Saturday, 20 July 2013 11:21 am
(no subject)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
deckardcanineI have a minority opinion, so unpopular that I’ve been reluctant to spell it out. But that’s exactly why I should: Too few others have done so. And given how popular the subject remains after a week, I can’t keep it under wraps much longer:
George Zimmerman is probably innocent where Trayvon Martin is concerned. Both legally and ethically.
Many people carry on like Martin did absolutely nothing wrong that evening while Zimmerman did a pseudo-KKK lynching. That is not the story I pieced together from sensible testimonies. Frankly, I see no reason to dismiss Zimmerman’s version.
In a neighborhood that had had unsolved burglaries lately, this official watchman saw a young man walking on lawns and looking in windows. It was for this reason—not the hoodie, the contents of the youth’s pockets, or his skin tone (which Zimmerman apparently couldn’t determine right away)—that the watchman reported him to the police. When the dispatcher asked for more details, Zimmerman got out of his car and followed Martin to get a better look. When the dispatcher said to stop following, Zimmerman agreed. Whether he complied right away is unclear to me, but that sort of mistake merits nothing worse than a reprimand in my book. Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin when the latter reappeared speaking aggressively. Before they could settle anything verbally, Martin had pinned Zimmerman to the sidewalk and was banging his head against it. Zimmerman called out for help, but none was immediately forthcoming. Martin noticed the gun on Zimmerman’s person and reached for it, but Zimmerman reached it first. When that unpleasant spectacle was over, Zimmerman called the police again.
If I’d had the self-confidence to join a neighborhood watch, I might have made all the same moves.
I don’t swear by all these details. Zimmerman may have made some up. Perhaps between his head banging and the general whirlwind stress of that night, he remains hazy on the fine points. That would be enough to explain his more doubtful claims from early in the case. But I cannot deny the picture painted by the audio recording (where the scream has been primarily identified as Zimmerman’s) and corroborated by both bodies: Zimmerman’s injuries were in keeping with a sidewalk beating, while the only non-gunshot wounds on Martin were self-inflicted knuckle scratches.
This alone is enough cause to acquit Zimmerman, but I don’t want you thinking of him as a race-reversed O.J. Simpson. If he’s more than likely to have committed murder, then why did the prosecution pull such stupid jerk moves? I’m thinking especially of Rachael Jeantel, Martin’s “friend” who has proved herself a liar with conflicting stories, repeatedly used a racist term that she claims has taken on a nonracial meaning, and faulted Zimmerman first for confronting Martin and then for not confronting him. That said, I am inclined to believe her when she mentions things that aren’t favorable to Martin’s case, such as his twice-a-week weed habit, because why make that up? (I’m aware of the theory that the prosecution bombed on purpose as secret accomplices, but I’d hate to be that cynical.)
Complain all you want about how the “victim” got put on trial, but the character study was relevant for making Zimmerman’s story credible. I don’t assume that Martin really was about to burglarize, but he did have a record of theft. I don’t assume that he was on drugs at the time or that his drugs made him more violent (an effect that even marijuana can have on some people), but it would make sense. I know for a fact that he had a taste for violence, as reflected in a publicized text where he said he’d fight someone again because the opponent didn’t bleed enough the first time.
Maybe you believe all this but still think that Zimmerman lacked just cause for shooting. To me, it doesn’t matter that Martin was under 18 and unarmed; he forfeited his right to life the moment he used the sidewalk as a deadly weapon. He may not have deserved death exactly, but he asked for it. And you’d better believe that Zimmerman might well have died or suffered permanent brain damage without the gunshot. It was too late to run, he was no match in hand-to-hand combat, and calling for help wasn’t working fast enough. Shooting was a last resort. I haven’t subscribed to extreme pacifism since college, and I imagine most Zimmerman opponents don’t either.
It’s worth noting that Zimmerman’s defense has nothing to do with Florida’s stand-your-ground law, which applies only when the shooter also has the option of nonviolent escape. If anyone here tried to take advantage of SYG, Martin did. I don’t know for sure whether the costs of SYG outweigh the benefits, but it’s just one way that the case became a symbol for an irrelevant cause.
The other way, of course, pertains to race. Were it not for baiters like Al Sharpton and, let’s face it, Barack Obama, we would not jump to the conclusion that Zimmerman profiled on that basis, much less that he killed on that basis. The baiters also ignore cases where the races are reversed and the verdict comes out the same, so let’s not attribute racism to the jury either.
As for the assertion that Martin was equally justified in attacking Zimmerman, ahahaha no. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Martin wasn’t about to commit any crime when Zimmerman started tailing him. Granted, a neighborhood watchman isn’t as readily identifiable as a policeman. He may well have thought that this stalker was the real troublemaker. According to Jeantel’s theory, he mistook Zimmerman for a gay rapist, which may point to nasty profiling in its own right. Well, what do you do in that situation, particularly if the stalker has lost sight of you? Launching right into a potentially deadly battle was the wrong answer, from a practical as well as moral perspective.
Many in the mainstream media have ticked me off in their coverage of the case. You may recall the NBC scandal about the abridged recording of Zimmerman’s phone conversation, which made it sound like race was at the forefront of his mind. Some sources neglected or declined to make parallel references, calling one party by first name and the other by last name. ABC’s early released photos of Zimmerman had his injuries edited out and possibly his skin lightened for racially divisive contrast. Meanwhile, early photos of Martin were early photos of Martin, from at least five years earlier. (In fairness to the news agencies, maybe the Martin family didn’t want to give them anything more recent.) It all adds up to a raw deal in service to a tired yet incensing narrative.
The unfairness doesn’t end with the news media, the prosecution, and famous people’s opinions. The judge in the case was openly partial and made rare violations that, under normal circumstances, would get her disbarred. I was none too pleased to learn of the all-female jury either, which may sound sexist to you, but it makes for a fishy concept of peers. Thank God they didn’t cave to emotion over reason.
I feel so sorry for Zimmerman. In the unlikely event that I meet and recognize him, I will buy him a drink of his choice.
Oh, and while I’m at it, I’ll air my opinion on the Marissa Alexander case, which concluded months ago but has come up in comparison.
Now, I agree that 20 years is way too long for someone who neither killed nor tried to kill. Whatever Florida’s SYG law does, the state’s mandatory minimum sentencing law has got to go. But it is that law—again, not racism—that led to such a sentence.
“But why should she have been convicted in the first place?” Well, SYG doesn’t cover for people who leave the scene of a conflict and return with a gun. This would be defensible only if Alexander thought her husband posed an immediate threat to her children, which AFAIK she didn’t say in court. And despite Joe Biden’s ignorant advice, many states don’t allow warning shots, and those that do carry restrictions. For example, you’d have to fire either downward or upward, not into a wall, especially a thin one like at Alexander’s house. This is all assuming that the husband was even half the abuser she makes him out to be.
And forget about the “striking similarities” in the John Henry Spooner case. He had much worse grounds for "self-defense."
If you want me to cite sources on claims in this post, just tell me which parts you don’t readily accept. I thought of citing them already, but there are so darn many that I’d rather cite as needed.
George Zimmerman is probably innocent where Trayvon Martin is concerned. Both legally and ethically.
Many people carry on like Martin did absolutely nothing wrong that evening while Zimmerman did a pseudo-KKK lynching. That is not the story I pieced together from sensible testimonies. Frankly, I see no reason to dismiss Zimmerman’s version.
In a neighborhood that had had unsolved burglaries lately, this official watchman saw a young man walking on lawns and looking in windows. It was for this reason—not the hoodie, the contents of the youth’s pockets, or his skin tone (which Zimmerman apparently couldn’t determine right away)—that the watchman reported him to the police. When the dispatcher asked for more details, Zimmerman got out of his car and followed Martin to get a better look. When the dispatcher said to stop following, Zimmerman agreed. Whether he complied right away is unclear to me, but that sort of mistake merits nothing worse than a reprimand in my book. Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin when the latter reappeared speaking aggressively. Before they could settle anything verbally, Martin had pinned Zimmerman to the sidewalk and was banging his head against it. Zimmerman called out for help, but none was immediately forthcoming. Martin noticed the gun on Zimmerman’s person and reached for it, but Zimmerman reached it first. When that unpleasant spectacle was over, Zimmerman called the police again.
If I’d had the self-confidence to join a neighborhood watch, I might have made all the same moves.
I don’t swear by all these details. Zimmerman may have made some up. Perhaps between his head banging and the general whirlwind stress of that night, he remains hazy on the fine points. That would be enough to explain his more doubtful claims from early in the case. But I cannot deny the picture painted by the audio recording (where the scream has been primarily identified as Zimmerman’s) and corroborated by both bodies: Zimmerman’s injuries were in keeping with a sidewalk beating, while the only non-gunshot wounds on Martin were self-inflicted knuckle scratches.
This alone is enough cause to acquit Zimmerman, but I don’t want you thinking of him as a race-reversed O.J. Simpson. If he’s more than likely to have committed murder, then why did the prosecution pull such stupid jerk moves? I’m thinking especially of Rachael Jeantel, Martin’s “friend” who has proved herself a liar with conflicting stories, repeatedly used a racist term that she claims has taken on a nonracial meaning, and faulted Zimmerman first for confronting Martin and then for not confronting him. That said, I am inclined to believe her when she mentions things that aren’t favorable to Martin’s case, such as his twice-a-week weed habit, because why make that up? (I’m aware of the theory that the prosecution bombed on purpose as secret accomplices, but I’d hate to be that cynical.)
Complain all you want about how the “victim” got put on trial, but the character study was relevant for making Zimmerman’s story credible. I don’t assume that Martin really was about to burglarize, but he did have a record of theft. I don’t assume that he was on drugs at the time or that his drugs made him more violent (an effect that even marijuana can have on some people), but it would make sense. I know for a fact that he had a taste for violence, as reflected in a publicized text where he said he’d fight someone again because the opponent didn’t bleed enough the first time.
Maybe you believe all this but still think that Zimmerman lacked just cause for shooting. To me, it doesn’t matter that Martin was under 18 and unarmed; he forfeited his right to life the moment he used the sidewalk as a deadly weapon. He may not have deserved death exactly, but he asked for it. And you’d better believe that Zimmerman might well have died or suffered permanent brain damage without the gunshot. It was too late to run, he was no match in hand-to-hand combat, and calling for help wasn’t working fast enough. Shooting was a last resort. I haven’t subscribed to extreme pacifism since college, and I imagine most Zimmerman opponents don’t either.
It’s worth noting that Zimmerman’s defense has nothing to do with Florida’s stand-your-ground law, which applies only when the shooter also has the option of nonviolent escape. If anyone here tried to take advantage of SYG, Martin did. I don’t know for sure whether the costs of SYG outweigh the benefits, but it’s just one way that the case became a symbol for an irrelevant cause.
The other way, of course, pertains to race. Were it not for baiters like Al Sharpton and, let’s face it, Barack Obama, we would not jump to the conclusion that Zimmerman profiled on that basis, much less that he killed on that basis. The baiters also ignore cases where the races are reversed and the verdict comes out the same, so let’s not attribute racism to the jury either.
As for the assertion that Martin was equally justified in attacking Zimmerman, ahahaha no. Let’s say for the sake of argument that Martin wasn’t about to commit any crime when Zimmerman started tailing him. Granted, a neighborhood watchman isn’t as readily identifiable as a policeman. He may well have thought that this stalker was the real troublemaker. According to Jeantel’s theory, he mistook Zimmerman for a gay rapist, which may point to nasty profiling in its own right. Well, what do you do in that situation, particularly if the stalker has lost sight of you? Launching right into a potentially deadly battle was the wrong answer, from a practical as well as moral perspective.
Many in the mainstream media have ticked me off in their coverage of the case. You may recall the NBC scandal about the abridged recording of Zimmerman’s phone conversation, which made it sound like race was at the forefront of his mind. Some sources neglected or declined to make parallel references, calling one party by first name and the other by last name. ABC’s early released photos of Zimmerman had his injuries edited out and possibly his skin lightened for racially divisive contrast. Meanwhile, early photos of Martin were early photos of Martin, from at least five years earlier. (In fairness to the news agencies, maybe the Martin family didn’t want to give them anything more recent.) It all adds up to a raw deal in service to a tired yet incensing narrative.
The unfairness doesn’t end with the news media, the prosecution, and famous people’s opinions. The judge in the case was openly partial and made rare violations that, under normal circumstances, would get her disbarred. I was none too pleased to learn of the all-female jury either, which may sound sexist to you, but it makes for a fishy concept of peers. Thank God they didn’t cave to emotion over reason.
I feel so sorry for Zimmerman. In the unlikely event that I meet and recognize him, I will buy him a drink of his choice.
Oh, and while I’m at it, I’ll air my opinion on the Marissa Alexander case, which concluded months ago but has come up in comparison.
Now, I agree that 20 years is way too long for someone who neither killed nor tried to kill. Whatever Florida’s SYG law does, the state’s mandatory minimum sentencing law has got to go. But it is that law—again, not racism—that led to such a sentence.
“But why should she have been convicted in the first place?” Well, SYG doesn’t cover for people who leave the scene of a conflict and return with a gun. This would be defensible only if Alexander thought her husband posed an immediate threat to her children, which AFAIK she didn’t say in court. And despite Joe Biden’s ignorant advice, many states don’t allow warning shots, and those that do carry restrictions. For example, you’d have to fire either downward or upward, not into a wall, especially a thin one like at Alexander’s house. This is all assuming that the husband was even half the abuser she makes him out to be.
And forget about the “striking similarities” in the John Henry Spooner case. He had much worse grounds for "self-defense."
If you want me to cite sources on claims in this post, just tell me which parts you don’t readily accept. I thought of citing them already, but there are so darn many that I’d rather cite as needed.