5 Points on the Shooting of Trayvon Martin

Trayvon Martin, a 17 year old African American high school student was shot by George Zimmerman, a 29 year old Hispanic American on February 26, 2012. It is undisputed that Zimmerman shot Martin, but the justification and resulting trial remain highly contentious. Was it an act of self defense as Zimmerman claims? Or was it an unwarranted murder, driven by racism. Although initially questioned and released by the Sanford Police Department, national and international interest picked up, resulting in a full-fledged case to begin. Interest picked up due to the allegations of racist motivation, with some likening the case to old South racism and Jim Crow laws. Zimmerman was tried for second-degree murder (manslaughter was added later on as an option), but was eventually found not guilty by a six women jury on July 13, 2013. 

1. Self Defense?
Zimmerman claims that Martin viciously attacked him, forcing him to respond with an unfortunate, but necessary gunshot. However, Zimmerman had previously called 911 about Martin's "suspicious behavior" and, contrary to the operator's advice, pursued Martin on his own. Zimmerman, of course, was the neighborhood watch coordinator and may have been a "wannabe police officer" as the prosecutors claim. Various evidence points to Martin attacking Zimmerman or Zimmerman first attacking Martin, but the fact remains: Zimmerman got out of his car and pursued Martin when he did not need to. So while his final act of shooting Martin could be self defense, he shouldn't have been there in the first place. 

2. Innocent Until Proven Guilty
An important aspect of America's court system is the tenet: innocent until proven guilty. This presumption of innocence forces the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. Such practice ostensibly ensures that nobody is wrongly accused and puts the onus on the prosecutors to provide ample evidence of guilt rather than forcing the innocent to prove their innocence. However, supporters of Martin may rightly claim that the presumption of innocence has a deleterious effect on justice being served. In the case of Zimmerman, the jury ultimately ruled that they could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman murdered Martin, even if there was certainly some evidence indicating just that. 

3. Racist Undertones
There are allegations that Zimmerman killed Martin solely because of his race. Zimmerman claims that Martin's baggy attire and suspicious behavior prompted his behavior, not his race. The NAACP has lobbied for the government to open a civil rights case or a hate crime case against Zimmerman, but those seem unlikely to happen, the reason being double jeopardy, which prohibits the conviction of someone for the same crime twice. Perhaps Zimmerman's killing of Martin had racist undertones, but it could also be the case that Martin attacked him. 

4. The Decision
If the jury picked the easy decision, the one supported by a majority of the public, Zimmerman would be behind bars right now. However, they ultimately ruled not guilty, which while a contentious decision, must be respected. As President Obama said, "we are a nation of laws, and a jury has spoken."

5. The Protests
Protesters in Oakland broke windows and some in LA even stormed a freeway. They have every right to protest but violence and protesting should never mix.  

For what it's worth:
Do I think Zimmerman is guilty? Yes
Do I think there is sufficient incriminating evidence against Zimmerman? No

I don't understand why Martin would attack Zimmerman, whereas it seems more plausible Zimmerman would attack Martin, based on his suspicions of Martin and pursuit of Martin. The fact that Zimmerman left the safety of his car to pursue Martin, even after the operator had told him to let the police handle the situation, is crucial and indicates that Zimmerman might have been more inclined to attack Martin. But ultimately, there is not sufficient evidence. 

Editorial-Terrorism and Civil Liberties: How Terrorism's Power Comes From America's Hysteria

        September 11, 2011 without a doubt slashed a lasting scar on Americans. The sight of Boeing 757s and 767s penetrating America's skyscrapers and pride bewildered, maimed, and frightened us. In the aftermath of September 11, Islam, a previously little known religion in the West was thrust in the spotlight, mostly in an unfairly negative light. Disoriented and distraught, America grasped for a group to blame and hastily fashioned security policies to prevent further attacks.  Such security policies, though, came at the expense of civil liberties, most pertinently the right to privacy and freedom of speech. While civil liberties are enshrined in the Constitution and have, in fact, been intertwined with what it means to be American, the fear that pervaded post 9/11 America allowed lawmakers to sign the Patriot Act on October 26 of the same year, a relatively short time period, especially for the notoriously stagnant Congress. The Bush administration broadened intelligence gathering and strengthened the military's numbers (maybe not it's prowess though), and the Obama administration largely  continued this policy of expanding presidential power and intelligence gathering. The government now possesses unprecedented capabilities to spy on its own citizens, infringing on the right to privacy, while drones also expand the military's capability to frightening levels. These measures in the past have been accepted by Americans wary of another 9/11, but these measures are currently under increased scrutiny due to the growing awareness of Americans that their civil liberties may be at risk. The essential question, then, is to what extent Americans are willing to sacrifice civil liberties for the sake of intelligence, counterterrorism, or whatever other reason expressed (or contrived, depending on your view) by the government.

        Historically, the U.S. government has expanded executive authority in times of crisis, and Americans have generally allowed this change to happen. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, right to a trial, during the Civil War, while Franklin D. Roosevelt famously interned Japanese of the West Coast in the interest of national security. Such expansions of power were all preceded by significant events that were simultaneously tragic and jarring. At the time, the Civil War instilled fear in America, as did Pearl Harbor and September 11. This fear was very real and lends some credence to the defense of the subsequent actions taken by the government. With the benefit of hindsight one can rather easily denounce the internment of the Japanese, yet the palpable fear affecting Americans at that time must be taken to account. Similarly, post-September 11 "islamaphobia", while mostly tainted by prejudice and outright racism, is understandable, given the preceding events. After all, September 11 was the beginning of a sequence of disturbing and outrageous acts of violence against Americans. Nick Berg, an American businessman, was abducted in Iraq and beheaded, with the video posted online. Such egregious acts of violence coupled with the media's incessant focus on extremist Islam perpetuated America's fear, and at one point "war", with Islam. Fear and tragedy often precede the taking away of civil liberties. The context of instances where civil liberties were infringed upon must be taken into account. However, the justifiability of taking away civil liberties is shaky, at best. 

       Post-September 11, Americans saw many civil liberties taken away in the interest of security. The Patriot Act remains partly intact; Guantanamo Bay, perhaps the most heinous use of the Patriot Act, remains open; drones, whose pilots sit at an office desk in the Nevadan Desert kill "insurgents" (just another day at the office) and are beginning to spread in the U.S. Yet, the pushback against these infringements on liberty is palpable. A recent Senate debate on drone strikes particularly focused on the president's authority to kill American citizens remotely. It is dangerous to bestow such ultimate power on anyone, especially the president. How can a nation founded on freedoms and civil liberties in the same swoop also kill its own citizens so long as they are seen as a "threat"? Yet, at the same time, America faces many perils overseas, and it would be a shame if the opportunity to preemptively murder the next Hitler, killer, or madman was wasted. Some Americans clamor for protection of civil liberties, while others clamor for more vigorous protection of the country's security itself. Both groups share a common interest in America's future but identify contrasting threats to this future. As such, degradations of the other group as not patriotic are foolish, for they must remember another key tenet of America: the right to passionate, while sometimes ungainly debate. Just in fact how much danger America is in remains a contentious issue. Pundits point out that no major terrorist attacks have occurred since September 11, of course, exempting the recent Boston bombings and previous scares. However, terrorist groups seem to keep on cropping up, even as Al Qaeda is dismantled. People's views may be significantly altered if the danger to America could be accurately quantified. Unfortunately, this is a nearly impossible proposition. However, the motives behind these acts of terror must be remembered.

        As its name denotes, terrorism relies on invoking fear in a large population by violently attacking a handful of the population. Reacting to terrorist attacks by taking away civil liberties is playing into the terrorist hands and fulfilling the goals they wanted to achieve. Terrorists want America to respond with fear and panic, which is all too often how we respond. In the absence of a fearful response, terrorist attacks would lose their effectiveness. Some would argue that without security procedures put in place, America would see an increase in both the intensity and occurrence of terrorism, but, for a variety of reasons, terrorist acts are extremely difficult to follow through on. Planning an attack, gathering materials, and executing a working plan is much more difficult than CSI or other crime shows portray. Moreover, the world--and America--is not in as much peril as the media claims. Terrorism is impossible to eradicate, for a few will always resent America to the point that they are willing to commit acts of terror. While this does not mean that we completely concede defeat and allow ourselves to be attacked, it does mean that we should focus on improving emergency response to such crises, rather than pelting another Tora Bora with literally hundreds of missiles in pursuit of just a handful of terrorists or entering Iraq to "take the fight to the terrorists." Certainly terrorism should be countered and terrorists subdued, but not to the extent where we have to sacrifice civil liberties. As Bruce Schneier of The Atlantic wrote, "when we refuse to be terrorized, when we're indomitable in the face of terror, the terrorists fail, even if their attacks succeed."