An ACCR Perspective on the Trayvon Martin Case

Many people are outraged by the Trayvon Martin case – they perceive racial motivations behind the actions of George Zimmerman, a wannabe police officer drawing stereotyped conclusions about a young black man in a hoodie, acting illegally on his assumptions, and covering up through a transparently false story. They see the state’s feeble and inept investigation and presentation of the case; and they see not-so-subtle prejudices behind Florida’s gun and self-defense laws. Many of those same people are outraged by the George Zimmerman verdict. Consider me in the former group but not the latter.

Florida has created an atmosphere of vigilantism that leads predictably to confrontation and excessive violence. The entire country is now aware that George Zimmerman was a volunteer of his local town watch, but Town Watch is not called Town Act, and for a very good reason. We hire and train policemen to act, and we are all grateful when volunteers are willing to watch our neighborhoods for possible criminal problems; but we do not hire these volunteers to police our streets or make the myriad decisions necessary to ferret out crime. The key word is “watch” – we may never fully know what prompted George Zimmerman to leave his car when the police dispatcher suggested there was no need to follow Trayvon Martin, but is there the slightest question that an unarmed Zimmerman might well have acted differently? Town Watch volunteers should not be armed; if the use or threat of force becomes necessary, they have walkie talkies to alert people who are hired and trained to know how and when to do so.

Adding to the casual arming of the civilian population, Florida has passed a law known as Stand Your Ground. In essence, this new law makes one significant change to the law of self-defense. Traditionally, and in Pennsylvania, you do not need to retreat when faced with life-threatening violence unless you can do so in complete safety. This makes complete sense – no matter what circumstances you are facing, if you can escape the situation without harm to yourself or anyone else, that is obviously preferable to any other scenario. Stand Your Ground changes this centuries old understanding of self-defense – under this law, you may use deadly force when confronted with deadly force, even if you could leave the confrontation safely. The Zimmerman defense team did not utilize the Stand Your Ground law; they opted instead to argue that Zimmerman could not escape in complete safety. But laws change perceptions – how else to explain the condemnation of drunk driving after the many years that it was considered socially acceptable and even humorous? The passing of Stand Your Ground in Florida sends the very clear message to the population that violence in the context of self-defense is acceptable even when it’s not absolutely necessary.

Am I outraged by the killing of Trayvon Martin when it could so easily have been avoided? Of course. Am I outraged that the state of Florida allows a wannabe cop with a racist attitude to walk the streets with a loaded gun? Certainly. Am I outraged by the atmosphere of violence fostered by the Florida legislature in its gun and self-defense laws? Without question. Am I outraged by the verdict in State vs. George Zimmerman? No.

I was a public defender in Philadelphia for 27 years. I know that our law says that no one can be convicted of any crime unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and I know that many people have been convicted on less evidence than that standard requires. I know, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that if we start to complain that the high burden of proof for conviction was met when there wasn’t enough evidence under the law, those who suffer will be poor people accused of crime. And many of them will be people of color.

I was not present at the trial; nor did I rush home every night to watch the replay on television. But I followed it closely enough to say this – the Zimmerman trial was not the Rodney King case. This was not a crime captured on video, with a jury that bent over backwards to ignore the evidence and give police officers an outrageous verdict. Rather, huge amounts of evidence that might be expected in a murder conviction – an eyewitness, a confession – were missing from the case entirely. Juries are told that a reasonable doubt arises from the evidence or the lack of evidence – in the Zimmerman case there was a significant lack of evidence. While the state’s medical examiner was confused and ruffled, the defense’s expert (one of the leading medical examiners in the world, and author of a seminal text in the field) was professional and confident. Is it reasonable to complain that the state’s expert should have been better prepared and more accomplished? Yes. Should the state have put greater and more prompt effort into evidence gathering? No doubt. Did the jury reach the wrong verdict considering the evidence that was given to them? It would appear not.

It is silly to believe that we are living in a post-racial era, Barack Obama’s presence in the White House notwithstanding. The same legislators who are dismantling our gun laws and creating an atmosphere of violence in our laws are climbing over each other to repress minority voting, so that they might continue to dismantle our gun laws and create an atmosphere of violence. We must protest these outrages at the tops of our lungs, just as we must continue working to expose the racism that lies just beyond the silhouette of a hoodie.  But we should be very careful not to complain that the evidence was sufficient to convict when it clearly wasn’t. In other words, we should be careful what we complain about.   




5 comments on “An ACCR Perspective on the Trayvon Martin Case

  1. Max says:

    Where is your evidence that Zimmerman is a racist? It seems that that sentiment is thrown around as if proven. Yet nothing of the sort was proven in the case and the DoJ had not been able to come up with anything in the last year either. Are you accusing him of racism solely based on his race being different than Martin’s?

    • Paul says:

      The mere assumption that an African-American is “suspicious” while engaged in innocent activity, e.g., walking home from a store wearing common outerwear to protect him from the rain and keep warm, is racist – particularly because a Caucasian engaged in the same would never be so deemed. Zimmerman had a record of reporting African-Americans as “suspicious” to 911 – none of whom were actually found to be engaged in criminal activity. Had he not racially prejudged and profiled Trayvon, nothing occurs that night. (Put another way, how many Caucasian residents walked by Zimmerman’s truck while he parked at the entrance to the neighborhood without arousing his suspicions, prompting him to call 911, etc. – that night, or any other night?)

      • Rob says:

        Regarding Mr. Zimmerman’s history of calling 911, this is worth reading:

      • Max says:

        When Obama recently spoke about the zimmerman shooting he said something I agree with. Had martin been white things might have turned out differently that night. The beauty if that statement is that its not absolute. They might have been different or might not have been different. We will never know. In fact you can make that statement about anything. The reason he used that statement is because he knows that there is no proof that zimmerman is a racist. And everything that is being brought up is conjecture, speculation, and at best correlation. To me its just slander. But I’ll play along and would like to examine this concept of zimmerman as a racist because of the mere assumption. So here is a hypothetical: Considering that nationally a disproportionate amount of young black males are in the criminal justice system and more locally in chicago where black on black crime is an epidemic (since the martin shooting 600 black teenagers have been killed in Chicago in black neighborhoods)…if I am walking the streets in a sketchy neighborhood…and I see a young black male and I get suspicious. I being racist? I dont believe I am. I think that to not be cautious is to be ignorant. because I am not filled with hate for the skin color.. I am using my past experience and knowledge to form a fact based response to a real sitiation. This is not any different than reacting to a burn from a hot stove to be cautious about touching a hot stove in the furture. Unless of course you would then blame me for being racist against stoves.

  2. Rob says:

    I linked the above wrong. I suggest reading the article rather than all of the comments.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s