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.
No comments:
Post a Comment