I know I barely write here anymore. And I know I am a good week or two late with any post about the Trayvon Martin Tragedy, but I started this blog to scratch that writing itch, and the other day I had just read too much and decided to finally put some thoughts done on a page. Not sure if this helps any conversation, but I am too frustrated as a citizen not to at least voice displeasure.
I have no idea what "Stand Your Ground" means in a moral or intelligible sense. I understand it's interpretation through most of the draconian, absurdly fearful laws that have been past in this country - and it should be noted how often these laws exist in states the gun lobby has wide influence, because behind these laws is the conceit of "get a gun, carry it, use it, you'll feel safer." "Stand Your Ground" meant that if you felt threatened in the protection of your self, family or property, you could use deadly force without the need to first attempt retreat in order to defend yourself. Now while that may seem nice and tightly conceived, it leaves open some scary doors.
If I pick a fight with someone and it escalates to a physical nature, I can them shoot him and say I feared for my personal safety, and as long as law enforcement buys that, we are OK. Well part and parcel to that idea is perception. I have to perceive the situation as inherently dangerous. The authorities reviewing my case have to see it in a similar light, acknowledging that within the context of these laws, I exercised my rights within a "legal" scope. If they can look at this situation and say, "yeah, you had a right to feel threatened" then we are OK.
What about justice being blind? What about laws and legality with a more principled stance that does not leave such room for ambiguity? We are not talking about possibly fudged tax returns or glad handing contracts or speeding tickets - we are talking about LIFE AND DEATH situations. But I think in light of the Trayvon Martin decision, I have landed in the same place many others have in understanding "Stand Your Ground." David Simon may have said it best:
"You can stand your ground if you're white, and you can use a gun to do it. But if you stand your ground with your fists and you're black, you're dead."
That seems pretty accurate, right? I mean lets take a few things that are fairly indisputable about this case:
-Martin was walking through the neighborhood and was not currently engaged in any nefarious behavior, simply walking, while being black and wearing a hoodie.
-Zimmerman saw Martin, made an assumption about his behavior or intent, notified authorities, and then continued to pursue Martin despite those authorities advising him not to.
-Eventually Zimmerman and Martin got into a physical altercation that ended with Zimmerman shooting Martin to death.
At what point in that was Zimmerman the one standing his ground? Better yet, wasn't Martin standing his ground as well? Are we entering some legal conundrum of when an immovable object meets an unstoppable force? Why does the law apply to one and not the other? Are all deaths from fights now considered justifiable homicide because both parties were "standing their ground" ?
Read over those three events I listed above again...Zimmerman pursued Martin on the grounds of feeling Martin was some perceived threat to the neighborhood. Well once Martin realized he was being followed, isn't he allowed to feel threatened as well by having a large, unknown potential assailant on his trail? So what if Martin attacked Zimmerman, doesn't the "Stand Your Ground" law afford him the right to not to retreat but rather to defend himself in this situation? Does “stand your ground” only work when you have a gun, or when you kill the other party, because that sure seems the case?
What would have happened if Zimmerman didn't shoot Martin, if instead Martin felt threatened and fought, eventually winning and leaving Zimmerman with a grave injury? Is this assault now, or just standing your ground? Because if i read this law right, Martin should be let go from that situation much as Zimmerman was. Or what if Martin was the one suspicious of Zimmerman and tracked him across town, eventually ending in a similar situation but with the roles reverse, a dead Zimmerman and a live Martin who did the slaying? If you think Martin wouldn't be tried for murder I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
There are many conversations about race to be had here, as that is obviously at the nexus of this terrible tragedy, eventual legal case, and now unfortunate ruling. As Ekow N. Yankah so astutely put in a recent New York Times editorial:
"Imagine that a militant black man, with a history of race-based suspicion and a loaded gun, followed an unarmed white teenager around his neighborhood. The young man is scared, and runs through the streets trying to get away. Unable to elude his black stalker and, perhaps, feeling cornered, he finally holds his ground — only to be shot at point-blank range after a confrontation.
Would we throw up our hands, unable to conclude what really happened? Would we struggle to find a reasonable doubt about whether the shooter acted in self-defense? A young, white Trayvon Martin would unquestionably be said to have behaved reasonably, while it is unimaginable that a militant, black George Zimmerman would not be viewed as the legal aggressor, and thus guilty of at least manslaughter."
Can anyone really deny or fight that argument? I mean obviously some can and will, but in all good consciousness, knowing what is fairly common knowledge in America when dealing with prejudices, fears, and the disproportionately heavy hand of the justice system on minorities, do you honestly believe your own argument?
I live in Baltimore, a city with a catastrophically high murder rate. Many of those deaths progress from arguments and fights amongst citizens. It is a frequent occurrence to hear of a man stabbed outside of a bar due to an argument, or one drug crew shooting down another because of a threat or incursion of territory. If Baltimore had Florida's “Stand Your Ground” law, would those crimes now be considered justifiable homicides? After all, the letter of the law would dictate in the bar fight that either participant at any time, if feeling like their life was in danger, could resort to lethal force in defense. The circumstance that got you to that point obviously don't matter if we use Zimmerman's trial for precedence, and believe me, EVERYONE now facing a homicide or manslaughter count in a similar case will bring this verdict up as defense. And as for the drug crews, if circumstance doesn't matter, then obviously the legality of their profession is inconsequential to the fact that they used lethal force to defend their property or livelihood. They stood their ground in a profession where your "ground" is largely your chief asset.
Mind you I say this in full understanding and agreement with the verdict. According to the law as written and the weak case presented by prosecutors, there was not a strong enough case to convict Zimmerman, particularly in a state that lives in a culture affording "Stand Your Ground" mindsets.
My point is that these "Stand Your Ground" laws are fundamentally flawed. They allow too much leeway to exercise deadly force by the common citizen. There are enough instances of unjustifiable shootings handled by police or other authorities, people who are trained to deescalate situations, pursue actual crime, protect citizens, and are afforded responsibilities and privileges to at times to make life or death decisions. Do we really want common citizens able to do the same? There are already strong self defense statutes that protect those who need to resort to deadly force in justifiable situations. Why do we need to cast that net wider, finding an excuse for more killings? A young man walking home in a neighborhood does not deserve the same fate as an aggressor coming at me with deadly force in my house. Better still, a citizen who shoots that young man out of a situation cultivated through overwrought fear should not be given the same leeway as the police officer who had to use his service revolver to put down an armed assailant.
That is not justice. That is FEAR permeating into all aspects of our lives to the point that we excuse terrible behavior for fear of something worse. That is cultivating an environment far more dangerous than any dystopia we perceive.
In fact the only justice in this matter is the sick circular irony now facing Zimmerman. As his sophomorically oblivious brother Robert Zimmerman Jr. put it to many news outlets after the trial:
“There are groups, there are people that would want to take law into their own hands as they perceive it or, you know, be vigilantes in some sense, that they think that justice was not served. They won't respect a verdict, no matter how it was reached. And they will always present a threat to George and to his family.”
Now that the shoe is on the other foot it's not so comfortable to be seen as a perceived threat, and it is frightening to think another person could justifiably harm or kill you while acting upon that fear or uneasiness you now cause. What a shame for George and Robert and there rest of their family. They get to live in fear for many years to come. Living a life where you are automatically perceived as an agent of malice. Filling people with such strong convictions of fear or hatred that they find it acceptable to use overwrought force against you.
Zimmerman ended that life of fear for Martin. The only difference is Martin didn't deserve it, and Zimmerman didn't get punished. And the state of Florida is fine with all of that.
No comments:
Post a Comment