Trayvon Martin and the Irony of American Justice. ⇒
16 July 2013, mid-morning
When you have a society that takes at its founding the hatred and degradation of a people, when that society inscribes that degradation in its most hallowed document, and continues to inscribe hatred in its laws and policies, it is fantastic to believe that its citizens will derive no ill messaging. It is painful to say this: Trayvon Martin is not a miscarriage of American justice, but American justice itself. This is not our system malfunctioning. It is our system working as intended.
I thought I had linked to this, but apparently Textpattern at my post. MetaFilter has a discussion of the verdict, but it’s mostly crap. I’ll repeat one of my comments there here: “The guy chased some kid down and shot him. Where else in the known universe would the prosecution need to do anything but show up and give each other high fives to get a conviction?”
This is a post from my link log: If you click the title of this post you will be taken the web page I am discussing.
Because there isn’t evidence that he chased him in the final moment. That’s the issue here. The prosecution could not prove that Zimmerman chased him and confronted him. Even if he had, following someone isn’t illegal. Might it be unethical? Sure, you can argue that following someone while armed and putting yourself in a situation in which someone might act violently toward you knowing you might react to that violence by resorting to lethal for is unethical, but it isn’t against the law to follow someone in a public space and it IS illegal to assault someone. No evidence contradicted Zimmerman’s account, regardless of whether or not it was true.
You have to prove that someone committed murder. Zimmerman’s story is that he wasn’t chasing him, that he was jumped. We will never know what actually happened, because there wasn’t sufficient evidence to answer the question either way. That’s how the legal system works. Innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution couldn’t make that case, and of the two people who truly know precisely what happened that evening, one is dead.
by Ben on July 16 2013, 3:35 pm #
He put himself in a situation where he got to murder someone and call it self defense.
by Ramanan Sivaranjan on July 16 2013, 9:36 pm #
You’re talking about an ethical problem, not a legal one. There was nothing illegal about Zimmerman being where he was, just as there was nothing illegal about Martin being there. Zimmerman’s story is that he was attacked. There was no evidence that contradicted that. That’s all there is to it, in the end. You have to have evidence to convict. You keep making an ethical distinction, but that doesn’t result in a murder conviction.
by Ben on July 17 2013, 7:50 am #
I think you’re missing the point of Coates’ article. If you can’t get a conviction in this situation, then that’s a problem with your system of justice. The state wouldn’t have even bothered going to trial if not for people complaining that the situation was fucked up. Worse still, it’s not like this case is some sort of outlier. There is basically next to no justice for Black people in America, as far as I can tell.
by ramanan on July 17 2013, 9:39 am #
Why does the self-defence (“stand-your-ground”) argument not apply to Martin too? Why the lack of symmetric?
Martin was simply walking through the neighbourhood. On the other hand, Zimmerman intent was to initiate a confronted.
What would make Martin suddenly decide to start assaulting on a passerby? Common sense says that Zimmerman approached (and pursued?) Martin in a menacing manner (with a weapon). If anyone, it’s Martin who was claim the self-defence (albeit ineffective).
Using the argument that there are no (living) direct witnesses to the event then there’s automatically reasonable doubt is dubious – many crimes lack witnesses but secure convictions (and in general, eyewitness is unreliable). Zimmerman’s account may be true, but he certainly has strong incentive to misconstrue as well.
Zimmerman unnecessary initiated an altercation with an innocent passerby and quickly escalated into using deadly force. Any straightforward interpretation of the events fits the description of manslaughter.
by Ryan on July 17 2013, 7:16 pm #
I enjoyed this video from the daily show
by Krishna on July 19 2013, 2:28 am #