Look, we can't go back in time to change the events of February 26, 2012. That's history. Even the trial is now history. What we CAN do, however, is look a little closer at it to see what we can learn from it. You see, if you don't understand how a game is played, then you won't do well in it. So many have criticized how the prosecution presented the case, how the witnesses performed on the stands, the demographic makeup of the jury, etc. But I submit to you that this trial was going to be problematic for the prosecution from the time they finally decided to charge Mr. Zimmerman.
If any of you recall your history and law classes growing up, you might remember that they say that in this country, a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Well, that's what they say, at least. Several of my colleagues would argue that the reverse is true when the defendant is an African-American, but the presumption of innocence is supposed to be at the forefront of every judicial proceeding. This means that when a criminal case goes to trial, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, who must prove that the defendant violated the law "beyond all reasonable doubt." All the defense has to do in order to win is show that reasonable doubt, therefore, and they can get an acquittal.
George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin on that night of February 26th. The initial police investigation and interviews with the accused seemed to give credence to self-defense, so the police refused to charge him. But the public outcry was so large and widespread that they were compelled to look a little further. It took 44 days to bring a formal indictment, and when they did so, you recall, they charged Mr. Zimmerman with murder in the 2nd degree. Now, here's where it gets tricky. Remember, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, who, with this Murder 2 charge, now had to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that George Zimmerman acted with "a depraved mind" with malice towards his victim. In plain English, this means that according to Florida law, Mr. Zimmerman had to have known Trayvon, hated him beforehand, and moved to intentionally harm him but not kill him. If death was the result of his actions, then the burden of proof for Murder 2 has been satisfied. On the other hand, one of the defenses against a charge of Murder 2 is self-defense, which Mr. Zimmerman's lawyers employed to defend him in this case. All they had to do was prove that first of all, Mr. Zimmerman didn't know the victim beforehand and then reasonably feared for his life when the confrontation got underway. They were able to do that, and that's why Mr. Zimmerman is not in a physical jail right now.
So the real problem is, the prosecution leveled the wrong charge at Mr. Zimmerman. Remember that the judge gave the jury the option of manslaughter as a lesser charge. Had that been the primary charge, then the lesser charge would have been criminally negligent homicide. The burden of proof for the prosecution would have been a lot easier to prove, because for this charge, all they had to prove was that the defendant initiated the steps that resulted in the death of the victim. And they could have proved that the moment that Mr. Zimmerman left his vehicle. As Richard Cohen wrote in his op-ed piece for the Washington Post, "There’s no doubt in my mind that Zimmerman profiled Martin and, braced by a gun, set off in quest of heroism. The result was a quintessentially American tragedy — the death of a young man understandably suspected because he was black and tragically dead for the same reason." Everyone knows this to be so, and so if the prosecution's formal charge was manslaughter instead of Murder 2, then Mr. Zimmerman would be behind bars today.
Sadly, that's not the case. Mr. Zimmerman literally walked on the technicalities. And his acquittal has set off a literal firestorm of protests, debates, arguments, and the like, all over the world. I've been pleased for the most part at the strong show of solidarity all across this country for people who did not like this outcome. The protests have been the right response, as long as they have been peaceful. The debates on social media, even if they've been uncomfortable at times, have been largely productive, in my mind, because they have at least got us talking to each other. That's a right response. The support and assistance that has come to the Martin family in the last two days has been compassionate and beneficial for them. That's a right response.
But not every response has been a right response, hence my desire to take to the keyboard once again. As I stated earlier, most of the protests around the country have been relatively peaceful. But there have been some exceptions. Riots broke out in two protests, one in Oakland, CA, and the other in Los Angeles. Rioters broke store windows, broke out the windows of police cars, and even flash-mob looted a local WalMart. In Baltimore, a White man out for a jog was accosted by four Black teens, who beat him up while yelling, "This is for Trayvon!" Ladies and gentlemen, these are NOT right responses.
I have a question I'd like to pose to the looters and rioters, if I could: I know you're upset about Zimmerman going free, and rightly so, but what, exactly, are you accomplishing? How is tearing up your own neighborhood going to imprison Mr. Zimmerman? How is destroying the ability for the local businesses around you to DO business going to bring justice to everyone? What did the White jogger have to do with Trayvon's death, and if the answer is nothing, they why exact vengeance on HIM? Isn't that why we were upset with Mr. Zimmerman in the first place, because he harmed an innocent young man who wasn't doing anything wrong? So how are your actions any different from his?
Worse still, you and I are upset because of the imbalances that happen in the American justice system when it comes to the treatment of minorities, and rightly so. You and I don't want folks to look at us and label us troublemakers just because we're Black, right? We'd prefer that old "content of their character" assessment, am I right? Then WHY would you do something that by its very nature reinforces the negative stereotypes? Have you never heard that two wrongs don't make a right? Like Dr. King said, "An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind." Don't worry about George Zimmerman! His life as he knew it is over, and it ended the same time he took Trayvon's. Like one African American wrote to him, "I bet you never thought that by killing a Black man you would inherit all of his struggles." He's got all of that and more to contend with now. Trust me, nothing you do to him or anyone else will compare to the gravity of what he's done to himself.
I think everyone would agree that for as far as we've come, it is clear that we have so much further to go. But if we as a people wish to be taken seriously, then we are going to have to change some of the ways we do things! We CANNOT continue to act with reckless abandon and callous apathy and shallow thought processes and selfish motives and expect to be greeted as equals at the table! These are not right responses.
No, instead of responding with violence, respond with INTELLIGENCE. Learn how the laws of the land apply to you and your community. Take your education seriously, and get the credentials you need to get in the positions of influence and power, through the legal election processes. Take care of the community around you and build it up, don't tear it down! Learn to have a conversation, first with your family and peers, and then with those who are NOT a part of your circle. Find the common ground we all share, and build relationships and partnerships from that. Look at the situation we now find ourselves in as an opportunity to effect positive change, not as an insurmountable obstacle leaving you with no other choice than to attack it. Fight with IDEAS, not with fists, rocks, and bottles. Demonstrate EXCELLENCE, not mindless behavior. Trayvon Martin deserves that. The communities you live in deserve it. And YOU deserve it too. This would be the RIGHT response to what has happened.
No comments:
Post a Comment