One of the bigger stories circulating at the moment is the George Zimmerman trial. In case you live under a particularly large rock (or are reading this far enough in the future to where it's slipped off the radar), here's a quick recap:
The setting:
Florida (of course).
The characters:
One George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old man living in Sanford, Florida, is a neighborhood watch coordinator for some gated community. Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old high school student, is temporarily staying in said community.
The story:
One night (February 26, 2012), Martin is walking home from a convenience store. Zimmerman is out in his car, running some errand. He notices Martin and calls the police, telling them about a suspicious-looking male, walking around, looking at houses. He makes a comment about Martin looking like he was "up to no good or he is on drugs or something." Before his call is over, he is recorded saying, "these assholes, they always get away." Things heat up. Martin notices he is being followed and tries to run off. Zimmerman relays this to the police, who instruct him not to pursue. Zimmerman pursues. He gets out of his car (as can be heard on the recording), and the call ends at 7:15PM.
Now, off the air.
The police arrive at 7:17PM. Here's what they find: Zimmerman has head injuries. Martin is dead, cause of death: single gunshot wound in the chest, fired from a range of less than 24 inches.
Autopsy:
Martin: 5'11", 158lbs.
Cause of death: single gunshot wound in chest, fired at "intermediate range" (1-18 inches), described as a "contact shot."
Non-lethal wounds: single small abrasion, left ring finger, below knuckle.
Other information: trace levels of THC, the active substance in marijuana (1.5ng/mL) and THC-COOH, a metabolite of THC (7.3ng/mL). These levels are consistent with marijuana consumption several days prior to the event.
Immediate proceedings:
Zimmerman is treated for head wounds and taken in for questioning, which proceeds for approximately five hours. Zimmerman claims self-defense, and no arrest is made, as the local police see no reason to question Zimmerman's story.
Skip ahead sixteen months, during which Zimmerman is formally charged with second-degree murder.
June 24, 2013: Zimmerman trial begins, with a knock-knock joke, of all things.
June 25, 2013: Zimmerman acquitted.
Let the madness ensue.
First, at a time when things seem to be looking up economically, news like this will not be approached lightly. Good news is less attention-grabbing than bad news, and who could resist a story like this one, right? Further, being that this story seems to have it all -- guns, death, racial undertones (amplified by the media, but still present) -- how could any news outlet not run with this? [Side note, free of charge: I do understand that the media will jump on something like this, and it is important to at least bring forth this conversation, so I don't categorically disagree or disapprove of said story breaking. What I do have a problem with, however, is all the sprinkling of extra information, much of which turns out to be false, for the sake of promoting a story that is, regardless of which side you choose to support, tragic.] And lo and behold, this story takes off. Now, being in the public eye, a great many people have an opinion on these proceedings, and most (myself included, it seems) are not too shy to share these opinions. Here's one more to read.
I'd like to start by saying that this is, before all, extremely tragic. Before taking a side, I think it is important to realize that a family lost a son, and another man's life has been pulled apart. These are rather objective. Now, for the side-taking and, admittedly, subjective portion.
Zimmerman wanted to shoot to kill. He had nearly completed an Associate degree in criminal justice (he was in his final semester), and was hoping to become a police officer, and, eventually, a judge. He coordinated the neighborhood watch for his community. He clearly wanted to be an authority figure (Do not hear me say that this is a negative quality. I only say this to establish his interest in being an authority figure.). While the police discourage neighborhood watch members from carrying weapons, Zimmerman was constitutionally permitted to do so (which could lead to another post, and maybe a good conversation). So he carries. His gun was loaded with hollow-points. Hollow-points have their place, make no mistake. It is very unlikely that a hollow-point bullet passes through a target, so in situations in which it could be particularly dangerous for a bullet to emerge out the back of a target (on a ship, aircraft, etc.), these are particularly appealing. They are designed to expand upon entering the target, so as to maximize tissue damage and blood loss, while making extraction particularly difficult, as there is typically significant fragmentation of the bullet upon entry. They are banned for military use by the Hague Convention of 1899, and the ban is upheld in the Geneva Convention. Hollow-point bullets are a particularly nasty animal. They are, however, commonly used by police because of the reduced risk of collateral damage. This reduced risk is a positive, but it comes with the understanding that, should someone be shot, the damage will be increased significantly. Should the person be shot in a more vulnerable area, death is extremely likely, as fragmentation will cause extraction to be particularly problematic. This is one of the primary reasons this type of ammunition is frowned upon by international law. Zimmerman would have been aware of this. Could he simply have been trying to reduce risks? Perhaps. But either way, he would know that, should he shoot someone in a central area, that someone would die. He ignored police advice not to carry, and ignored police instruction to not pursue. Also, let's not forget, "these assholes, they always get away."
In a violent altercation between Martin (5'11", 158 lbs) and Zimmerman (5'7", 200 lbs), Zimmerman pulls his gun and fires a single shot into Martin's chest. Game over.
Some observations:
- Zimmerman was able to get his hands free, pull his gun, disengage the safety, and fire, point-blank, into the center of Martin's chest, all while fending off violent attacks.
- Martin is beating on Zimmerman, who outweighs him by forty pounds, so badly that Zimmerman fears for his life.
- The pursuit on foot, struggle, severe beating, and shooting occur in a space of less than two minutes. And, as the police did not see Zimmerman shoot Martin, the window is quite a bit less than two minutes. This means that Martin overpowered a man who had a forty pound advantage on him and made that man fear for his life in well under two minutes.
- Of six eyewitness testimonies, two claimed to have seen Martin on top of Zimmerman, one of whom recanted this. Both of these saw this altercation happen in the grass. Of the remaining witnesses, two claimed to have heard an older and younger voice arguing, but little or no sounds of a scuffle, then a gunshot.
- Martin was said, in trial, to have been beating Zimmerman's head against the concrete, an account that was presented by Zimmerman and supported by no other testimony given at the time of the incident. If the word "concrete" were replaced with the word "grass," perhaps things would appear more consistent. That said, eyewitness testimony is widely regarded to be a very inexact and weak account.
- Martin was staying in the gated community that Zimmerman was meant to be protecting. Zimmerman was tasked with protecting Martin.
- Zimmerman had a restraining order granted against him in 2005 by his ex-fiancee, who claimed domestic violence. Yes, seven years can change a person completely, but it doesn't always. Yes, this comes across as rather circumstantial evidence, but it shouldn't have been excluded so cavalierly by the judge.
Zimmerman's account of Martin to the police was certainly an example of racial profiling, but I don't believe that Zimmerman was categorically racist. In 2011, Zimmerman protested the beating of a black homeless man by the son of a white police officer. He was quite adamant that this was not acceptable. While this isn't necessarily conclusive, it's worth something. Also, it should be noted that the media did look to capitalize on racial issues. Before actually seeing Zimmerman, I admit that I pictured someone much older and much more... white. Even this is different than the image that the name conjures, but that's just unexpected, not really of any consequence. Zimmerman is of mixed ethnicity (white/Hispanic), so people jumping on white supremacist arguments are rather ill-informed (though I've only come across one, maybe two, such people). This is not to say, however, that this was not at least partially motivated by race. Zimmerman profiled Martin and, from the sound of the call to the police, made up his mind on the spot.
Presumed innocence is a wonderful thing, and shouldn't be discounted. Placing the burden of proof with the prosecution is a great safeguard against overzealous persecution, to be sure. And, all things considered, the burden of proof was only just met in this case, if indeed it was at all. This had quite a bit to do with the inadequacy of the prosecution, however. First, the prosecution failed to enter any charges except second-degree murder. This means that the jury is not to consider any lesser charges, like manslaughter, and, if acquitted, double jeopardy would protect against being tried for any lesser charges in the future. It's quite common practice to bring the primary charge as well as lesser charges, so that the jury is able to consider these as well. The prosecutor's failure to do so was, at best, a rookie move. The remainder of the prosecution was not any better, honestly. The entire trial had the feel of the prosecution "throwing the game." Ultimately, this may have been a particularly tough case to win, but the effort was far from valiant. Even still, acquittal under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law requires that the individual be in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. Reasonable fear. In a situation with no solid eyewitnesses except Zimmerman himself (and Martin, I suppose, but that didn't help, did it?), how can anyone speculate about Zimmerman's mental state? It certainly leaves more than a little bit of reasonable doubt.
So here's Zimmerman's story: He [GZ] pursues Martin, who, unprovoked, punches him hard enough in the nose to knock him down. Martin then pins him down, pummeling GZ with his fists, and bashes GZ's head against the concrete sidewalk and tries to strangle him. Martin then spots GZ's gun and reaches for it, but not before uttering some James Bond villain line. GZ gets to the gun first and shoots.
Holes in the story:
- Zimmerman significantly outweighs Martin. At 5'11", 158 lbs., Martin is quite a skinny guy. For him to punch someone quite a bit larger than himself, unprovoked, doesn't ring as particularly clever. Further, for him to get the drop on Zimmerman and knock him down with a single punch is rather impressive, if not terribly unlikely.
- Zimmerman is pinned on his back, unable to get a hand free. Martin sees Zimmerman's gun (black) in its holster (black) in the dark. By the way, this holster is inside the back of Zimmerman's waistband.
- Zimmerman, while being pinned down and strangled, manages to get a hand free, reach underneath himself, pull the gun, trip the safety, and shoot Martin directly in the center of the chest.
- Martin's autopsy reveals no swelling in the knuckles or hands.
So Martin, a skinny, unarmed teenager, is gifted with abnormal speed and strength, along with X-ray vision and imperviousness to blunt trauma. Perhaps Zimmerman had some Kryptonite on him, and this allowed him to get his hand free.
Another idea, equally speculative: Zimmerman wanted to shoot Martin, chased after him with his gun already drawn, shot and killed him, then tried to build a defense by bloodying himself up a bit, [Spoiler alert!] Fight Club style. As a student of criminal justice, Zimmerman knows Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law and what is required for its application.
Ultimately, reasonable doubt was not too much of a stretch. Most of the evidence was circumstantial, and, as there was virtually no other reliable eyewitness testimony, the only story told was told by the defendant. Here's the thing, though: Martin received no due process. If he had been tried for assault, there would be no additional evidence to present, and the lack of swelling in his hands would seem to indicate that perhaps events did not unfold precisely as presented by the defense. Martin would not have been able to be convicted of assault, and yet, Zimmerman is able to use this unprovable event to justify his shooting of Martin.
One quick tie-in to a previous post: language is particularly important here, isn't it? Words like "shooting" and "suspicious individual" form a sentence like this: George Zimmerman stands trial for the shooting of a suspicious individual in Sanford, Florida. Take away this spin, and try it this way instead: George Zimmerman stands trial for the murder of an unarmed child. Because that's what we view minors to be, is it not? Murder murder murder. Child child child. Makes a difference, doesn't it?
One last bit: I came across a question on Show of Hands (a phone app that presents surveys for public opinion, and wisely limits responses to two choices) that asked, upon delivery of the verdict, whether the case was simple, open-and-shut, or whether it was more complex. Having submitted my own response, I thought I'd check out the comment section. What I found there was horrifying. It seems that the segment of the general public that chose to participate in these discussions has one of two opinions:
1. Zimmerman is guilty, and should have been convicted. He was let go because the system is racially biased, and the Florida stand-your-ground law is, in itself, criminal.
2. Zimmerman is innocent. He was attacked and permitted to use deadly force. More than this, Zimmerman is a sort of champion -- a hero. Not only was he justified in his actions, but he was right to kill Martin.
What?
Is this where we are, that we can support the death of an unarmed minor? Whether you want to view Zimmerman as innocent or guilty, how is it possible to applaud his actions? Do you think Zimmerman is applauding his own actions? I have to imagine that right about now, he feels rather like a big steaming pile. Justified or not, he killed another human. I can't imagine he feels too good about that. And then I hear these arguments about, "it's a victory for gun rights," or, "it's a victory against reverse racism," or any number of equally ludicrous claims. I commented something along the lines of, "whether innocent or guilty, at least we can agree that this was a truly tragic event." Someone refuted this. Again, what? Trayvon Martin is dead. His family, his friends, his schoolmates, will never see him again. George Zimmerman has been dragged through the media and is now deeply hated by thousands (if not millions) of strangers who will never even meet him. He will spend the rest of his life waiting for the other shoe to drop, looking over his shoulder. And you want to tell me that none of this is tragic? I don't care which side you want to take, this is not just another Sunday. And to anyone disagreeing with this, shame.
I know there will be outspoken people on both sides of this. While I understand that Zimmerman may have come across as not guilty under the law, I think he was far from innocent. The idea that there is a set of circumstances under which this whole ordeal isn't strictly illegal, is disgusting. These are the sorts of things that happen in many countries, but it shouldn't be happening here. It shouldn't be happening anywhere, but it's just ridiculous that this can happen here. Worse, however, is that, through this whole ordeal, Florida isn't likely to make any changes. It'll continue to "stay the course" until some governor's family is victimized. Or maybe a Senator. Or maybe just a rich kid. Florida, if only your stupidity had stopped with hanging chads.
