturned on appeal in a prettyu harrowing case:
“On 14 October 2004, Pádraig Nally, an Irish farmer living in County Mayo shot dead an Irish Traveller named John “Frog” Ward, with a string of 80 convictions over 30 years, who had been trespassing on his property. In November 2005 Nally was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment for manslaughter. His conviction was quashed in October 2006 and, in December 2006, he was found not guilty of manslaughter.”
I’m damned if I can guess on the outcome in South Africa although I expect that the rich can get away with murder quite easily as in the good ol’ US of A.
Sp12,
Like Reader above said, afaik Zimmerman did not invoke Stand Your Ground.
The real difficulty with the Zimmerman case had little to do with the law and more to do with the lack of witnesses for the whole altercation from beginning to end.
You had some ear witnesses who heard some shouts, but couldn’t determine from who, an eye witness who seen some of it, but no all-round witnesses to the whole thing. Anybody who thought that a guilt “beyond reasonable doubt” was ever going to be established in these circumstances was pretty much doomed from the beginning imo.
Maybe they should get into a law about reasonable force or something, although at the same time Zimmerman was injured and was suffering more injuries, so I can’t really say he should’ve postponed lethal force until he could on-the-spot self-diagnose life threatening head injuries to himself, and then shoot.
Sp12,
“If the stand your ground law didn’t exist he would not have been able to claim self defence as he would have to prove he did not have the option of retreat open to him.”
Well afaik the witness who actually seen something (Jonathan Good) seemed to describe Zimmerman being on the ground getting pummelled. So retreat wasn’t an option at that point, and we got back around to who initiated the actual physical fight.
“seemed to describe Zimmerman being on the ground getting pummelled.”
Not in court under oath he didn’t.
Which is what the jurors would have to go on in determining if it was self defence with no option of retreat under the pre stand-your-ground era.
My understanding is that is indeed the general message the court got from John Good testifying to it. According to him the person on the pavement was of lighter skin tone getting “ground and pound” by the other one. I haven’t heard anything about him not testifying under oath.
Tony Martin’s case is very different. Martin failed to in his defence of reasonableness in his use of force to, as he alleged, defend himself because scientific evidence was produced in court that proved he had fired on the two burglars as they attempted to flee through a window.
The burglars in the act of fleeing were deemed no longer to be posing any threat to Martin and thus his use of the firearm was not in any way in self defence.
Martin’s case is probably only part of the discussion as I don’t believe that the UK legal system could have anything similar to the Zimmerman case. The guy would be in jail now.
I don’t think the UK tabloids would touch this one.
NOTE: Updated above to include the very dilemma faced by the parents of black teenage sons. How should they/can they possibly exist without drawing suspicion? An impossible conversation for parents following the murder of Trayvon Martin for “looking suspicious”.
Ruarai, thank you for bringing this topical item up. A welcome change from flegs and parades.
Reader :
Surely it was Trayvon who ‘confronted’ George?
There is no evidence supporting the theory that Martin initiated the violent confrontation. There is only Zimmerman’s testimony.
An eyewitness observed Martin bashing Zimmerman’s head into the ground, and it is clear that Zimmerman sustained serious injuries. But the crucial detail that cannot be established is exactly who picked the fight. It is quite possible that Zimmerman startled Martin and he retaliated.
And it was Trayvon who initiated violence?
Not proven.
And George’s defence in court was ‘self defence’, not ‘stand your ground’?
Yes but you have to understand the significance of this in Florida law. The only test for establishing that a defendant legitimately used lethal force is to show that he believed his life was in danger.
In other words, Zimmerman could have started the fight with Martin and then shot him dead as soon as he was overpowered. None of these mitigating factors can be accounted for by the jury when it is considering a self defence verdict.
There are a number of implications arising from this. The obvious one is, if you get into a fight make sure you kill your opponent, as then you can claim that you believed your life was in danger and the other guy won’t be there to provide conflicting testimony.
As Sp12 said, this could not happen in the UK. It is not sufficient to simply believe that your life was in danger.
By all means, reverse the colours of the protagonists – the verdict should be the same.
The verdict would be the same. If Martin had been able to beat Zimmerman to death he probably would have gotten off with the claim that he believed his life was in danger.
Please help me out so that I can understand a little bit the strange parallel universe which my lefty colleagues and friends apparently inhabit.
Pray tell what on earth is wrong with the principle of “stand your ground”? As far as I understand it it simply means that a law-abiding citizen who has reasonable grounds to feel threatened by another person has no moral or legal obligation to back down from that threat.
Now I do appreciate I’m getting on a bit and basic principles and societal mores that have guided my life and that of countless generations before me seem to be falling like nine-pins these days but please explain to me why you think it’s a bad thing that someone should not back down from a threat to his or her safety or that of their family and lawful property?
Now I don’t want a lot of pseudo Marxian sociological claptrap about how it’s all a RACIST!! (in the correct case and with the usual exclamation points) plot by whitey to subvert black rights.
Just explain to me why you feel law abiding citizens should be obliged by the state to run away in fear when they are threatened.
Oh and one other thing, the fatuous nonsense about a case where the races were reversed (what, like a black youth of mixed-race ancestry shooting a young hispanic man of mixed-race ancestry? Why are you people so obsessed about race?).
Just to let you into a fact you may not be aware of but black on white violence and criminality in the US is much, much higher than the reverse. Few of those cases get any sort of publicity and a huge proportion of them go unprosecuted and unpunished.
Of course should a black man be convicted of murder and sentenced to death the lefties all go jumping up and down, weeping and gnashing about the RACIST!! system of justice, how the convict was entirely innocent and set up by RACIST!! police and tried in a RACIST!! court and should in fact be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize (no I am not making that last bit up by the way).
Harry, you’d save yourself a lot of typing time if you simply provided a link to a right wing radio blowhard
Pray tell what on earth is wrong with the principle of “stand your ground”? As far as I understand it it simply means that a law-abiding citizen who has reasonable grounds to feel threatened by another person has no moral or legal obligation to back down from that threat.
——————————————-
Harry – as a law in theory there isn’t really a issue. The problem arises in practice. Essentially, when there are no witnesses, I can pick a fight with you / bait you into a confrontation, then put a bullet in you because I felt ” threatened ” by your reaction. If you’re not around aterwards to testify to the contrary how can anyone prove I wasn’t in fear of my life? You can’t.
Logically, it’s not a hard decision to come to.
Being honest, I’d be moe of a fight and less of a flight person, but I can see flaws in the implementation of a “stand your ground” law.
It’s not a Lefty, Marxist, Commie agenda – it’s just obvious that it’s a law that would be very easy to exploit.
NB – I’m not stating that this is what happened in the Zimmerman case, I’m merely answering a point regarding the idea of “stand your ground” in general.
Ruari, I duly note your utter inability to address a single point I have raised and accept that in the absence of being able to rebut my points you merely resort to man playing.
Tiresome but not wholly unexpected.
Doug, that’s why we have that marvelous institution called the legal system to determine guilt or innocence, it worked well in the Zimmerman case. If some chancer tried it on as a way of simply committing murder I dare say the police and prosecution would be equally as assiduous in investigating the case and if it was proven that the defendant was a liar he’d end up in the slammer.
What the left of course would prefer (and I don’t include you) is that US citizens should remain defenceless and should merely wait meekly for assistance from the forces of the state (ie they
should be stripped of their 2nd Amendment rights) and not act as self reliant free-born individuals.
Such men and women have no place in the Brave New World of complete state control over all aspects of society. They must be eliminated.
Doug, that’s why we have that marvelous institution called the legal system to determine guilt or innocence, it worked well in the Zimmerman case. If some chancer tried it on as a way of simply committing murder I dare say the police and prosecution would be equally as assiduous in investigating the case and if it was proven that the defendant was a liar he’d end up in the slammer.
——————————-
Harry, point taken and I broadly agree with you. The Justice System is far from perfect but in the main it fulfills it’s purpose well. As mentioned, I fully support a persons right to defend themselves and I support stand your ground as a theoretical notion. However, given the not inconsiderable amount of times that Jurys get it wrong, perhaps a law that is obviously ( it seems to me anyway ) ripe for exploitation WHEN APPLIED IN PRACTICE could be considered a bad law.
Again, I’m not applying this specifically to the Zimmerman trial, simply following the logical outworkings of a law that allows me to respond with deadly force if I feel sufficently “threatened”.
It may be a simplistic view ( which is essentially all most of us have, not practising law in Florida ) but I think it holds some water.
That said, I’d probably be hard pushed to find a law that couldn’t be exploited by someone determined enough to find a way.
“Such men and women have no place in the Brave New World of complete state control over all aspects of society. They must be eliminated.”
Where can I report an account that I suspect may have been hijacked by Alex Jones?
Not the Welsh one sadly 🙁
lol harry reminds me of one of the loons who post over at a tangled web 🙂
If Zimmerman had been a black man, there would not have been another word about it.
Every year in America seven thousand, yes, 7,000 black men are killed by other black men, and you hardly ever hear it mentioned.
This is just another excuse for racist black leaders and bleeding-heart liberals to try to portray blacks as victims, when, in fact, they have made their own bed.
Although, it good to see that some African Americans are bucking the system where blacks are locked up on the Democratic-dependence plantation. This black leader is certainly having none of it.
“I can bait you into a fight and if I start losing I can legally kill you, provided I “believe” myself to be subject to “great bodily harm.”
That’s not strictly true though.There is an “initial aggressor” clause. Apparently A defendant cannot claim self-defence if he “initially provokes the use of force” against himself, which Zimmerman may have done. Crucially though the jurors were not informed of this in the juror instructions (where they are informed of the laws specific to the case).
Wow, I really didn’t think this case would get this much attention here on Slugger, but here’s the way one white American in Missouri sees it (me).
Historically, the USA has been an armed society since before its founding. The God given right to keep and bear arms is longstanding and favored by a clear majority of Americans and is a fundamental part of our basic law (Constitution). The right to self defense is even older. The right to a jury trial whose decision can only be based on evidence introduced in court is fundamental as well.
Zimmerman had a right to carry his gun around his neighborhood. That is the law. While on neighborhood watch patrol, he had a right to report a suspicious character he observed in his neighborhood. When he got out of the vehicle to get an address to the dispatcher to report his location, the best evidence suggests Martin doubled back to confront him. The best evidence says Zimmerman took a terrific beating. The best evidence, in fact the only evidence says Zimmerman believed himself to be in grave danger when his head was beaten into the ground. In self defense, Zimmerman then pulled his weapon and used it for its designed purpose, defending his life.
That might not be how many see it, but it seems to have been clear enough for the jury. And that is what juries are for.
As far as the 41 day delay in arresting Zimmerman, it isn’t clear to me that the police ever thought Zimmerman had a case to answer for and only acted in response to political pressure. I hate that. But now Zimmerman has had his day in court. Instead of announcing this man’s vindication, the media and politicos have done their best to make some hay out of it. Shame on them!
“This is just another excuse for racist black leaders and bleeding-heart liberals to try to portray blacks as victims, when, in fact, they have made their own bed.”
What bed exactly did the teenaged boy make, other than being through no choice of his own, of the same skin colour as perpetrators of violent crime?
What outcome do you think that argument would result in if it was transposed to our own history here?
Young Mr. Martin made his biggest mistake when he discounted the possibility that Mr. Zimmerman was armed. In America, you are better served making the assumption that whoever is confronting you has a pistol in their belt. He, evidently, thought he had the upper hand. Youthful mistake that cost him his life.
Anyone who followed the trial will know that several witnesses clearly and confidently identified Zimmerman voice crying for help.
Zimmerman was following Martin, but it was Martin who initiated the violence. If I was getting beaten by a strong youth, I was use whatever means at my disposal to defend myself.
I assume that some liberals would have preferred to see Zimmerman’s brains spilled all over the footpath/sidewalk than him having the right to defend himself.
Paul, are you addicted to using the term liberal for all those who disagree with you?
I’m a liberal who believes in the right of armed self defense. Categorize that!
“Anyone who followed the trial will know that several witnesses clearly and confidently identified Zimmerman voice crying for help.”
And several others testified contradicting this.
“Zimmerman was following Martin, but it was Martin who initiated the violence.”
You have zilch and I mean zilch evidence for that assertion.
“I assume that some liberals would have preferred to see Zimmerman’s brains spilled all over the footpath/sidewalk than him having the right to defend himself.”
I’d have preferred he sat in his rent-a-cop car, like instructed to do so by the real cops, or better still he would have been charged with his earlier assault on a real police officer, and maybe the criminal record he avoided would have resulted in him being unable to carry a gun and chase after ‘assholes that always get away with it’.
That way maybe a young boys life would not have been ended.
Evidence, in this case, is lacking for either side of the story.
We don’t convict people because of community outrage.
We convict them by proving they committed a crime.
No proof was offered for the murder of Trayvon. He died, in my opinion, because his naivete led him to believe he had the advantage. It turned out he was mistaken.
Kevsterino,
As far as I know Zimmerman was arrested immediately. He was handcuffed, taken to the police station and questioned. I can remember this point was made by Alan Dershowitz, who was bemused that people kept saying Zimmerman wasn’t arrested. I can’t find the footage I watched with Dershowitz in it, but you can go to the wikipedia page here which links to the police report:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
Under the “Stanford Police Investigation” section it says he was questioned for approximately 5 hours. Maybe because he wasn’t detained for several days people thought he wasn’t “properly arrested” or something.
As far as the witnesses go, I wasn’t following each testimony but my understanding was that it ended up pretty muddy about identifying just who was shouting for help. Not sure on that though.
tbh I’ve found this was one of the most widely and badly covered cases I’ve ever known of. Most people, including myself, have been labouring under all kinds of media induced delusions about it at some point or another, and frankly most people still are even now. It’s been crazy.
So the issue is not race, but the crazy attitude to guns. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
America compared to the uk shows how stupid the right to bear arms is. It seems to be based on some romantic macho cowboy love. I like guns, I’m not opposed to hunting but I wouldn’t keep a gun in the house.
I think it is reckless to dismiss a jury verdict. They get to hear all of the evidence and judge the demeanour of witnesses and, for the most part, I think they get it right.
Zimmerman was definitely detained and questioned. He immediately upon being handcuffed volunteered to the officer that he tried to call for help, but nobody helped him. As far as I know, he wasn’t charged for several weeks while an investigation was carried out. The decision to prosecute was the worst sort of political interference in a judicial matter. It seemed like everybody wanted to arrest him, except for those in possession of the facts (and not many facts were available).
Zig, as for the right to bear arms being stupid, everybody is entitled to an opinion. I haven’t seen the plan that would remove guns from criminal hands in our current situation. So, as long as they are armed, I intend to be. I’ve only pointed a gun at 1 person my whole life and it prevented violence in that instance. So I guess I’m ahead of most folks when it comes to outcomes.
Zig70
You have to understand the origin of the “right to bear arms”. A relatively small number of colonists and successors were having their rights trampled on by the king and Government of the “motherland” and resisted it. This was enforced through the might of the Empire’s armed forces. If most people did not have a rifle or shotgun in their homes, both for hunting and controlling vermin, their rebellion would not have succeeded. And so, fearing an autocratic party might in the future seize power, they enshrined the right to keep and bear arms in their constitution. That does not mean that there cannot be restrictions/regulations or anyone can get a gun, at least through a licensed dealer, and Obama is trying to ensure background checks for all would be purchasers.
Yep, Joe, that is the way it is. In fact, the SCOTUS has ruled that only guns that would be useful to a militia are covered by the 2nd Amendment. (thus I don’t have a right to my shotgun, but I have 2 anyway).
It also applies to my right to feel safe in my person, home and affects. What I have, I hold (where have I heard that before?)
Fair enough Kev.
Let’s talk about this without the boring and predictable left vs right, black vs white, new world order bullshit that has clouded the debate, sadly introduced by those other than yourself to the discussion.
Let’s wind this back to Ruarai’s original post.
I don’t know about your own current family situation, but I have a little girl, she’s very young, and the epicentre of everything to me. Despite her being many many years away from dating or walking home alone at night after visiting her friends or going to a bar. I think often about what advice to give her when she finds herself in these situations and I am not there with my superdad costume on. I do also, I must admit, consider our options in the event of a Balkans style civil war or World War Z style Zombie apocalypse 😉
If I lived somewhere that the stand your ground law was on the statute books, how would I advise her to behave when she found herself being observed when followed by a man in a car, and this is VERY VERY important, a man who is not a cop?
Should I tell her to not worry that the man is in all likelihood a neighbour watch volunteer?
Should I tell her that the world is full of rapists, muggers and killers and that she should always run from people she doesn’t know?
Or should I lock her up until she is legally old enough to carry a firearm and tell her if she feels under threat to shoot first and that I can always console her later if she gets it wrong?
Based on the precedent set by this case, what sort of society should I hope and plan for?
Sp, I’m an old guy with 2 grown sons, one a combat sergeant and the other a dog groomer (both apples fell far from the tree)
These neighborhood watch people do complicate matters in a host of ways. Unofficially official, they have no more authority than Tom, Dick or Harry. Some of them actually give a damn about their neighborhood and others Dirty Harry wannabes.
But under no circumstances should your daughter threaten them, punch them or especially not drive their head into the sidewalk. That is likely to have tragic consequences.
I don’t want to mistake your intent by this post, but is young Trayvon now to be considered a wee lassie?
“I can bait you into a fight and if I start losing I can legally kill you, provided I “believe” myself to be subject to “great bodily harm.”
That’s not strictly true though.There is an “initial aggressor” clause. Apparently A defendant cannot claim self-defence if he “initially provokes the use of force” against himself, which Zimmerman may have done. Crucially though the jurors were not informed of this in the juror instructions (where they are informed of the laws specific to the case).
sp12: I’d have preferred he sat in his rent-a-cop car, like instructed to do so by the real cops
I happened to be in the US when this event occurred and I was amazed how quickly the liberal media and various racist black ‘leaders’ became judge, jury and executioner, impulsively condemning Zimmerman before the facts were known.
There followed a litany of falsehoods fabricated and perpetuated by the media, so much so that some fiction and myth has become ‘fact’.
sp12’s assertion above is one of those myths. It is debunked in Soap in a sponge: The enduring myth that George Zimmerman was told not to get out of his car
sp12: ‘What bed exactly did the teenaged boy make?’
The black (conservative – horror of horrors) commentator alludes to this, and the liberal ‘victim’ creators, in the video link I posted earlier.
Here’s the link again. It’s worth watching.
Paul
You said the boy made his own bed, have the guts to explain what you meant in your own words, don’t post some boring ‘angry’ talking heads video that’s only fit for ADHD US TV consumption.
Likewise, post the audio where Zimmerman is clearly told by the police dispatcher not to pursue the boy, not some boring opinion piece.
Kev
“But under no circumstances should your daughter threaten them, punch them or especially not drive their head into the sidewalk. That is likely to have tragic consequences.”
And you have evidence that Treyvon did this?
Why were you not at the trial to save us all this discussion?
“These neighborhood watch people do complicate matters in a host of ways. ”
Complicate is a lovely word for describing a boy being shot dead by a man who decided to follow him because he didn’t like the look of him.
“I don’t want to mistake your intent by this post, but is young Trayvon now to be considered a wee lassie?”
No, he was someone’s child.
His gender is meaningless with a bullet in his chest.
My reference to my daughter and questions about your own parenthood is to actually pull an opinion out of you as a father as to how you would feel about your own child being shot in the chest by a man whose own petty prejudices caused him to follow and confront your child when they were simply walking home from the shop.
So the issue is not race, but the crazy attitude to guns. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
America compared to the uk shows how stupid the right to bear arms is. It seems to be based on some romantic macho cowboy love. I like guns, I’m not opposed to hunting but I wouldn’t keep a gun in the house.
Zimmerman was definitely detained and questioned. He immediately upon being handcuffed volunteered to the officer that he tried to call for help, but nobody helped him. As far as I know, he wasn’t charged for several weeks while an investigation was carried out. The decision to prosecute was the worst sort of political interference in a judicial matter. It seemed like everybody wanted to arrest him, except for those in possession of the facts (and not many facts were available).
Zig, as for the right to bear arms being stupid, everybody is entitled to an opinion. I haven’t seen the plan that would remove guns from criminal hands in our current situation. So, as long as they are armed, I intend to be. I’ve only pointed a gun at 1 person my whole life and it prevented violence in that instance. So I guess I’m ahead of most folks when it comes to outcomes.
Fair enough Kev.
Let’s talk about this without the boring and predictable left vs right, black vs white, new world order bullshit that has clouded the debate, sadly introduced by those other than yourself to the discussion.
Let’s wind this back to Ruarai’s original post.
I don’t know about your own current family situation, but I have a little girl, she’s very young, and the epicentre of everything to me. Despite her being many many years away from dating or walking home alone at night after visiting her friends or going to a bar. I think often about what advice to give her when she finds herself in these situations and I am not there with my superdad costume on. I do also, I must admit, consider our options in the event of a Balkans style civil war or World War Z style Zombie apocalypse 😉
If I lived somewhere that the stand your ground law was on the statute books, how would I advise her to behave when she found herself being observed when followed by a man in a car, and this is VERY VERY important, a man who is not a cop?
Should I tell her to not worry that the man is in all likelihood a neighbour watch volunteer?
Should I tell her that the world is full of rapists, muggers and killers and that she should always run from people she doesn’t know?
Or should I lock her up until she is legally old enough to carry a firearm and tell her if she feels under threat to shoot first and that I can always console her later if she gets it wrong?
Based on the precedent set by this case, what sort of society should I hope and plan for?
Sp, I’m an old guy with 2 grown sons, one a combat sergeant and the other a dog groomer (both apples fell far from the tree)
These neighborhood watch people do complicate matters in a host of ways. Unofficially official, they have no more authority than Tom, Dick or Harry. Some of them actually give a damn about their neighborhood and others Dirty Harry wannabes.
But under no circumstances should your daughter threaten them, punch them or especially not drive their head into the sidewalk. That is likely to have tragic consequences.
I don’t want to mistake your intent by this post, but is young Trayvon now to be considered a wee lassie?
Kev,
you list what a child in that situation should not do – presumably as a first resort (and it’s far from clear that Martin acted like that as a first resort either); obviously some or all of those actions, I think you’d agree, could be legitimate resorts should one face various types of threats, depending on the nature of the threat and their available options for dealing with it.
But, as a father, what should they do?
The import of this question is greater than ever following this case.
(An aside: Remember, Martin was not found guilty of anything. Simply: there was not enough evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, to convict his stalker on the basis of the evidence presented by the prosecution.)
I think it’s not reasonable to draw general conclusions from a specific incident.
People are not being killed on a daily basis by members of neighbourhood watch committees.
This was a very sad case and those of us remote from it or the court case should not jump to conclusions. Given the evidence reported on our local media, I don;’t think I would have found Zimmerman guilty. There was just too much doubt and we should not deprive people of their freedom based on beliefs and prejudices. The jury system works well most of the time and people should get the benefit of not beyond a reasonable doubt.
Joe –
No one on this thread has argued that Zimmerman should have been found guilty. The initial post bends over backwards to make it clear that the issue presented here is not with the jury’s decision.
The prosecution didn’t compile a case beyond a reasonable doubt. Fine.This isn’t a thread to retry a case, it’s a thread asking (as the eloquent speaker in the posted video touches on):
How should parents, particularly parents of black males – i.e. people who automatically look suspicious simply for being in the eyes of many – advise their kids to handle a situation where they’re being stalked by an agitated pursuer determined to right the injustice of “punks” “always getting away”?
Do you have an opinion on that?
Ruarai,
I’m at a loss. I don’t know how I would deal with it, tragically. I think, although can’t be sure, that i would forbid a child to walk alone in such a situation but to call me and I would go and pick them up or call a taxi. it’s dreadful but we have to live with things that are, rather than things as we would like them to be.
Joe,
no way brother. We don’t have to live with things as they are. That’s what makes life worth living.
sp12: I’d have preferred he sat in his rent-a-cop car, like instructed to do so by the real cops
I happened to be in the US when this event occurred and I was amazed how quickly the liberal media and various racist black ‘leaders’ became judge, jury and executioner, impulsively condemning Zimmerman before the facts were known.
There followed a litany of falsehoods fabricated and perpetuated by the media, so much so that some fiction and myth has become ‘fact’.
sp12’s assertion above is one of those myths. It is debunked in Soap in a sponge: The enduring myth that George Zimmerman was told not to get out of his car
The facts as I know them are as follows. A 17 year old black male was shot and killed last February in Florida by a neighborhood watch coordinator several years his senior. The shooter was in contact with police before the shooting, suffered a busted nose and lacerations to the back of his head in the incident.
There was no evidence to prove the shooter was a racist. Most of the people who live in that community are not white folks. There had been a problem of a string of break-ins in the period leading up to the tragedy. Those reporting the break-ins described the perpetrator as young black men.
IMHO, the result of the trial is fair and impartial. You cannot convict for murder without much more convincing evidence than what was presented.
What would I tell a young black son? Same thing I told my boys at that age, (St. Louis is not a citadel of non-violence). Always presume a man pursuing you is armed.
Paul
You said the boy made his own bed, have the guts to explain what you meant in your own words, don’t post some boring ‘angry’ talking heads video that’s only fit for ADHD US TV consumption.
Likewise, post the audio where Zimmerman is clearly told by the police dispatcher not to pursue the boy, not some boring opinion piece.
Kev
“But under no circumstances should your daughter threaten them, punch them or especially not drive their head into the sidewalk. That is likely to have tragic consequences.”
And you have evidence that Treyvon did this?
Why were you not at the trial to save us all this discussion?
“These neighborhood watch people do complicate matters in a host of ways. ”
Complicate is a lovely word for describing a boy being shot dead by a man who decided to follow him because he didn’t like the look of him.
“I don’t want to mistake your intent by this post, but is young Trayvon now to be considered a wee lassie?”
No, he was someone’s child.
His gender is meaningless with a bullet in his chest.
My reference to my daughter and questions about your own parenthood is to actually pull an opinion out of you as a father as to how you would feel about your own child being shot in the chest by a man whose own petty prejudices caused him to follow and confront your child when they were simply walking home from the shop.
Kev,
when you write:
“Those reporting the break-ins described the perpetrator as young black men.”
Is your point here that this provides context for reasonable suspicion of a young black male (like Trayvon Martin)?
Yes. For example, if a majority of people reporting break-ins said the perpetrators were tall middle-aged white men, I wouldn’t be shocked if some neighborhood watch guy asked me what I was up to, strolling out at night in a February rain storm. Trayvon was also new to the neighborhood, Ruarai, having recently moved up from around Miami because he had been suspended, again, from school.
There is a lot that is really tragic and wrong about this case, Ruarai. It seems like a dozen unfortunate circumstances had to line up at the same time for this awful outcome to come about. I’ve seen racism, Ruarai, up close most of my life. To me, this doesn’t stink of racism, but it doesn’t help to have the politicos and media whores trying to boost their selfish ambitions using this tragedy as a springboard.
[Kev] “Those reporting the break-ins described the perpetrator as young black men.”
[Ruarai] Is your point here that this provides context for reasonable suspicion of a young black male (like Trayvon Martin)?
[Kev] Yes.
Kev,
Seeing Trayvon Martin as suspicious simply because of his ethnic group membership is exactly, exactly, exactly the issue.
In a state where people not only have easy access to concealed firearms liscences but now, since the 2005 Stand Your Ground law was passed, can draw on “self-defense” arguments for using those licensed guns against people they feel threatened by…innocent people will be killed because of nothing more than the prejudice-based suspicions of their killers. You could see this coming before Trayvon Martin. And you can see it coming again, for sure, in the wake of his killer’s acquittal.
People will see the need to defend themselves against people they feel threatened by and for many people, simply seeing members of groups deemed criminally inclined will be enough to trigger feelings of threat – and the right to act in self-defense.
Doubt it?
Here’s America’s most popular cable news show’s Geraldo:
“I see those six ladies in the jury putting themselves on that rainy night, in that housing complex that has just been burglarized by three or four different groups of black youngsters from the adjacent community. So it’s a dark night, a 6-foot-2-inch hoodie-wearing stranger is in the immediate housing complex. How would the ladies of that jury have reacted? I submit that if they were armed, they would have shot and killed Trayvon Martin a lot sooner than George Zimmerman did. This is self-defense,” – Geraldo Rivera, Fox News.
Kev – this is the logical outcome of your argument that it’s legitimate for people to attribute suspicion to any young black male since it’s thought/known that some black males are committing robberies.
Your argument is a common one. And I’m shattered by its implications. It’s exactly why I asked what black parents in particular should advise their kids to do – kids who will be, by your own admission, frequently considered suspicious not because of what they are doing but because of the color of their skin. And these suspicions have had and will continue to have, especially post-StandYourGround, lethal consequences.
Attributing suspicion to a young man simply because of his skin color is racial profiling defined.
Wash Post columnist Cohen made exactly your argument 2 days ago Kev. He said:
“In New York City, blacks make up a quarter of the population, yet they represent 78 percent of all shooting suspects — almost all of them young men. We know them from the nightly news.
Those statistics represent the justification for New York City’s controversial stop-and-frisk program, which amounts to racial profiling writ large. After all, if young black males are your shooters, then it ought to be young black males whom the police stop and frisk.”
I want to be very clear about one point. Recognizing racial profiling for what it is is not simply recognition of an attitude, a perspective or a prejudice. Racial profiling, particularly in the “self-defense” age of StandYourGround, as described by Fox’s Geraldo above, makes being black – simply being black – in America legitimate grounds for armed vigilantes to pursue black kids walking home from the candy store.
Kev, consider The Atlantic’s TNC on this point:
“we should take a moment to appreciate the import of Cohen’s words. They hold that neither I, nor my twelve year old son, nor any of my nephews, nor any of my male family members deserve to be judged as individuals by the state. Instead we must be seen as members of a class more inclined to criminality. It does not matter that the vast, vast majority of black men commit no violent crime at all. Cohen argues that that majority should unduly bear the burden of police invasion, because of a minority who happens to live among us.
Richard Cohen concedes that this is a violation, but it is one he believes black people, for the good of their country, must learn to live with. Effectively he is arguing for a kind of racist public safety tax. The tax may, or may not, end with a frisking. More contact with the police, and people who want to be police, necessarily means more deadly tragedy. Thus Cohen is not simply calling for my son and I to bear the brunt of “violation,” he is calling for us to run a higher risk of death and serious injury at the hands of the state. Effectively he is calling for Sean Bell’s fianceé, Trayvon Martin’s parents, Amadou Diallo’s mother, Prince Jones’ daughter, the relatives of Kathryn Johnston to accept the deaths of their love ones as the price of doing business in America.”
Kev – surely your argument that it’s legitimate to be suspicious of a kid simply because he is black is not only morally wrong but just too dangerous an operating principle to be acceptable.
Like Geraldo said, not only might the women of the jury have shot someone suspicious, i.e. black, tall and wearing a hoodie, sooner than Zimmerman did, they’d have done so confident that StandYourGround has changed the rules in their favor.
This is plain wrong.
Kev,
you list what a child in that situation should not do – presumably as a first resort (and it’s far from clear that Martin acted like that as a first resort either); obviously some or all of those actions, I think you’d agree, could be legitimate resorts should one face various types of threats, depending on the nature of the threat and their available options for dealing with it.
But, as a father, what should they do?
The import of this question is greater than ever following this case.
(An aside: Remember, Martin was not found guilty of anything. Simply: there was not enough evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, to convict his stalker on the basis of the evidence presented by the prosecution.)
I think it’s not reasonable to draw general conclusions from a specific incident.
People are not being killed on a daily basis by members of neighbourhood watch committees.
This was a very sad case and those of us remote from it or the court case should not jump to conclusions. Given the evidence reported on our local media, I don;’t think I would have found Zimmerman guilty. There was just too much doubt and we should not deprive people of their freedom based on beliefs and prejudices. The jury system works well most of the time and people should get the benefit of not beyond a reasonable doubt.
Joe –
No one on this thread has argued that Zimmerman should have been found guilty. The initial post bends over backwards to make it clear that the issue presented here is not with the jury’s decision.
The prosecution didn’t compile a case beyond a reasonable doubt. Fine.This isn’t a thread to retry a case, it’s a thread asking (as the eloquent speaker in the posted video touches on):
How should parents, particularly parents of black males – i.e. people who automatically look suspicious simply for being in the eyes of many – advise their kids to handle a situation where they’re being stalked by an agitated pursuer determined to right the injustice of “punks” “always getting away”?
Do you have an opinion on that?
Ruarai,
I’m at a loss. I don’t know how I would deal with it, tragically. I think, although can’t be sure, that i would forbid a child to walk alone in such a situation but to call me and I would go and pick them up or call a taxi. it’s dreadful but we have to live with things that are, rather than things as we would like them to be.
Joe,
no way brother. We don’t have to live with things as they are. That’s what makes life worth living.
Here’s another black (talking head, as sp12 calls them) -Charles Barkley, actually – expressing an objective and sensible view of the recent proceedings, (much more useful than some of the bleeding-heart liberal drivel I’m reading here).
The facts as I know them are as follows. A 17 year old black male was shot and killed last February in Florida by a neighborhood watch coordinator several years his senior. The shooter was in contact with police before the shooting, suffered a busted nose and lacerations to the back of his head in the incident.
There was no evidence to prove the shooter was a racist. Most of the people who live in that community are not white folks. There had been a problem of a string of break-ins in the period leading up to the tragedy. Those reporting the break-ins described the perpetrator as young black men.
IMHO, the result of the trial is fair and impartial. You cannot convict for murder without much more convincing evidence than what was presented.
What would I tell a young black son? Same thing I told my boys at that age, (St. Louis is not a citadel of non-violence). Always presume a man pursuing you is armed.
Here’s another black (talking head, as sp12 calls them) -Charles Barkley, actually – expressing an objective and sensible view of the recent proceedings, (much more useful than some of the bleeding-heart liberal drivel I’m reading here).
In the words of Inigo Montoya
“You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Kev,
when you write:
“Those reporting the break-ins described the perpetrator as young black men.”
Is your point here that this provides context for reasonable suspicion of a young black male (like Trayvon Martin)?
Yes. For example, if a majority of people reporting break-ins said the perpetrators were tall middle-aged white men, I wouldn’t be shocked if some neighborhood watch guy asked me what I was up to, strolling out at night in a February rain storm. Trayvon was also new to the neighborhood, Ruarai, having recently moved up from around Miami because he had been suspended, again, from school.
There is a lot that is really tragic and wrong about this case, Ruarai. It seems like a dozen unfortunate circumstances had to line up at the same time for this awful outcome to come about. I’ve seen racism, Ruarai, up close most of my life. To me, this doesn’t stink of racism, but it doesn’t help to have the politicos and media whores trying to boost their selfish ambitions using this tragedy as a springboard.
[Kev] “Those reporting the break-ins described the perpetrator as young black men.”
[Ruarai] Is your point here that this provides context for reasonable suspicion of a young black male (like Trayvon Martin)?
[Kev] Yes.
Kev,
Seeing Trayvon Martin as suspicious simply because of his ethnic group membership is exactly, exactly, exactly the issue.
In a state where people not only have easy access to concealed firearms liscences but now, since the 2005 Stand Your Ground law was passed, can draw on “self-defense” arguments for using those licensed guns against people they feel threatened by…innocent people will be killed because of nothing more than the prejudice-based suspicions of their killers. You could see this coming before Trayvon Martin. And you can see it coming again, for sure, in the wake of his killer’s acquittal.
People will see the need to defend themselves against people they feel threatened by and for many people, simply seeing members of groups deemed criminally inclined will be enough to trigger feelings of threat – and the right to act in self-defense.
Doubt it?
Here’s America’s most popular cable news show’s Geraldo:
“I see those six ladies in the jury putting themselves on that rainy night, in that housing complex that has just been burglarized by three or four different groups of black youngsters from the adjacent community. So it’s a dark night, a 6-foot-2-inch hoodie-wearing stranger is in the immediate housing complex. How would the ladies of that jury have reacted? I submit that if they were armed, they would have shot and killed Trayvon Martin a lot sooner than George Zimmerman did. This is self-defense,” – Geraldo Rivera, Fox News.
Kev – this is the logical outcome of your argument that it’s legitimate for people to attribute suspicion to any young black male since it’s thought/known that some black males are committing robberies.
Your argument is a common one. And I’m shattered by its implications. It’s exactly why I asked what black parents in particular should advise their kids to do – kids who will be, by your own admission, frequently considered suspicious not because of what they are doing but because of the color of their skin. And these suspicions have had and will continue to have, especially post-StandYourGround, lethal consequences.
Attributing suspicion to a young man simply because of his skin color is racial profiling defined.
Wash Post columnist Cohen made exactly your argument 2 days ago Kev. He said:
“In New York City, blacks make up a quarter of the population, yet they represent 78 percent of all shooting suspects — almost all of them young men. We know them from the nightly news.
Those statistics represent the justification for New York City’s controversial stop-and-frisk program, which amounts to racial profiling writ large. After all, if young black males are your shooters, then it ought to be young black males whom the police stop and frisk.”
I want to be very clear about one point. Recognizing racial profiling for what it is is not simply recognition of an attitude, a perspective or a prejudice. Racial profiling, particularly in the “self-defense” age of StandYourGround, as described by Fox’s Geraldo above, makes being black – simply being black – in America legitimate grounds for armed vigilantes to pursue black kids walking home from the candy store.
Kev, consider The Atlantic’s TNC on this point:
“we should take a moment to appreciate the import of Cohen’s words. They hold that neither I, nor my twelve year old son, nor any of my nephews, nor any of my male family members deserve to be judged as individuals by the state. Instead we must be seen as members of a class more inclined to criminality. It does not matter that the vast, vast majority of black men commit no violent crime at all. Cohen argues that that majority should unduly bear the burden of police invasion, because of a minority who happens to live among us.
Richard Cohen concedes that this is a violation, but it is one he believes black people, for the good of their country, must learn to live with. Effectively he is arguing for a kind of racist public safety tax. The tax may, or may not, end with a frisking. More contact with the police, and people who want to be police, necessarily means more deadly tragedy. Thus Cohen is not simply calling for my son and I to bear the brunt of “violation,” he is calling for us to run a higher risk of death and serious injury at the hands of the state. Effectively he is calling for Sean Bell’s fianceé, Trayvon Martin’s parents, Amadou Diallo’s mother, Prince Jones’ daughter, the relatives of Kathryn Johnston to accept the deaths of their love ones as the price of doing business in America.”
Kev – surely your argument that it’s legitimate to be suspicious of a kid simply because he is black is not only morally wrong but just too dangerous an operating principle to be acceptable.
Like Geraldo said, not only might the women of the jury have shot someone suspicious, i.e. black, tall and wearing a hoodie, sooner than Zimmerman did, they’d have done so confident that StandYourGround has changed the rules in their favor.
This is plain wrong.
“….seeing Trayvon .Martin as suspicious simply because of his ethnic group…”
No that is not the conclusion to draw, unless that is you commence your deliberations at the default setting that racism is the key.
It was not “simply” because he was black. The use of ‘simply’ in this context carries a lot of prejudicial baggage with it.
Martin was seemingly deemed suspicious because of a local history of crimes perpetrated by people described by the victims as young black men. Trayvon fitted that description and in that regard being suspicious of him was fully justified.
At this point it is important to point out that suspicion does not equal guilt. Probably a large number of people stopped by police turn out to be innocent. In the UK the police will tell someone why they are being stopped. People are then expected to answer the reasonable suspicions of the police.
I expect the police stop people on a regular basis as they fit a very limited description of a suspect provided by a, sometimes, distraught victim of crime. Their doing so is justified if it occurs near the time and/or in the same area as the reported crime has occurred.
If the victim reported the suspect to be wearing a ‘red coat’, or ‘riding a bicycle’ would we not expect the cops to stop anyone they see wearing a red jacket (or jumper, or T shirt), or riding a bike?
If you promote a situation where the police are overly sensitive about reacting as they would normally simply because of someone’s ethnicity that in itself is racist policing.