Well, folks, it looks like we've come full circle yet again.
This blog began one day when
I felt obligated to put my two cents in regarding a manufactured racial crusade; a subject that I often
revisit when it appears necessary.
Although this blog has remained dormant for quite some time, the persistent and in many ways dangerous myths that have been repeated by or on various news outlets and within the social media sphere following the "Not Guilty" verdict in George Zimmerman's murder trial have been frustrating to hear and see and have compelled me to briefly return in an effort to highlight and debunk such myths. The incident involving George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin--an incident which culminated in Martin's death--was and is tragic, but the public's ability to understand the incident is impeded when aspects of the incident are grossly misrepresented in an apparent effort to fan the flames of public outrage in furtherance of an agenda.
Myth #1: The case was about race because George Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon Martin.
In Sanford, Florida, a little after 7:00 p.m. on the evening of February 26, 2012, George Zimmerman, coordinator of the Neighborhood Watch Program at the Retreat at Twin Lakes gated housing community, was driving to Target when he witnessed Trayvon Martin, who was returning home from the nearby 7-11 convenience store via a shortcut, walking "slowly" in the rain behind some apartments. The neighborhood had experienced a rash of break-ins in the weeks prior. Martin was allegedly looking around and looking into apartments as he walked. Martin was not a known resident of the community, as he had been suspended from school in the Miami area and his mom had sent him to stay with his dad. Zimmerman alleges that these factors are what caused him to find Martin suspicious. Martin was wearing a "hoodie" sweatshirt--a clothing item that is in no way indicative of the wearer's race--and, since it was raining, Martin undoubtedly had the hood raised, which would have obscured his features.
As it was an early evening in late February the sun would have set a half hour or more before Zimmerman discovered Martin and it would have been dark. When combined with the rainy conditions, it's reasonable to believe that Zimmerman could not see Martin clearly enough from inside his car to positively identify Martin's race. In addition, Zimmerman does not readily volunteer Martin's race as part of his description during the 911 call; although NBC reported an edited 911 recording that made it seem as though he did and made it seem as though Zimmerman told the 911 Operator that he thought Martin was suspicious because he was black. This was then picked up by various news outlets and social media and this and other inaccurate portrayals of the 911 tapes helped to fan some of the initial flames of racial indignation while solidifying the idea that the incident was racially motivated in the eyes of the public. In fact, Zimmerman does not mention Martin's race until specifically asked about it by the 911 Operator, and even then Zimmerman does not sound too sure. It's reasonable to believe that Zimmerman was unaware of Martin's race when he first called 911 and would have found anyone in Martin's position suspicious, regardless of their race. Although Zimmerman is hispanic the media was happy to refer to him as white, white-hispanic, or just avoided referencing his race altogether in an apparent effort to perpetuate the burgeoning racial narrative that was developing or had developed around the case. By all accounts, Zimmerman's past contains no indications of racial bias. Zimmerman's prom date was black, he has black friends, and he advocated for a black man that he believed had been mistreated by the Sanford Police Department. An extensive FBI investigation has yet to uncover any evidence of racial bias or racial motivation on the part of George Zimmerman.
Myth #2: George Zimmerman ignored police instructions and got out of his car to pursue Trayvon Martin, precipitating the incident.
According to audio evidence from a 911 call, George Zimmerman reported that Trayvon Martin had started running away. The 911 Operator asks Zimmerman which way he went. We then hear the sound of a door opening, presumably as Zimmerman tries to get a better look from outside his vehicle or tries to follow in an attempt to answer the 911 Operator's question. In any event, Zimmerman
does end up following Martin. At one point the 911 Operator asks if Zimmerman is following, and when Zimmerman confirms this the 911 Operator says that it's not necessary. This is quite different from emphatically instructing Zimmerman that he must
stop following, and even then a 911 Operator is not a police official and is not authorized to issue legally binding instructions.
Was it a good idea for Zimmerman to go looking for Martin? Definitely not, but he did not disobey police or commit any sort of crime by doing so.
Myth #3: Trayvon Martin had just as much of a right to defend himself and stand his ground as George Zimmerman did.
This may be fundamentally true, but it is a very misleading statement to make by itself. There is no evidence that George Zimmerman was in the process of committing a forcible felony against Trayvon Martin or anyone else, so the only justification would have been if Martin reasonably believed that he was in danger of grave bodily harm or death at the hands of Zimmerman. It's quite possible that this was the case, although the evidence seems to indicate otherwise. Rachel Jeantel, a friend of Martin's that was on the phone with him during much of the incident, gives no indication that Martin was truly fearful of Zimmerman, whom he referred to as a creepy-ass cracker. The timeline, pieced together from the timing of Zimmerman's 911 calls and the later 911 calls of bystanders, indicate that Martin had plenty of time to make it back to his dad's apartment or to place his own 911 call, neither of which occurred. Some have said maybe Martin avoided returning home out of fear that he would be showing the pursuing stranger where he lived by doing so, which is a plausible theory, but it does not explain why he chose not to call 911 himself or even stop and ask a neighbor for help.
Zimmerman alleges that Martin confronted him as he was returning to his car and then physically attacked him. Although not available to the jury as evidence in the case, information was uncovered and made available to the public about Martin's interest or involvement in fighting, guns, drugs, and juvenile delinquency, all of which support the notion that Martin could have been the aggressor. (In fact, I have a young relative with similar interests and behavior and he can be very irrational and aggressive; it is a common feature of modern pop culture in general and many young men's lives in particular and is not unique to any particular area or race.) At any rate, even if we assume Martin either lashed out out of fear or responded with force to a verbal or physical confrontation initiated by Zimmerman, Martin would enjoy a legal right to do so only up to the point that he neutralized the threat; that is, only until he got the upper hand. The right of self-defense is not an unlimited right; once someone triggers the right you're not permitted to then do whatever you want to them to whatever extent you please until you decide it's time to stop. Once Zimmerman was no longer a credible threat to Martin, any further use of force by Martin would shift from justifiable to criminal. In short, and again assuming Martin was not the aggressor: As soon as Zimmerman hit the ground and was no longer in a position to pursue or attack, Martin no longer had legal justification to use force against him. Yet the evidence shows that Martin mounted Zimmerman as he lay on the ground and an eyewitness testified that he saw multiple downward motions from Martin onto Zimmerman as if landing blows or engaging in other aggressive movement, which could include bashing Zimmerman's head against the sidewalk. The altercation lasted approximately one minute, as repeated calls for help are heard in the background of a bystander's 911 call, before a single gunshot rings out.
The principle of justifiable use of force described above also applies equally to Zimmerman. Had Zimmerman fired at Martin repeatedly the verdict would have likely been much different, as it is reasonable to assume that Zimmerman got the upper hand at the moment he fired once at Martin--particularly when shooting him in the chest--and anything beyond that would have been an excessive and thus unjustifiable use of force. Had Zimmerman rose to his feet and emptied his weapon into Martin as Martin lay on the ground the verdict would have been much different. Had Zimmerman fired upon Martin as he ran away, with or without a physical altercation involved, the verdict would have been much different, as a fleeing Martin could no longer pose a credible threat and you cannot shoot someone in the back to prevent them from getting away.
Myth #4: George Zimmerman stalked Trayvon Martin and gunned him down in cold blood.
The phrase "in cold blood" implies that George Zimmerman was calculating and malicious. It implies that Zimmerman hunted Trayvon Martin down and shot him dead at range for absolutely no reason and with no provocation as Zimmerman's blood ran cold. This phrase has been used in relation to this case by people that either have no idea what the phrase means or want to intentionally mischaracterize the incident for the sake of sensationalism or dramatic effect. Zimmerman shot Martin in the midst of a physical altercation and alleges that he did so in self-defense. There is no evidence of calculation, malice, or that Zimmerman intended to shoot Martin from the outset. As mentioned above, Zimmerman called 911 to report suspicious activity as part of his involvement in the Neighborhood Watch Program and did not leave his car until after the 911 Operator asked him which direction Martin ran off to. As a general rule, people do not usually dial 911 before killing someone in cold blood. In the midst of the physical altercation that occurred between Zimmerman and Martin, and in the heat of the moment, Zimmerman's blood was running hot. As you can imagine, incontrovertible evidence that Zimmerman's blood was running hot rules out any possibility that his blood could have been running cold.
Myth #5: George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed child.
Trayvon Martin had just turned 17 in the weeks before he encountered George Zimmerman. However, for the longest time the media used photographs of a much younger Martin in its news coverage, which served to overstate his youth and understate his physical stature; both of which served to undermine the credibility of Zimmerman's self-defense claims in the eyes of the public. Although Martin was unarmed he could not have known that Zimmerman was armed, as Zimmerman was wearing a raincoat at the time of the altercation. Likewise, Zimmerman had no knowledge of whether or not Martin was armed. Characterizations of Martin as unarmed are technically correct, but perhaps not legally so. In many cases it is legally appropriate to consider a closed fist, an improvised weapon, or a weapon of convenience, such as a concrete sidewalk, as a deadly weapon if it is used in a manner which could result in grave bodily harm or death. It is a known fact that hitting someone in the head can result in grave bodily harm or death, even from a single punch. Likewise, hitting someone's head on a concrete sidewalk can cause grave bodily harm or death and its use for that purpose can potentially render it a deadly weapon in the eyes of the law.
Myth #6: Trayvon Martin's voice can be heard calling for help in the background of a bystander's 911 call.
Trayvon Martin had no apparent injuries, save for damage to his knuckles from striking George Zimmerman and a gunshot wound to the chest that he received at the end of the altercation. Zimmerman, on the other hand, had a broken and bloodied nose and multiple lacerations to his skull. It's unreasonable to think that Martin would be the one calling for help while he enjoyed the upper hand in the fight, as he straddled Zimmerman and punched him or bashed his head into the sidewalk. When police arrived, Zimmerman mentioned that he had been trying to call for help throughout the altercation. Zimmerman had no way of knowing that an audio recording of the altercation had been created. Even if he had suspected that a recording could exist, and was able to process such a thought in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic and tragic event, his limited understanding of forensics would have certainly led him to believe that a voice-print analysis would positively identify the voice on the recording. When police, bluffing as police often do in an effort to gauge a suspect's reaction and what that reaction implies, confronted Zimmerman with the made-up "fact" that Martin's phone had recorded a video of the entire incident, Zimmerman was relieved and thanked God that such a video existed. Of course, it was just a bluff and the Martin cell phone video was just a figment of a clever detective's imagination. I have never in my life seen a person yelling for help while winning a fight. Although we'll never know with 100% certainty, common sense tells us that a battered Zimmerman was the one yelling for help that night.
Myth #7: The case involved Florida's Stand Your Ground law. If not for this law, George Zimmerman would not have been acquitted.
George Zimmerman's defense team never invoked the provisions of Florida's Stand Your Ground law as part of Zimmerman's defense and it had nothing to do with Zimmerman's acquittal. Instead they argued classic self-defense, pointing out the fact that Zimmerman was pinned to the ground by Trayvon Martin and did not have an opportunity to retreat under the circumstances.
Ironically, the same people that point out Trayvon Martin's right to defend himself and stand his ground are also vilifying the Stand Your Ground law. Only the Stand Your Ground law would have given Martin the option to defend himself in light of his opportunities for retreat; including an opportunity to retreat initially and an opportunity to retreat instead of mounting George Zimmerman. However, as explained in relation to Myth #3, the right of self-defense is subject to reasonable limitations and the use of force can shift from justifiable to criminal if those limitations are not respected.
Myth #8: The Not Guilty verdict that was handed down by a Florida jury was wrong. It's an example of classic Southern Justice and reminiscent of prejudices past. Zimmerman may have been found Not Guilty, but he's certainly not innocent. Justice4Trayvon!
During the trial much was made of the fact that five out of the six women jurors were mothers and how this would likely give them a unique perspective into the loss of a child; a perspective that would translate into a psychological advantage for the prosecution. After this same jury carefully weighed the facts and reached a verdict of Not Guilty, their maternal instincts and the perceived advantage this gave to the prosecution was no longer mentioned in discussions about the psychology and perceived biases that influenced their decision-making. I suppose this was only mentioned in the first place to set the stage for explaining away why the jury would dismiss Zimmerman's self-defense argument, and after the verdict went the other way the controversy peddlers no longer wanted to talk about it because it would not fit the unfairness narrative. Now the discussion has shifted to the fact that there were no black jurors, but of course the controversy peddlers conveniently fail to mention the fact that the prosecutors were responsible for striking a black male juror because he watches FOX News.
It would be one thing if the jury's verdict demonstrated an unwillingness to fairly evaluate the evidence and ran entirely against the grain of that evidence, as happened in the "Southern Justice" episodes of the past, but it's clear that the jury's verdict is consistent with the evidence that was before them. There's no question that justice was served. George Zimmerman was placed on trial and both sides were given a fair opportunity to present the best evidence in support of conviction or acquittal. Note that the local police did not want to bring charges since there was no evidence of wrongdoing under the law on the part of Zimmerman, and it was not until the story was spun up into a national, racially charged outrage that extrajudicial pressure forced Zimmerman into court. Anyone that says justice was not served simply doesn't understand our system of justice or only wants to support it when it results in outcomes they prefer. It's not perfect, but our system of justice is far better than the alternatives. Disagreeing with the outcome is fine, but it doesn't mean anyone is required to effect an outcome that results in your complete satisfaction.
Under the United States Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land, we are all innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. George Zimmerman has not been proven guilty in a court of law, therefore, he remains innocent: No questions asked.
Today our President stepped into the White House Briefing Room, by all accounts unexpectedly, and spoke ahead of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.
