Guest Post: Reflections on the Zimmerman Trial

I'm excited today to be sharing a great guest post with you, on the result of the trial and acquittal of George Zimmerman, in relation to the shooting of Trayvon Martin. The author is a great thinker, who really gets to the nub of the issues. There is powerful commentary here, from someone who has just got back from some time in the States, about America's love of Guns, and the other elements that make this case so complex. I'm lucky to count Luke as a friend, so here we go, as he says some of the things I'd thought and felt far better than I could...

A few days have now passed during which I have respected the wishes of Trayvon Martin’s family and his President in ‘calmly reflecting’ on the acquittal on July 13 of George Zimmerman.  I’ve tried to keep up to date with the case ever since the news broke that Trayvon Martin had been shot in Sandford, Florida on the night of February 26.

The jury’s verdict has been met with much outcry and condemnation, which I shared, but if I’m honest, I was troubled throughout the case by the uneasy feeling that Zimmerman would always be cleared of all charges. How utterly absurd that in 2013, the conclusion of a court case can make me feel as highly uncomfortable as reading To Kill A Mockingbird.

These are the facts as we know them. On the night of the 26 February, Trayvon Martin was walking to his father’s house in a multi-ethnic gated community called Twin Lakes. George Zimmerman, who coordinated the community’s neighbourhood watch scheme, was driving through on a personal errand when he first saw Martin. At this point he called a non-emergency police number to report that he had spotted a suspicious individual ‘with his hand in his waistband’ who looked ‘like he is up to no good or he is on drugs or something’. Getting out of the car to follow Martin, Zimmerman eventually lost sight of him and ended the call.

What happened next is disputed, but it involved a violent encounter between the two men which ended when Zimmerman shot and killed Martin 70 yards from the back door of his father’s house.

I have so many problems with the way I perceive this case to have been conducted, but I think my anger can be directed at 3 main points. The first is the nature of the evidence brought against Martin, the second is a regional law in Florida known commonly as ‘Stand Your Ground’, and the third (which will come as no surprise to anyone who knows me), is guns.

Much evidence was compiled in support of George Zimmerman in an attempt to justify his choice to open fire upon Trayvon Martin, and one must assume that it was this evidence that persuaded the jury to clear Zimmerman of all charges on Saturday. Witnesses as to the actual scuffle on the night provide pretty mixed accounts. Some people said that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, others claim Zimmerman was straddling Martin, which is a pretty big difference. What disturbed me was the variety of other evidence that was brought to court. The prosecution was granted access to Martin’s school record and social media sites. Martin’s truancy record at school was brought to the fore, despite him lacking any juvenile record at all. Though I suppose some of this could prove relevant in attempting to understand whether Trayvon Martin was a character capable of attacking George Zimmerman, it does nothing to provide an answer as to why Zimmerman saw it necessary to follow Martin on the night of the 26^th.

It is possible to speculate on Martin’s upbringing, his life at school, his appearance, his moderate drug usage, and say ‘that adds up, he’s more likely to be a threat to society’. Maybe this was tabled as the jury discussed their verdict. I don’t suppose we shall ever know. What we can know is that Martin was judged on his appearance. George Zimmerman had never met this young man before, but on a dark and rainy night, he judged his appearance to be that of one out to cause trouble, and so he acted upon his convictions. In thinking about this I was reminded of a scene from 12 Angry Men, in which a jury is asked to provide a unanimous verdict on a young man from the Chicago projects who is accused of killing his own father. A boy, who for some members of this fictional jury, conjured much of the same discomfort that Trayvon Martin did for George Zimmerman. Halfway through the film, this happens.

Henry Fonda’s words really ring true in this situation. “It's always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth. I don't really know what the truth is. I don't suppose anybody will ever really know.” Trayvon Martin looked a lot like the people George Zimmerman was used to seeing cause trouble in Twin Lakes. He wore a hoodie, his tucked his hand in his waistband and yes, he was black. For George Zimmerman, this was enough to justify following him. Martin was armed only with a bag of skittles. The assumption that Martin was a suspicious character based on his appearance, socio-economic background or race is deeply, deeply troubling. In America at a time when more African-Americans are on probation, parole or in prison than there were slaves in 1851, the assumption that young, poor black men are out to cause trouble is something that needs to be drastically addressed. The figures will not begin to change before the prejudices do. It does not work the other way around.

Now there remains the disputed allegation that Martin attacked Zimmerman, and that this justified the point-blank shooting. I am sceptical as to whether a physical tussle necessitates a fatal shooting as an act of self-defence, but this kind of disproportionate response is actually protected in Florida State Law. The ‘Stand Your Ground’ law has become the crux of the entire case, because if Martin indeed attacked Zimmerman, then he is vindicated of his role in causing the boy’s death. This is partly why it took so long to arrest Zimmerman in the first instance. He was initially released by Sandford Police Department, who unanimously agreed that Martin must have attacked first, rendering Zimmerman innocent.

Why is the same principle not applied to Trayvon Martin? When he was followed and threatened by a stranger in the night, why did the ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law not also justify his act of self-defence? How far up the ladder of escalating violence does one begin to apply this law? Is it from the bottom up or from the death downwards? Why was the same principle not applied to Marissa Alexander? A Florida mother who fired warning shots in an attempt to ward off her abusive husband, Alexander was given a 20-year sentence for attempted murder this Tuesday. In this case I would argue the defendant was far more clearly defending themselves and didn’t cause the loss of any life. She will now spend the next two decades behind bars. (http://www.wctv.tv/news/headlines/Florida-Mom-Gets-20-Years-For-Firing-Warning-Shots-215759571.html)

This of course leads to the ultimate cause of the death and a question that remains an uncomfortable one for America as a country to answer. Zimmerman’s gun, according to his account, was almost wrested of him by Martin before he managed to get his shot away. Without the firearm and by his own account, Zimmerman would not have felt his life was in enough danger to shoot. Nor, more obviously, would he have been able to kill Trayvon Martin either. The peril of death and death itself would have been eradicated if it were not for the presence of Zimmerman’s 5mm. The gun is not the problem I have with Zimmerman’s acquittal. But the sooner America actively addresses her own destructive love affair with the gun, the sooner tragedies such as this and other shootings will cease. That can be assured.

I think about Trayvon Martin a lot. I wonder whether if we had met we’d have got along at all. I don’t know. I do wonder if he attacked George Zimmerman on that rainy night, whether he tried to take his gun from him and kill him, and whether Zimmerman did what he did in order to save his own life. I wonder why he would have done that and I think about whether it would scare me if that was what actually happened. As Henry Fonda said, I don’t suppose we will ever know. George Zimmerman, seeing a young black man walking the streets at night, assumed he was suspicious. What concerns me more is that already possessing doubts about Trayvon Martin’s temperament and integrity, Zimmerman proceeded to confront him and kill him. He had a gun and approached a man he did not know and believed to be a possible criminal and was prepared to kill him if he was attacked. I find that such a man has been cleared of every charge very troubling indeed.

For more on the fight for African-American men, please set aside some time now to read this far more articulate and insightful article from the Daily Beast.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2013/06/19/obama-s-former-spiritual-advisor-joshua-dubois-on-the-fight-for-black-men.html

__________________________

If you've appreciated Luke's writing, then you may like to read his other Guest Post for me, "Love and Pancakes". For more on crime and punishment, you should probably read "Imago Dei", and then click on the tag 'justice', which covers more than 'just' social justice, and includes two different Christian perspectives on the death penalty.