Trayvon Martin's Death, A Tragedy of Errors
Observations After the Verdict
1. George Zimmerman was part of an organized and recognized Neighborhood Watch. He had had some training this capacity. The Neighborhood Watch had been legally formed in response to real crime problems. George Zimmerman was legally authorized to carry a gun for his own self-protection. He was the Captain of the neighborhood watch. He observed someone whom he did not recognize, whom he felt was out of place, and whom he felt was behaving suspiciously. This person was wearing a hoodie, which reminded Zimmerman of those criminals who had been causing problems in the community. So Zimmerman followed him. Zimmerman called the police dispatcher, who rightly told Zimmerman to disengage from following, because a police car had been dispatched.
2. If Zimmerman did NOT stop following this young man, then he made a major error. Was it criminal? Maybe. Was it malicious? I don't think so. Was it racially motivated? I cannot see that it was. Was race a factor. Probably, in that this young man fit the description of those who had purportedly been wreaking havoc upon this neighborhood. Was it a poor judgment? Obviously. Was it stupid? Absolutely--in hindsight.
3. Trayvon Martin was in an unfamiliar neighborhood. But he had every right to be doing what he was doing while crossing through the neighborhood. He was doing nothing wrong. He had been to the store to buy a soft drink and candy. He saw a white guy following him. Likely because he was afraid and suspicious of the motives of this older fat white or Hispanic guy following him, he was hiding along the side of the building and had his hoodie up. It is not illegal to wear a hoodie, it was afteral said to be raining. Placing myself in this young man's shoes, I can understand how he may have felt that having his hoodie up could have been advantageous while assessing the perceived threat of being followed by this unknown man. He man have felt that his youth was a disadvantage and concealing himself would make him a more formidable victim to a potential assault. Or he may have simply been aggravated that Zimmerman was following him--for whatever reason. He was doing nothing illegal. Even if he had suspected that the guy was part of a neighborhood watch and have been aggravated by being wrongly suspected of wrongdoing--it would be understandable--bur really, how could he have known this? Indications are that he did not.
4. At this point, with George Zimmerman being the only surviving witness, only HE knows what happened during the confrontation. He claimed, with some authority as the Captain of the Neighborhood Watch, that Martin ambushed him while he was on his way back to his car, as I understand it. The only part of this that I find to be suspect, is whether or not he had truly disengaged from following this kid. To me, it is pretty apparent that the kid did indeed attack him and was apparently kicking his ass.
5. Much has been said about self-defense in this case. In my personal estimation, having taught self-defense classes, I can see how this mere teenager, who had apparently been in confrontations before and had some sense of how to preserve oneself, chose to confront his perceived nemesis on his own terms, which is often strategically advantageous. If Zimmerman was still following him, I can fully understand how Martin would have felt compelled and justified in jumping him. I mean, what right did the this fat guy have to be bothering this kid at all? Had he identified himself as the Captain of the Neighborhood Watch? No, not according to what I have heard. So when we invoke self-defense, we would almost be splitting hairs to say that Martin did not have a right to confront Zimmerman--a fat-ass over-zealous white guy--if indeed he was still pursuing him. It was dark and no one else was around. For crying out loud, if Zimmerman had the right to use deadly force and kill this kid because he felt his life or limb was in danger--did not Trayvon Martin have a similar right to physically confront, smack, or constrain this unknown fat potential assailant--for the same reasons. If a reasonable person had been in the place of this kid, armed only with a beverage and candy, in an unfamiliar neighborhood, would he not have reasonably felt that his own life and limb was in danger? In my estimation, although it was obviously, again in hindsight, the wrong thing to do--was it not a reasonable reaction to resort to physically protection--albeit, proactively? What would you have done? The wrong thing, or something else?
In most self-defense instruction, we are taught to never allow yourself to become a victim, to not hesitate, to act decisively and harshly when it comes to protecting yourself. Martin may have learned this precept on the streets. He may have learned it in a self-defense class. He may have learned it on TV. He may have acted instinctively. But if he reasonably thought that his life or limb was in danger--his own self-defensive actions would be condoned by many self-defense instructors. However, in this case, it led to his death.
6. Local Law-Enforcement examined the evidence. They quickly came to the conclusion that according to the evidence available and according to the law, that they had no choice but to release George Zimmerman. It is likely that Zimmerman's reputation as a good and solid citizen with evident good intent figured into this equation. But the available facts are what they based their decision to release Zimmerman on. Undoubtedly, they recognized the terrible tragedy that had occurred, but by simply following and interpreting the laws, they did not have sufficient evidence--none that is--to indicate that Zimmerman had not acted in self-defense. They let him go. My guess is that Zimmerman's life had already been ruined by this terrible event--but there is no indication other that Zimmerman MAY have made a bad decision. He had not acted hatefully. He had not acted unreasonably. He had screwed up big time. He had killed an innocent kid. But the law recognizes that such things can happen. It was a big tragic mistake. Local Law Enforcement acted correctly. This is now more clear than ever.
7. Trayvon Martin's family was understandably upset. They had every right to be; as parents, they had every right to question and delve into the circumstances of the case. They should have. To not have done so would have been negligent.
8. The media jumped all over this. They intentionally distorted the facts and misrepresented the circumstances. Why? I can only speculate. Maybe the Liberal Media mindset caused them to see sinister motives where none existed. Maybe they simply wanted a story. Maybe they felt that it was their duty as the press to merely call this to the public's attention so that a possible injustice could be more closely examined. But they were dishonest about it. they misreported it. So often I see that thosw with such a biased crusader mindset somehow finds it okay to ignore time-tested laws of honesty because they feel that honorable ends justify dishonorable means. Once again, this post-modern Liberal rethinking of the basic laws of decency upon which civilization is founded, have proven to be incorrect. The arrogance of this mind-set is once again shown to be absurd.
9. The politicians piled on, fanned by the medias dishonest representation of the facts. Al Sharpton, for one, who calls himself a Christian Reverend, fanned the fires of racial hatred--because this is wha t Al Sharpton does. Al Sharpton assumed to know things that he had no way of knowing about the case. He assumed the worst possible case scenario and further distorted the facts because this is what he does. He divides. He plays the race card even where none exists. Sharpton and others have made careers of fanning the fires of racial hatred. If they taught the true tenants of Christianity, he would not have a job. Al Sharpton thrives on divisive hatred based on race. I cannot even hod this against him. Sharpton, charlatan reverend though he is, serves a purpose. He is a racially-motivated political activist. His hatred of white people is evident. This is the role he plays in life. This is what he does. If there is a hint of an opportunity to sew racial hatred, Al Sharpton is there. This is more-or-less the same role that many others play who piled on in this case. But what about those who are supposed to be racially neutral? Such as the President of the United States. Or the Attorney General of the United States--who by the way--had no business weighing i n on this local matter at all. If it is not evident that these men are racially biased--are themselves racists as reflected by their actions regarding this case--then those failing to see this are simply blind.
10. President Obama has an obligation to represent all Americans. he should not have assuaged himself into this case as an African American. He should not have assuaged his influence as the Chief Executive of this nation in this local case at all. It does not matter if he feels that Trayvon Martin looked like a son if he had had one. He does not have a son. President Obama, revealed himself as the racist hat he is, by weighing in on this case. He did not know the facts. he spoke--just as so many others have spoken in this case--out his ass--without the benefit of the facts. Never mind that he may have a deserved racial chip on his shoulder that caused him to feel a personal emotional involvement in this case. A President of the United States of America does not have this power or right. He overstepped his bounds and unjustly sought to influence the outcome of a local matter where he should not have. He used his power, not to try to find the truth, but to further divide the races of or already racially divided country. How dare him even that he could compare himself to President Abraham Lincoln. How dare him.
11. So what has been served by the Attorney General of the USA or The Attorney General of Florida, or local prosecutors, or all the others who piled onto this case for political advantage and assuaged their influence where it was unneeded, unsought, unwanted, unwarranted, unjust, and unusual. What? Millions of dollars, more hatred, more racial division, more dishonesty, more disengenuosity , more misuse, and more injustice?
13. Do the parents of Trayon Martin have the basis for a civil case against Zimmerman for his reckless, albeit "legal" behavior that led to the unjustified death of their son? I am not an attorney, but I am a reasonable and rationale person. I think they do have a good case against him. That appears to me all that they ever had. Does he have any money to serve as reparations? Has Zimmerman not already paid considerably for his mistake? Should they pursue a civil case against him? It is a costly thing to do. He has no money. Would a jury rule differently? Who knows. Would a reasonable persons in similar circumstances pursue a Civil Case Against Zimmerman. I think not. Would I if I were in their shoes. Probably--maybe--or maybe I would just let it go at this point as another one of those tragic mindless life events that inevitably happens to each of us. Life is too short.
14. When my daughter youngest daughter attended high school in the community where we then lived, a nice young man whom she knew and went to classes with, was driving down a main street near where we lived a random limb feel from a giant old oak tree and smashed his car and killed him. I don't recall whether the family sought any kind of reparations from the city or the property owner or anyone else. I suppose fault could have been found that someone under some definition of something was to blame for this tragic thing that happened. It was surely awful. It undoubtedly disrupted his parents and siblings and classmates lives and changed them forever. This young man was unable to fulfill any measure of his hopes and dreams. It was awful. No doubt about it.
The boy chose to go wherever it was that he was going at the particular moment that placed him under the falling tree limb. Was he at fault? It was his choice. but he did not know that this course of action would place him in a situation that would end his life. The city or the property owner might well have been inclined--especially in retrospect to have done something to have prevented this from happening. The parents might well have felt that they should not have allowed him to drive their car when they did, moved to this wonderful little town when they did, or have made any number of other choices. Someone could have been blamed for the young man's tragic demise. It is tragic.
No, it is not exactly the same, with George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin's situation and choices. But the fact remains that neither of these people set out to hate or harm or even encounter the other that fateful night. If there could be an instant life replay where one or the other or any number of other people could change the events leading up to this tragedy, they would do so. Don't think for a minute that George Zimmerman has not been held to account for his actions--however malignant or benign they may have been. He has, and he will, continue to pay for his actions forever--as did Trayvon Martin. But why does it have to be anything more than it was--an unfortunate set of choices and circumstances that ended as it did--much as did those that placed my daughter's classmate under a falling limb.
15. Was Trayvon Martin's civil rights violated? Did George Zimmerman commit a hate crime? Everyone's civil rights are violated in some way daily. It is unfortunate, but these kinds of crimes against humanity will never be eliminated by laws. They can only be affected by changing men's hearts. Well, after the press weighed in, and the politicians weighed in, and the President of the United States weighed in, and a publicity-seeking prosecutor weighed in, and the entire judicial system was skewed in favor of finding George Zimmerman guilty of a crime--and after years of legal wrangling and expense and discussion, a jury of peers was approved by all parties and seated. They were women, mothers, black and white. After a public trial was held on TV, and after a Judge made many concessions to the prosecution down to the last day--providing an opportunity for the jury to consist on a lesser charge that was not even asked for by the prosecution initially--but which they had apparently scrambled to have approved at the last hour--the jury found George Zimmerman Not Guilty of the crimes for which he had been charged. It took them a short time and was apparently unanimous very quickly.
Still, throngs of people are protesting. Racial prejudice and inequality is being accused, foul is being cried. Racial division is being promulgated. Racism is being fueled. I am sorry. The law may be screwed up--may be, maybe. But it is the law--until it is changed. No law is perfect. Most laws have undesirable side effects in some cases. The overall net net positive affect has to be considered. George Zimmerman was found Not Guilty of violating the Law of the Land. This was a very public, very media monitored, very media biased case. The outcome is what it is. It is also the same outcome as the local system arrived at initially. Yet this case has and is being leveraged as a race crime. I don't get it. What else can be done? Are we supposed to try this man over and over and over again until the outcome is what the media and race-based politicians want it to be? That ain't the way America is supposed to work. All I can consistently say is that this entire event and the circus that has surrounded it was, is, and will continue to be a terrible tragedy--just as was the tragedy of the tree killing my daughters young friend.
Comments