George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin

Trayvon MartinFacts not in dispute: on 26th February 2012, George Zimmerman stalked Trayvon Martin from his car: then, against police advice, Zimmerman left his car to pursue Martin on foot, carrying his gun. Shortly after Zimmerman had left his car, he shot Martin to death, with the gun he had brought with him. Martin, aged 17 when he was killed, was not armed.

On record: George Zimmerman told the police dispatcher that night “Fucking punks. These assholes. They always get away.”

The only living witness to all of what followed is George Zimmerman himself, who alleges that Trayvon Martin attacked him and he shot the young man in “self-defense”. Martin’s friend Rachel Jeantel, who was talking on the phone with him as he tried to evade Zimmerman, says that Martin told her a “creepy-ass cracker” was following him and she told him to run.

To prove first-degree murder, the prosecution would have had to prove premeditation. (Florida statutes on murder.) In an ordinary country, the fact that George Zimmerman had left his car (against police advice) and taken his gun with him, would be enough to prove intent to kill: in Florida, premeditated murder is

“killing after consciously deciding to do so.” The decision to kill must be proven to be “present at the time of the killing”, but that the “law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass.”

But in the US, going armed to a conflict does not – apparently – prove intent to kill. So, the prosecution went for second-degree murder.

How did the jury find him not guilty?

A jury are obliged to make up their mind on the evidence presented in court, and convict or acquit on the facts of the law, and are required to presume innocence. Blaming the jury as six individuals would be wrong. If the law in Florida allows armed men to follow and shoot unarmed teenagers because the armed man is in his own neighborhood, doesn’t recognise the teenager, and thinks the teenager may be up to no good because he’s black, then the law is wrong and Florida deserves to fall into the sea.

Those who defend the verdict on the grounds that we just don’t know what happened in the crucial minutes after Zimmerman left his car, ignore the fact that Zimmerman left his car.

Gary Younge asks:

Since it was Zimmerman who stalked Martin, the question remains: what ground is a young black man entitled to and on what grounds may he defend himself? What version of events is there for that night in which Martin gets away with his life? Or is it open season on black boys after dark?

A defense of the verdict by Jonathan Turley blandly dismisses George Zimmerman’s stalking Trayvon Martin as

“citizens are allowed to follow people in their neighborhood. That is not unlawful. It was also lawful for Zimmerman to be armed.”

and argues that the jury’s verdict depended on proving that as George Zimmerman, armed with a gun, finally approached Trayvon Martin, who was unarmed, it was Zimmerman who threw the first punch.

However, in the end it was the case and not the prosecution that was demonstrably weak. The fact is that we had no better an idea of what happened that night at the end of this trial than we had at the end of that fateful night. Jurors don’t make social judgments or guesses on verdicts. While many have criticized Zimmerman for following Martin, citizens are allowed to follow people in their neighborhood. That is not unlawful. It was also lawful for Zimmerman to be armed. The question comes down to who started the fight and whether Zimmerman was acting in self-defense.

Jonathan TurleyJonathan Turley is currently a professor at The George Washington University Law School in Washington D.C. where he teaches torts, criminal procedure, and constitutional law. According to Wikipedia, he is married with four children: it’s a safe bet that none of them are at risk of being killed by a white vigilante because they look like Trayvon Martin. Homicide Watch D.C. provides an interesting picture of what people who get shot in Washington D.C. tend to look like.

Miller Francis noted in his CNN blog that the “stand your ground” law gave George Zimmerman the right to kill Trayvon Martin with a gun, but did not give Martin any right to defend himself with his fists:

Think about it: We’re told over and over that if Zimmerman was afraid of Martin, according to Florida law, he had the right to put a bullet in the chamber of his concealed handgun, get out of his car after being told not to by the 911 dispatcher and follow and confront Martin and shoot him to death.

At the same time, we are told that Martin, who had far greater reason to fear Zimmerman, practically and for reasons of American history, did not have the right to confront his stalker, stand his ground and defend himself, including by using his fists. We are told that this was entirely unjustified and by doing so, Martin justified his own execution.

Many people on Twitter this morning are pointing out that Marissa Alexander, who fired a warning shot that hit a wall, not her husband, has been sent to jail for 20 years for trying to scare off a man who had been physically abusive to her.

Mychal Denzel Smith wrote in The Nation, before the Zimmerman verdict but anticipating unhappily that the jury might well acquit him:

Justice needs to be more proactive. It should consist of an entire society doing everything it can to ensure that what happened to Trayvon never happens again. This includes a commitment to seeing the humanity in black men and boys, and letting go of the entrenched idea of their inherent criminality. It means divesting from the racist ideology that would have us believe black men are preternaturally violent creatures seeking to wreak havoc on America. Justice is black boys not having to grow up with that hanging over their heads. Justice is support for their potential. Real justice is this country truly believing that the killing of black boys is a tragedy.

When Trayvon’s father was on the witness stand, it was clear, more than a year later, he was still trying to process his son’s death. Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda was asking him about the 911 call where you can hear the gunshot that killed Trayvon. He started his question: “You realized that that was the shot…” and before he could finish, Tracy Martin chimed in, “That killed my son, yes.”

Justice is making sure no parent ever has to say those words again.

Levar BurtonActor and director LeVar Burton explained:

that he follows a particular procedure every time he is stopped by police to avoid a potentially deadly confrontation. He removes his hat and sunglasses, rolls down his window, and puts out his hands to show he is not armed.

“I do that because I live in America,” Burton added.

He said that as a responsible parent, he taught his son to follow the same procedure.

Sometimes when you read a court case decision from another country – one with markedly different cultural attitudes, different laws, different standards of human rights – you’re left not blaming the specific trial or the jurors but the whole picture of horrifying injustice illustrated by that one court case.

Once George Zimmerman had decided that Trayvon Martin was a threat, based entirely on the colour of his skin, there was nothing Martin could do to survive that night: and the justice system in Florida says that what Zimmerman did to Martin was no crime.


Filed under Uncategorized

17 responses to “George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin

  1. Jan

    Using the colour of someone’s children against the parent just because that parent commented on a high profile media trial, is low. It is also oversimplification and dangerous.

  2. Jan

    There is nothing so low as to use someone’s family in order to make a point.

    • SpaceSquid

      There are times when it’s inappropriate, and times when it’s outright obnoxious. This is neither. EE can correct me if I’m misinterpreting her, but her meaning seems clear: the kind of wilfully blind comments Turley came up with are those only the privileged can think constitute meaningful contributions.

      Turley hasn’t thought this through because he doesn’t need to think this through, because his family will never be in the situation the Martin’s are now. Crucially, he doesn’t think such a lack of considered reflection should prevent him engaging in the debate – a classic example of white privilege. Arguing this line of criticism should be off limits because it involves the word “family” is ridiculous, and as I pointed out, far more of an oversimplification than anything in the post itself.

      • Jan

        Yes, I understand the insulting assumption that she [and you] are making. Turley is a privileged white male who doesn’t understand and doesn’t care. Turley is not the one who hasn’t thought this through.

        • Yes, Jan. I do think that Jonathan Turley, as with many other white Americans reacting to Zimmerman’s acquittal as if justice had been done, have not thought about what they’re saying about Trayvon Martin. You don’t like the way I expressed it, but yes, I do think that if Turley had a son who looked like Trayvon Martin, he would have thought more carefully about whether a young man like his son really deserved to die just because a man like Zimmerman had decided that because he was black, he was a threat.

  3. Jan

    I am one of those people who believe in a fair trial and not a lynch mob based on hysteria and racism. I sincerely hope that you are never called to jury service – you are not capable of looking at things objectively at all.

    • SpaceSquid

      What’s interesting in all this sturm und drang is how completely uninterested you seem to be in explaining what it is about Turley’s comments you find so compelling.

      I mean, it’s one thing to go to the mat to defend a well-off white guy’s right to make comments about racially-charged situations. It’s not something I’d think worth the pixels spilled on the subject (notwithstanding the fact that I’m also a well-off white guy currently commenting on a racially-charged situation), but whatever. But your implication that what Turley said strikes you as reasonable in your mad rush to shout at EE and I for all our naughty racist antics strikes me as problematic. It’s so obviously a terrible comment – the lead-up to a killing is legally irrelevant unless it involves illegality? – made by someone who absolutely should know better given their profession. The sum total of your argument is that we’re racists because we’re wondering aloud whether Turley’s uncontested rank incompetence stems from his privilege.

      You are, of course, free to come up with your own explanation as to why he missed the mark so massively here. Or you could try and fashion an argument as to why you think he’s right, or at least not obviously wrong. Instead, you’re focusing on defending an idiot because his idiocy might not stem from his privilege. What that says about you is not particularly impressive.

      • Jan

        A trial which happened in another country that is not my own is none of my business. Unlike you, I do not pass judgement on people and events that have nothing to do with me.

  4. SpaceSquid

    You’re entirely welcome. This is an excellent blog, and this post in particular deserved a much higher quality of response than it got.

  5. Marcia

    The man was looking for someone to pay. Apparently he found one

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 )

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.