It's pretty certain that whenever President Barack Obama speaks, he's going to receive some sort of criticism. When he speaks on the economic crisis, some feel he's pandering to the wealthy under the guise of caring about the poor. When he speaks on jobs, many feel he's saying what needs to be said while playing politics with his opponents. And while opinions when it comes to the political aspect of these topics and others like it can be argued either way, sometimes politics doesn't play a part. Or, at least, it shouldn't.
Obama's comments on Trayvon Martin last week was a candid look into a man who wasn't just addressing the nation not as the first Black President of these United States of America. He was speaking as a Black man who grew up during a time when racial tension in this country was at a peak. As the son of a Black man from Nigeria and white woman from the U.S., the challenges Obama faced growing up can be compared to many who grew up during that time. In some cases, as a person of mixed heritage, Obama more than likely faced criticism from not only white Americans but from Blacks as well. So in addressing the topic of race in this country and by saying "Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago", he broached the topic from an interesting angle. Not only has he experienced the "door lock" and "purse clutching" scenarios, he grew up with people (his grandparents, both white) who may have at one time or another felt threatened by Black people, particularly Black males. As the nation's first Black President, I'm sure he's encountered episodes of racial discrimination, either directly or indirectly. When dealing with our nations politicians, mostly old white men who may have at one time supported racial discrimination, the specter of racism looms heavily in the background. So, in my opinion, there was no better person to speak directly to the nation on this particular subject than President Obama.
Not surprisingly, his detractors would disagree. Directly after his comments were aired live from the briefing room inside the White House, the news shows were on fire. One guest said that Obama's comments were inappropriate, given the fact that protests over the George Zimmerman's 'Not Guilty' verdict were due to take place the very next day. He went as far as to say that his comment were giving those protesters the green light to be violent. Others agreed, saying that Obama was intentionally trying to further divide the country along racial lines. It was even said that Obama made those comments not as the President for all Americans, but as the President for Black people. The criticism seemed to be politically and racially charged, with the racial aspect probably weighing heavily on the political opinions of some of those who felt like Obama had crossed the line.
Presidents have often made comments regarding issues not directly related to the White House or to the day to day running of the country. It's always been a sensitive area because many people feel that the opinions of politicians regarding the day to day lives of Americans are usually out of touch with the reality we all face. While this can be said to be true in some cases, this is a unique situation where President Obama knew the reality in which he was speaking of. In fact, he knew it well. He faces it everyday. But it was more than Obama just making comments in defense of Black America. This was the leader of what is considered to be the greatest nation in the world by many, trying to give some insight into why many Black Americans were saddened and angered over the Trayvon Martin case. This was a Black president trying to explain to a nation of many races the feelings that most Black Americans have regarding race in this country. When the slaves were brought to America, they were viewed as savages, mainly because of the way they were presented on the slave trading blocks. They spoke a language unfamiliar to white Americans of the time. They were stripped of their dignity and their clothing, reduced to an almost animal like demeanor purposely to keep the distinction of the superiority of the white man, similar to what was done to the Native Americans earlier in history. Through the generations, as Black people came up through society, that imagery hasn't really changed much. Sure, we have a Black President, but young Black men are still viewed as "savages". This opinion is evident in the comments that have been made in criticism of the protests that have taken place. Comments such as "Black people kill Black people everyday," and "You have Black men killing Black children in Chicago" show how some white Americans still view Black people, especially males, in that inferior cast. The fear of rioting was pronounced. Even if you just look at the way Zimmerman's defense attorneys aggressively painted Trayvon Martin as this "wannabe gangster" or thug looking for a fight, it shows that there are still many Americans that accept this view of Black men in America as the norm and see Black men like President Obama as an anomaly. Even Black Americans are guilty of a similar perception, surprised that a presidential candidate like, then candidate, Obama even existed. Some Black (and white) comedians used that notion as punchline fodder (Katt Williams said: "You mean to tell me he don't have no baby mama drama, don't owe nobody $5!", etc.). So when Obama took it upon himself to address what can be seen as the incident that may cause another American racial divide, it was more than appropriate. It was necessary.
Obama also questioned the Stand Your Ground law, which was also met with ire. As a lawyer, Obama knows the law and should be able to speak on it freely. But politicians and citizens alike felt it was out of line for a President to question a law of the land, much like Lincoln drew the ire of many during that time when he questioned slavery. But if the President, with and extensive knowledge of law, can't question questionable laws in this country, then who can? In Florida, the Stand Your Ground law, is vague at best. It leaves too much room for interpretation on when it can and cannot be used. So much so that the defense team that represented George Zimmerman didn't use the law as a defense, but they alluded to it in their claim that Zimmerman felt like he had to use deadly force to defend himself against Trayvon Martin. The jurors, at least by the account of juror B29, could not convict Zimmerman based on the law, even though some of them felt that he was guilty of murder. The law, which states in part, "...a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.." seems to cover a broad variety of possibilities, without necessarily leaving any burden of responsibility on the person defending themselves. In Zimmerman's case, the fact that Trayvon Martin was killed gave the defense too much liberty to craft the perfect story, based on the law. B29 even went as far as to say, according to the law, the case should have never gone to trail. Many Americans, Black and white have questioned the law and it's application to this case. But by it being questioned by the President, who happens to be Black and who seems to sympathize with those who disagree with the verdict, his questioning was inappropriate to some.
By questioning the law, and all Obama said was that it needs to be looked into (along with, surprisingly, John McCain), the President presented a national opportunity for people to understand how Black people in this country view the judicial system as a whole. Historically, the system hasn't worked too favorably for Black Americans when compared to white Americans. While this case involved two minorities, with Zimmerman being Hispanic, many have tried to deflect the racial aspect away from the case. Obama's comments were intended to draw attention to perceptions and feelings not just of Black America, but of white America, too. While many Black Americans would most certainly agree with his comments, some white Americans would disagree. While I am not going to claim to know exactly why some white Americans disagree, I honestly think it's less about disagreeing and more about wanting to believe that race is no longer a problem in America. Sure, you don't have Black people being hung from trees and there are no longer "white only" designations. You see more interracial couples now more than ever. And, as previously mentioned, we do have a Black President. While these represent some sort of progress, it is far from a sign that racism has been exterminated. While many Americans of many nationalities may or may not approve of the job that Obama is doing as President, those who do not approve have often taken to comments with intense racial overtones. There have been slogans such as "Let's Take America back!" which may mean one thing to a white person but mean something entirely different to a Black person. In fact, many things that can either be said or done can mean one thing to white America and mean something else to someone who is not white or in, some cases, not American. There was a time in this country when the "American Dream" did not apply to non-white Americans. To see a slogan such as "Let's Reclaim the American Dream!" in opposition to the current administration, it's hard for me as a Black American to not feel a way about that.
Looking forward it's safe to say, as unfortunate as it may seem, that we will probably not see another Black President for some time. While there are no current Black candidates that seem poised for a successful run at the White House, the stigma that has been placed on Barack Obama's current administration may leave future Black candidates wondering if they want to go through what Obama has and will go through for the rest of his 2nd term. There has been a lot of political wrangling in Washington during Obama's time in office, with many politicians vowing to say no to everything he proposes and to repeal as many laws as they can. This may translate to some voters that having a Black president is too polarizing and causes more trouble than what it's worth. In any case, having a Black president now, one that can speak to the issues of race, perceptions of Black and white Americans and the need for all Americans to work together to form a better Union, is uniquely important for our time. Whether it works or not is a different story.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Thursday, July 18, 2013
Black Unity and White Confusion
In the wake of the 'Not Guilty' verdict of George Zimmerman in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin, a lot of raw emotion has been seen from those who feel like the verdict was unjust. We've seen media coverage of peaceful protests around the nation (I had the privilege of participating in one here in Greenville, SC) and violent riots in Los Angeles. We've seen thousands on social media sites show their support of Trayvon Martin and his family by blacking out their profile pics or replacing them with Trayvon Martin himself, themselves in hoodies and other artistic expressions. It's an act of unity that shows the way people can unite when faced with tragedy.
Of course, this act of unity and this tragedy has divided our nation. While the nation pretty much unanimously united over the tragic shooting in Newtown, CT which included the deaths of 20 children, the death of Trayvon Martin sparked a debate not only on the perception of the young Black male in America, but also on the way Black people responded. The questions that have been raised range from "Why are Black people protesting when they don't protest over Black on Black crime?" to "Why are Black people making this a Black and white thing when George Zimmerman is not white?". The question of race has long been a sensitive issue in American history and now, with race relations under the most intense scrutiny we've seen since probably the 70's and 80's, the potential for unrest is very real.
Recent events, for example, the Paula Deen situation, show that there are still some Americans who have not evolved in their perception of Black Americans. While many will often harp on this being a white issue, the Black perception is pretty universal among all other racial groups. Some will say that it doesn't help that we are portrayed on television and through some popular music the way that we are. During a conversation I had with a white person on facebook, the comment was made that this person talked to some Black people from "the 'hood" and asked them why Black people don't protest when a Black person shoots another Black person. He said they responded "that's just 'hood life." He also mentioned that 'Lil Wayne performed talking about violence while wearing a Trayvon Martin T-shirt. He said it was things like this that confused him regarding the reasoning of Black people and what they choose to support or not support. The problem in this instance is that this person is using just two examples in which his perception is based on. Those individuals that said "Oh, that's just 'hood life", to me represent a small, ignorant portion of those living in the "'hood". In areas like Chicago, where shooting deaths of young Black people have been receiving major media coverage, there have been all sorts of rallies and protests to try and stop the gun violence. Growing up in a pretty rough area of South Jamaica Queens, NY, I've personally witnessed organizational efforts to stop Black on Black crime and gun violence. Acceptance of the death of any young Black person due to violence of any sort is not 'hood life. Those who say that are part of the problem. As far as basing your perception of Black people on a millionaire rapper like 'Lil Wayne? Well, I think that says more about the person than it says about anything that 'Lil Wayne does.
Another common response to the verdict and the resulting outcry has been the notion that this case was "spammed", as the above mentioned facebooker said, by the media to push a government agenda. As we all know, gun violence has been a hot topic over the past year. I refer back to the Newtwon shooting here as well, noting that many feel the same way regarding that particular tragedy. Whether you feel that way or not doesn't change the facts of either shooting or it's tragic impact on all those involved. Trayvon's case is no different than Melissa Alexander's case or Jordan Davis' case or Darius Simmons' case. Although the media has not covered these cases with the same vigilance as they did with the Martin case, the outcry over anyone of these situations is an outcry for the others. It's not like the cry for justice has just been for Trayvon Martin. The cry for justice has been for everyone involved in situations like this in the past, during the present and for those cases that are sure to happen in the future. Part of the outrage is that we continually re-visit these events because they are still happening. Another part is because our outrage is continually trivialized by bandwagon accusations and confusion as to why Black people are upset. It's like white America is wondering why Black people haven't gotten used to these things because they've happened so much before and happen so often now. They use the same reasoning when someone like Paula Deen is held accountable for her actions towards Black people. It burns me to hear someone ask why Black people get offended by white usage of the word nigger when Black people use it in regards to each other all the time (maybe that has something to do with that little thing called slavery and the creation and usage of the word to demean those slaves. Black usage of the word today amongst Blacks is a separate issue altogether). It burns me just the same when people ask now why we're so outraged by another death of a young Black person when young Black people kill other young Black people all the time. Some even say that white people don't protest when a Black person commits a crime against a white person. The reason for that is because white people don't have to. It is pretty much assumed by all that a Black person who commits any crime against a white person will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Some will bring up the case of OJ Simpson, who was acquitted of a double murder charge when he was accused of killing his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. Some will say Black people celebrated his acquittal, while we protested the acquittal of George Zimmerman. I think in the case of OJ Simpson, it was the fact that he wasn't railroaded as many thought he would be. The facts in that case were presented and when the evidence lacked to prove that he did it, he was acquitted. Many Black people were elated that he got off, but we all knew OJ would pay the price someday. As he serves time right now for essentially trying to steal back his own property, many in the Black community know why and have accepted that fact. OJ got off on a technicality. Many people on both sides of the racial divide think he did it and won't dispute that his current incarceration is linked to that. But even that convoluted reasoning goes back to one thing, OJ is a Black man believed to have killed 2 white people and seemingly got away with it. To those who were outraged over his acquittal probably feel justice was served, just slower than they would have liked.
Now, I know there are many white Americans that feel the same way many Black Americans do when it comes to the Zimmerman verdict, so I hope I don't come across like I am not recognizing that fact. In fact, that is kind of the point I am aiming to make. Since the crux of this situation is not based on a white man killing a Black teen but on the perception that George Zimmerman, a Hispanic man, had of young Black men, white Americans should know what this is about. But the condescending tone that some of the comments that are being made carry and the trivialization of Trayvon Martin's death that certain questions bring about is disturbing. The fact that Trayvon Martin was someone's child is getting lost in this whole thing. The jury seemed to base their verdict on the fact that they felt that George Zimmerman was not a racist. They have said that they think he would have done the same thing over again regardless of the race of the person. But what they fail to admit is that since he was Hispanic, if it was a white person that he shot and killed, chances are his case could have turned out different. If Zimmerman was black and Trayvon was white, it would have most certainly turned out different. Why? Because the evidence clearly showed that Zimmerman was at the very least guilty of unnecessarily shooting an unarmed person. Many reports have said that Trayvon could have ran away from Zimmerman. The recorded call to the dispatcher shows that George Zimmerman purposely pursued Martin when he could have well enough just listened to the dispatcher and stayed in his car. If Trayvon had run, George most likely would've kept up the pursuit. His history of calls to the non-emergency dispatcher shows he would not have reacted the same way if Martin was white because he never did. A white person would have been assumed to be a resident of the community. All of this was overlooked. That's the reason for the outrage of the verdict. That's the reason for the protests. That's the reason why the white confusion confuses Black people. Why wouldn't anyone be outraged over the killing of an unarmed young man, regardless of his race? What if, during the alleged struggle, Trayvon Martin had somehow gained possession of Zimmerman's gun, shot and killed him, then claimed self defense? Wouldn't the phone call that Zimmerman had made to the non-emergency dispatcher have proven that Zimmerman was the aggressor and that Trayvon had a legitimate self-defense claim? If what Zimmerman claimed was true, that Martin punched him then repeatedly slammed his head into the ground, shouldn't the fact that Zimmerman pursued him and approached him and had a gun give Martin just as much a claim to self defense? Shouldn't Zimmerman, at the very least, have been charged with negligent use of a firearm, since he wasn't even supposed to have one on his patrol? That blame can go on the prosecution, but you should see where I am going with this. Zimmerman is guilty of a crime here, in one way, shape form or fashion. It's just that the jury decided that he wasn't a racist, and they decided that he didn't shoot and kill Trayvon because he was black. Seems like he got off on a technicality of interpretation to me.
This case will long resonate with Black people, but it should resonate with white people as well. This was a situation where two minorities were involved but the white perception prevailed. Zimmerman's white attorney's played upon this perception when they characterized Martin as a thug, as a threat, as "suspiciously" walking through his own neighborhood. They played upon the white superiority complex that some white Americans have by questioning why didn't Martin comply to Zimmerman's authority. They even said Martin had time to run if he felt like he was being threatened. The problem is, the jury took everything that Zimmerman said happened as fact and took the actual facts that they could gather from phone records, defense testimony and the like as speculative. Trayvon couldn't defend himself. At least one of the jury members is a registered gun owner. All of the 6 jurors (5 white women and one Hispanic woman) agreed that George acted wrongfully in his pursuit of Martin. Black confusion turned to outrage and the white confusion enrages Black people further. Why are we so upset? Why are we protesting? Why are we not accepting the verdict? The real questions all of us should be asking is why isn't EVERY AMERICAN angry? Why is anyone confused? Why are we struggling with acceptance in America when we have a Black president serving a second term? Why haven't we changed AT ALL as a nation yet? I think a truthful answer to that last question can also all those before it.
Of course, this act of unity and this tragedy has divided our nation. While the nation pretty much unanimously united over the tragic shooting in Newtown, CT which included the deaths of 20 children, the death of Trayvon Martin sparked a debate not only on the perception of the young Black male in America, but also on the way Black people responded. The questions that have been raised range from "Why are Black people protesting when they don't protest over Black on Black crime?" to "Why are Black people making this a Black and white thing when George Zimmerman is not white?". The question of race has long been a sensitive issue in American history and now, with race relations under the most intense scrutiny we've seen since probably the 70's and 80's, the potential for unrest is very real.
Recent events, for example, the Paula Deen situation, show that there are still some Americans who have not evolved in their perception of Black Americans. While many will often harp on this being a white issue, the Black perception is pretty universal among all other racial groups. Some will say that it doesn't help that we are portrayed on television and through some popular music the way that we are. During a conversation I had with a white person on facebook, the comment was made that this person talked to some Black people from "the 'hood" and asked them why Black people don't protest when a Black person shoots another Black person. He said they responded "that's just 'hood life." He also mentioned that 'Lil Wayne performed talking about violence while wearing a Trayvon Martin T-shirt. He said it was things like this that confused him regarding the reasoning of Black people and what they choose to support or not support. The problem in this instance is that this person is using just two examples in which his perception is based on. Those individuals that said "Oh, that's just 'hood life", to me represent a small, ignorant portion of those living in the "'hood". In areas like Chicago, where shooting deaths of young Black people have been receiving major media coverage, there have been all sorts of rallies and protests to try and stop the gun violence. Growing up in a pretty rough area of South Jamaica Queens, NY, I've personally witnessed organizational efforts to stop Black on Black crime and gun violence. Acceptance of the death of any young Black person due to violence of any sort is not 'hood life. Those who say that are part of the problem. As far as basing your perception of Black people on a millionaire rapper like 'Lil Wayne? Well, I think that says more about the person than it says about anything that 'Lil Wayne does.
Another common response to the verdict and the resulting outcry has been the notion that this case was "spammed", as the above mentioned facebooker said, by the media to push a government agenda. As we all know, gun violence has been a hot topic over the past year. I refer back to the Newtwon shooting here as well, noting that many feel the same way regarding that particular tragedy. Whether you feel that way or not doesn't change the facts of either shooting or it's tragic impact on all those involved. Trayvon's case is no different than Melissa Alexander's case or Jordan Davis' case or Darius Simmons' case. Although the media has not covered these cases with the same vigilance as they did with the Martin case, the outcry over anyone of these situations is an outcry for the others. It's not like the cry for justice has just been for Trayvon Martin. The cry for justice has been for everyone involved in situations like this in the past, during the present and for those cases that are sure to happen in the future. Part of the outrage is that we continually re-visit these events because they are still happening. Another part is because our outrage is continually trivialized by bandwagon accusations and confusion as to why Black people are upset. It's like white America is wondering why Black people haven't gotten used to these things because they've happened so much before and happen so often now. They use the same reasoning when someone like Paula Deen is held accountable for her actions towards Black people. It burns me to hear someone ask why Black people get offended by white usage of the word nigger when Black people use it in regards to each other all the time (maybe that has something to do with that little thing called slavery and the creation and usage of the word to demean those slaves. Black usage of the word today amongst Blacks is a separate issue altogether). It burns me just the same when people ask now why we're so outraged by another death of a young Black person when young Black people kill other young Black people all the time. Some even say that white people don't protest when a Black person commits a crime against a white person. The reason for that is because white people don't have to. It is pretty much assumed by all that a Black person who commits any crime against a white person will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Some will bring up the case of OJ Simpson, who was acquitted of a double murder charge when he was accused of killing his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman. Some will say Black people celebrated his acquittal, while we protested the acquittal of George Zimmerman. I think in the case of OJ Simpson, it was the fact that he wasn't railroaded as many thought he would be. The facts in that case were presented and when the evidence lacked to prove that he did it, he was acquitted. Many Black people were elated that he got off, but we all knew OJ would pay the price someday. As he serves time right now for essentially trying to steal back his own property, many in the Black community know why and have accepted that fact. OJ got off on a technicality. Many people on both sides of the racial divide think he did it and won't dispute that his current incarceration is linked to that. But even that convoluted reasoning goes back to one thing, OJ is a Black man believed to have killed 2 white people and seemingly got away with it. To those who were outraged over his acquittal probably feel justice was served, just slower than they would have liked.
Now, I know there are many white Americans that feel the same way many Black Americans do when it comes to the Zimmerman verdict, so I hope I don't come across like I am not recognizing that fact. In fact, that is kind of the point I am aiming to make. Since the crux of this situation is not based on a white man killing a Black teen but on the perception that George Zimmerman, a Hispanic man, had of young Black men, white Americans should know what this is about. But the condescending tone that some of the comments that are being made carry and the trivialization of Trayvon Martin's death that certain questions bring about is disturbing. The fact that Trayvon Martin was someone's child is getting lost in this whole thing. The jury seemed to base their verdict on the fact that they felt that George Zimmerman was not a racist. They have said that they think he would have done the same thing over again regardless of the race of the person. But what they fail to admit is that since he was Hispanic, if it was a white person that he shot and killed, chances are his case could have turned out different. If Zimmerman was black and Trayvon was white, it would have most certainly turned out different. Why? Because the evidence clearly showed that Zimmerman was at the very least guilty of unnecessarily shooting an unarmed person. Many reports have said that Trayvon could have ran away from Zimmerman. The recorded call to the dispatcher shows that George Zimmerman purposely pursued Martin when he could have well enough just listened to the dispatcher and stayed in his car. If Trayvon had run, George most likely would've kept up the pursuit. His history of calls to the non-emergency dispatcher shows he would not have reacted the same way if Martin was white because he never did. A white person would have been assumed to be a resident of the community. All of this was overlooked. That's the reason for the outrage of the verdict. That's the reason for the protests. That's the reason why the white confusion confuses Black people. Why wouldn't anyone be outraged over the killing of an unarmed young man, regardless of his race? What if, during the alleged struggle, Trayvon Martin had somehow gained possession of Zimmerman's gun, shot and killed him, then claimed self defense? Wouldn't the phone call that Zimmerman had made to the non-emergency dispatcher have proven that Zimmerman was the aggressor and that Trayvon had a legitimate self-defense claim? If what Zimmerman claimed was true, that Martin punched him then repeatedly slammed his head into the ground, shouldn't the fact that Zimmerman pursued him and approached him and had a gun give Martin just as much a claim to self defense? Shouldn't Zimmerman, at the very least, have been charged with negligent use of a firearm, since he wasn't even supposed to have one on his patrol? That blame can go on the prosecution, but you should see where I am going with this. Zimmerman is guilty of a crime here, in one way, shape form or fashion. It's just that the jury decided that he wasn't a racist, and they decided that he didn't shoot and kill Trayvon because he was black. Seems like he got off on a technicality of interpretation to me.
This case will long resonate with Black people, but it should resonate with white people as well. This was a situation where two minorities were involved but the white perception prevailed. Zimmerman's white attorney's played upon this perception when they characterized Martin as a thug, as a threat, as "suspiciously" walking through his own neighborhood. They played upon the white superiority complex that some white Americans have by questioning why didn't Martin comply to Zimmerman's authority. They even said Martin had time to run if he felt like he was being threatened. The problem is, the jury took everything that Zimmerman said happened as fact and took the actual facts that they could gather from phone records, defense testimony and the like as speculative. Trayvon couldn't defend himself. At least one of the jury members is a registered gun owner. All of the 6 jurors (5 white women and one Hispanic woman) agreed that George acted wrongfully in his pursuit of Martin. Black confusion turned to outrage and the white confusion enrages Black people further. Why are we so upset? Why are we protesting? Why are we not accepting the verdict? The real questions all of us should be asking is why isn't EVERY AMERICAN angry? Why is anyone confused? Why are we struggling with acceptance in America when we have a Black president serving a second term? Why haven't we changed AT ALL as a nation yet? I think a truthful answer to that last question can also all those before it.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
NOT GUILTY???!!!! What the George Zimmerman Verdict Really Means
Shocked. That is the only word I can use to describe what I am sure many of us who were awaiting the outcome of the Trayvon Martin/ George Zimmerman case. Personally, I figured that Zimmerman would walk, but I held out the slightest hope that the jury would convict. Not because I hate George Zimmerman, but because it seemed pretty clear cut that he acted in an unlawful manner when he gunned down Trayvon Martin. You can comb through the facts of the case with a blind eye and still come to the conclusion that he shot and killed an unarmed child. Was it murder? The jury said no. The jury could not determine beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman had ill will and intent to injure or kill Trayvon. Maybe the jury didn't want to send a man to prison. Maybe the jury bought the endearing appearance that the defense carefully crafted for Zimmerman; the clean shaven face and the extra weight that gave him a much different look than the one he had on the night he fatally shot Martin. Maybe the jury bought the notion that Trayvon was a thug and that Zimmerman was afraid for his life when he drew his gun during the ensuing struggle. Maybe they bought the idea that George Zimmerman was just doing his job as neighborhood watchman when he decided to follow Martin because he looked suspicious wearing a hoodie in the rain and carrying candy and iced tea.
Maybe the jury looked past the fact that Trayvon was someones child. Someone who lived in the neighborhood where he was gunned down. Someone who was less culpable in this case than the one who was holding the gun. Someone who had no idea they were being approached by a neighborhood watchman who had aspirations to be a police officer, but for some reason wasn't one as of yet. Someone who was doing absolutely nothing wrong. Someone who had just as much a right to 'Stand Your Ground' as did the person who claimed to be doing just that. Someone who was engaged in a gunfight with nothing but his fists.
Maybe the jury had already had enough of this case. For 5 weeks they'd been dealing with it, from jury selection to the verdict. For two weeks they heard testimony from both sides. The defense had a pretty good strategy of painting Trayvon as a thug and of discrediting the prosecution's witnesses. The jury endured over 4 hours of closing argument. Maybe the jury just wanted to go home. I have a hard time believing all 6 of those jurors honestly thought George Zimmerman was not guilty. There had to be one person in the room who thought that Zimmerman's testimony didn't add up. Maybe they were the reason why it took 16 hours to come to the conclusion they ended up with unanimously. Maybe the other 5 jurors convinced them to look at things a little differently.
In the end, with all the waiting those involved with this case and all of us who watched from home did, with over a year having gone by, this is what we are left with. A not guilty verdict for a person who was guilty of, in the very least, having no regard for human life. I can't even begin to imagine what Trayvon's family is experiencing now. They had to deal with the loss of their son, wait for almost two months, from February 26th to April 11th, to get an arrest and see charges filed against the man who killed their son, their brother, their nephew, their cousin. They had to wait as the defense charged them with trying to manipulate the media by releasing photos of their son that made him look like an innocent child. The defense countered with pictures that made him look menacing, threatening and much more intimidating than the family photos. They showed him blowing smoke circles, claiming that Trayvon smoked marijuana and was under its influence the night he was killed. Martin's family had to deal with this and more for over a year while they watched Zimmerman receive financial donations to take care of his defense and his personal expenses. They had to watch their son get vilified in death as George Zimmerman walked free on bail, even after deliberately misleading authorities in regard to his finances. Once the trail began, they had to watch an aggressive defense of the man who shot and killed their son, while those who the prosecution called as witnesses were discredited. They watched as the prosecution tried to defend their son, when it wasn't him that was on trial. They watched as Trayvon was portrayed as the aggressor. They watched George Zimmerman refuse to testify and, finally, they watched as the jurors found their son's killer not guilty.
What this verdict means, essentially, is that Trayvon Martin was the one who was guilty. Yes, a not guilty verdict on behalf of George Zimmerman means that Trayvon Martin, somehow, ends up being the guilty one. It means that George Zimmerman had the right to shoot and kill an unarmed teenager who was walking to the home in which he was staying during that time. It means that George Zimmerman, although he acted against directions from a police dispatcher to not follow Martin any further, did nothing wrong according to the law.
What's sad is that this outcome was probably predetermined at the outset of the trail. It was long questioned why the State Attorney, Angela Corey, decided to charge Zimmerman with only 2nd degree murder. Manslaughter charges were later considered before the case was handed to the jury, but it was an all or nothing approach from the beginning. Maybe it was because the evidence against Zimmerman was so clear cut. But it is not outlandish to think that George's father Robert Zimmerman, the retired judge, didn't have an influence here. Couple that with the prosecution failing to drive home a number of important facts of the case, mainly of which was that Zimmerman was the head of an unarmed patrol as neighborhood watch leader. It would seem that should have been a major sticking point in an effort to dispute the weight the Stand Your Ground law had in this case. Also, George Zimmerman pursued Martin, defiantly against police dispatch direction, establishing himself as the aggressor. Now, I'm no lawyer, but those two facts seem to stack the deck heavily against Zimmerman. But the jury didn't see it that way.
So now the public gets to weigh in from both sides. While it's obvious support will be split among racial lines, we are starting to get a real sense of the racial climate of this country. While the death of Trayvon Martin will probably not be carried in the same historical context as Emmit Till, the social ramifications may well be. Zimmerman's lawyers defiantly postured in front of the cameras during the press conference after the trail, painting their client as the victorious victim. The lead attorney, Mark O'Mara threw race right into the mix by charging that if Zimmerman had been Black, he would have never been charged. There are many people like O'Mara who feel the same exact way. Others feel like Black on Black crime isn't cared about in the Black community and that we use race as an excuse to create martyrs out of thugs when someone of another race commits a crime against a Black person. They say we defended Michael Vick, who killed dogs. They say we defended OJ Simpson, who murdered a white woman. They say we continue to stand by Barack Obama and he is destroying our country. They say Black people are the real racists. I say, as Melissa Harris-Perry said, that Black people are the only group of people that experiences racism from all other groups, even from within. There is a racial stigma that only Black people face. The pending results often show up as disparity when it comes to the Justice system. But what also occurs is criticism of the public outcry that comes from the Black community. It has been stated many times in regards to this case that George Zimmerman is Hispanic, not white. Many people who aren't Black, and some who are, have stated that since this is the case, then it's not an issue of race. The same thing was said when Sean Bell was shot, due to the fact that some of the cops that were involved in that shooting were Black. But the truth of the matter is that it is about race. If young Black Trayvon Martin just happened to be young white Kyle Mickelson, this situation doesn't happen. George Zimmerman never made any calls to the non-emergency dispatch regarding suspicious young white men. You never hear of 4 Black cops shooting an unarmed white man 41 or 50 times. You don't hear about people locking their car doors when a menacing group of white teens dressed in khakis and polo shirts approach their vehicle. But you have cases where young Black men are not allowed to fly on airplanes or where they are ticketed or asked to leave malls because their pants "sag". You have curfews instituted in small towns when young Black kids decide to venture into the downtown areas. And you have Newt Gingrich saying that "500 people died in Chicago last year but no one protested that". So, while the case may not have been about Black vs. white, it was about race. It was about how a race of people, Black people, are depicted and perceived in society and how the law isn't designed to supersede that. In fact, as demonstrated in this case, it is designed to reinforce that stigma. George Zimmerman is a free man today because of that fact.
Maybe the jury looked past the fact that Trayvon was someones child. Someone who lived in the neighborhood where he was gunned down. Someone who was less culpable in this case than the one who was holding the gun. Someone who had no idea they were being approached by a neighborhood watchman who had aspirations to be a police officer, but for some reason wasn't one as of yet. Someone who was doing absolutely nothing wrong. Someone who had just as much a right to 'Stand Your Ground' as did the person who claimed to be doing just that. Someone who was engaged in a gunfight with nothing but his fists.
Maybe the jury had already had enough of this case. For 5 weeks they'd been dealing with it, from jury selection to the verdict. For two weeks they heard testimony from both sides. The defense had a pretty good strategy of painting Trayvon as a thug and of discrediting the prosecution's witnesses. The jury endured over 4 hours of closing argument. Maybe the jury just wanted to go home. I have a hard time believing all 6 of those jurors honestly thought George Zimmerman was not guilty. There had to be one person in the room who thought that Zimmerman's testimony didn't add up. Maybe they were the reason why it took 16 hours to come to the conclusion they ended up with unanimously. Maybe the other 5 jurors convinced them to look at things a little differently.
In the end, with all the waiting those involved with this case and all of us who watched from home did, with over a year having gone by, this is what we are left with. A not guilty verdict for a person who was guilty of, in the very least, having no regard for human life. I can't even begin to imagine what Trayvon's family is experiencing now. They had to deal with the loss of their son, wait for almost two months, from February 26th to April 11th, to get an arrest and see charges filed against the man who killed their son, their brother, their nephew, their cousin. They had to wait as the defense charged them with trying to manipulate the media by releasing photos of their son that made him look like an innocent child. The defense countered with pictures that made him look menacing, threatening and much more intimidating than the family photos. They showed him blowing smoke circles, claiming that Trayvon smoked marijuana and was under its influence the night he was killed. Martin's family had to deal with this and more for over a year while they watched Zimmerman receive financial donations to take care of his defense and his personal expenses. They had to watch their son get vilified in death as George Zimmerman walked free on bail, even after deliberately misleading authorities in regard to his finances. Once the trail began, they had to watch an aggressive defense of the man who shot and killed their son, while those who the prosecution called as witnesses were discredited. They watched as the prosecution tried to defend their son, when it wasn't him that was on trial. They watched as Trayvon was portrayed as the aggressor. They watched George Zimmerman refuse to testify and, finally, they watched as the jurors found their son's killer not guilty.
What this verdict means, essentially, is that Trayvon Martin was the one who was guilty. Yes, a not guilty verdict on behalf of George Zimmerman means that Trayvon Martin, somehow, ends up being the guilty one. It means that George Zimmerman had the right to shoot and kill an unarmed teenager who was walking to the home in which he was staying during that time. It means that George Zimmerman, although he acted against directions from a police dispatcher to not follow Martin any further, did nothing wrong according to the law.
What's sad is that this outcome was probably predetermined at the outset of the trail. It was long questioned why the State Attorney, Angela Corey, decided to charge Zimmerman with only 2nd degree murder. Manslaughter charges were later considered before the case was handed to the jury, but it was an all or nothing approach from the beginning. Maybe it was because the evidence against Zimmerman was so clear cut. But it is not outlandish to think that George's father Robert Zimmerman, the retired judge, didn't have an influence here. Couple that with the prosecution failing to drive home a number of important facts of the case, mainly of which was that Zimmerman was the head of an unarmed patrol as neighborhood watch leader. It would seem that should have been a major sticking point in an effort to dispute the weight the Stand Your Ground law had in this case. Also, George Zimmerman pursued Martin, defiantly against police dispatch direction, establishing himself as the aggressor. Now, I'm no lawyer, but those two facts seem to stack the deck heavily against Zimmerman. But the jury didn't see it that way.
So now the public gets to weigh in from both sides. While it's obvious support will be split among racial lines, we are starting to get a real sense of the racial climate of this country. While the death of Trayvon Martin will probably not be carried in the same historical context as Emmit Till, the social ramifications may well be. Zimmerman's lawyers defiantly postured in front of the cameras during the press conference after the trail, painting their client as the victorious victim. The lead attorney, Mark O'Mara threw race right into the mix by charging that if Zimmerman had been Black, he would have never been charged. There are many people like O'Mara who feel the same exact way. Others feel like Black on Black crime isn't cared about in the Black community and that we use race as an excuse to create martyrs out of thugs when someone of another race commits a crime against a Black person. They say we defended Michael Vick, who killed dogs. They say we defended OJ Simpson, who murdered a white woman. They say we continue to stand by Barack Obama and he is destroying our country. They say Black people are the real racists. I say, as Melissa Harris-Perry said, that Black people are the only group of people that experiences racism from all other groups, even from within. There is a racial stigma that only Black people face. The pending results often show up as disparity when it comes to the Justice system. But what also occurs is criticism of the public outcry that comes from the Black community. It has been stated many times in regards to this case that George Zimmerman is Hispanic, not white. Many people who aren't Black, and some who are, have stated that since this is the case, then it's not an issue of race. The same thing was said when Sean Bell was shot, due to the fact that some of the cops that were involved in that shooting were Black. But the truth of the matter is that it is about race. If young Black Trayvon Martin just happened to be young white Kyle Mickelson, this situation doesn't happen. George Zimmerman never made any calls to the non-emergency dispatch regarding suspicious young white men. You never hear of 4 Black cops shooting an unarmed white man 41 or 50 times. You don't hear about people locking their car doors when a menacing group of white teens dressed in khakis and polo shirts approach their vehicle. But you have cases where young Black men are not allowed to fly on airplanes or where they are ticketed or asked to leave malls because their pants "sag". You have curfews instituted in small towns when young Black kids decide to venture into the downtown areas. And you have Newt Gingrich saying that "500 people died in Chicago last year but no one protested that". So, while the case may not have been about Black vs. white, it was about race. It was about how a race of people, Black people, are depicted and perceived in society and how the law isn't designed to supersede that. In fact, as demonstrated in this case, it is designed to reinforce that stigma. George Zimmerman is a free man today because of that fact.
Friday, July 12, 2013
As We Wait for Justice: The Trayvon Martin/ George Zimmerman Trail
Over the past few weeks the trail of George Zimmerman has had many of us engaged, wondering what the final outcome will be. While some of us have paid very close attention to the case, many have just caught the daily highlights as it is reported on the news. We've heard about the holes in the defense's argument that Zimmerman was protecting himself, we've seen the video re-enactment that Zimmerman gave the police and the animated re-enactment that the defense has used to show the jury what supposedly happened that night. Unfortunately, all we are left with is the word of the man who shot and killed Trayvon Martin and the strategy of his defense team to paint Trayvon as the aggressor.
George Zimmerman says Trayvon Martin attacked him. He had the cuts and bruises to supposedly prove it. He says he was just doing his job. He says he only got out of his car to get an address for the non-emergency dispatcher that he was speaking to when he called to report a suspicious looking black male walking through the neighborhood. He says he was the one who was afraid for his life. He said during the scuffle, he felt his gun against his skin, which he processed as Trayvon reaching for it. He says in the midst of that struggle he was able to grab the gun, apparently away from or before Trayvon could get it, and shoot him. He said he shot in self defense. He said, he said, he said.
What I'd like to focus on are some other things that Zimmerman said. During that call to the non-emergency dispatcher, he was recorded as saying "these fucking punks, they always get away" to the dispatcher. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following Trayvon. He said that he was. The dispatcher told him not to. We all know that he ignored those instructions and followed him anyway. He said that Trayvon jumped from behind some bushes that apparently do not exist in the area where he says the confrontation took place. He said that when he drove up alongside the teen, Trayvon asked him if he had a problem. Zimmerman says he responded "No". My question is, as the leader of the neighborhood watch group, if he was following Martin, wouldn't his natural response have been "Yes", or at least "just making sure everything is okay"? Zimmerman said Martin seemed to be checking out the houses. As a neighborhood watchman, he probably should have made it known that he was part of that group and that he was on patrol. I would like to think that could have aided in any de-escalating of that situation. As a Black male who has had a number of unwarranted run-ins with various police officers from a number of states and other persons of various authority, I can see how tensions between Trayvon and Zimmerman could have been elevated from the start. A simple announcing of who George Zimmerman was could have been the difference in this situation, if we are to believe Mr. Zimmerman's account of how things transpired. If he did, in fact, make that announcement, I haven't heard or read about it in any of the reports of his version of what happened. The defense has done an extensive job at painting Trayvon as some sort of thug who was waiting for a moment to fight and took the opportunity with Zimmerman. That depiction bodes well for Zimmerman's story, saying that he was the one who was afraid of Trayvon.
The prosecution also has pieced together what they believed happened as well. Since Trayvon Martin is deceased and cannot tell his version of what happened, that's all they can do. All they have is the testimony of Rachel Jeantel, who was on the phone with Trayvon while things were unfolding between him and Zimmerman. All they have is the eyewitness account of one person who says they saw Zimmerman on top of Martin. All they have is the history that George Zimmerman had of profiling young Black males in that community. All they have is Robert Zimmerman, George's father, who is a retired judge and obviously had a hand in George not being immediately arrested and questioned after the shooting. All they have is the "Stand Your Ground Law" that is in place to give people the ability to protect themselves if they feel their life is in danger. All they have is Trayvon's hoodie that has no remnants of George Zimmerman's DNA on it, something that has been said should be on the hoodie if there was any type of struggle. All they have is some solid evidence that George Zimmerman isn't being 100% honest with his version of the story and an example of his dishonest recent past when he lied and told his wife to lie about their finances when he was having his bail hearings. All they have now is a jury of 6 women who have to decide, with just one side of the story, if George Zimmerman displayed ill will or hatred or acted with intent to kill or to injure Trayvon Martin when he decided to draw his gun and shoot an unarmed teen who, technically, lived in that neighborhood.
So now, all who have an interest in the outcome of this trail, we wait. We wait to see if the justice system works. We wait to see if Zimmerman will be found guilty of 2nd degree murder or even a lesser charge of manslaughter or if he will be acquitted. We wait to see if those 6 women on that jury see what many of us on the outside looking in see, a man who voiced his opinion of young Black males to a police dispatcher and ended up shooting one dead. We wait to see if the defense's strategy of painting Trayvon as a weed smoking, MMA watching thug who was looking for a fight will win over the jury. We wait to see if the jury will stand up and say it is not okay to randomly profile someone and kill them and claim self defense later. We wait to see if Trayvon Martin will be another statistic or if George Zimmerman will get a jail number. We wait to see if society still views young Black men stereotypically as threatening. We wait, we wait, we wait.
George Zimmerman says Trayvon Martin attacked him. He had the cuts and bruises to supposedly prove it. He says he was just doing his job. He says he only got out of his car to get an address for the non-emergency dispatcher that he was speaking to when he called to report a suspicious looking black male walking through the neighborhood. He says he was the one who was afraid for his life. He said during the scuffle, he felt his gun against his skin, which he processed as Trayvon reaching for it. He says in the midst of that struggle he was able to grab the gun, apparently away from or before Trayvon could get it, and shoot him. He said he shot in self defense. He said, he said, he said.
What I'd like to focus on are some other things that Zimmerman said. During that call to the non-emergency dispatcher, he was recorded as saying "these fucking punks, they always get away" to the dispatcher. The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following Trayvon. He said that he was. The dispatcher told him not to. We all know that he ignored those instructions and followed him anyway. He said that Trayvon jumped from behind some bushes that apparently do not exist in the area where he says the confrontation took place. He said that when he drove up alongside the teen, Trayvon asked him if he had a problem. Zimmerman says he responded "No". My question is, as the leader of the neighborhood watch group, if he was following Martin, wouldn't his natural response have been "Yes", or at least "just making sure everything is okay"? Zimmerman said Martin seemed to be checking out the houses. As a neighborhood watchman, he probably should have made it known that he was part of that group and that he was on patrol. I would like to think that could have aided in any de-escalating of that situation. As a Black male who has had a number of unwarranted run-ins with various police officers from a number of states and other persons of various authority, I can see how tensions between Trayvon and Zimmerman could have been elevated from the start. A simple announcing of who George Zimmerman was could have been the difference in this situation, if we are to believe Mr. Zimmerman's account of how things transpired. If he did, in fact, make that announcement, I haven't heard or read about it in any of the reports of his version of what happened. The defense has done an extensive job at painting Trayvon as some sort of thug who was waiting for a moment to fight and took the opportunity with Zimmerman. That depiction bodes well for Zimmerman's story, saying that he was the one who was afraid of Trayvon.
The prosecution also has pieced together what they believed happened as well. Since Trayvon Martin is deceased and cannot tell his version of what happened, that's all they can do. All they have is the testimony of Rachel Jeantel, who was on the phone with Trayvon while things were unfolding between him and Zimmerman. All they have is the eyewitness account of one person who says they saw Zimmerman on top of Martin. All they have is the history that George Zimmerman had of profiling young Black males in that community. All they have is Robert Zimmerman, George's father, who is a retired judge and obviously had a hand in George not being immediately arrested and questioned after the shooting. All they have is the "Stand Your Ground Law" that is in place to give people the ability to protect themselves if they feel their life is in danger. All they have is Trayvon's hoodie that has no remnants of George Zimmerman's DNA on it, something that has been said should be on the hoodie if there was any type of struggle. All they have is some solid evidence that George Zimmerman isn't being 100% honest with his version of the story and an example of his dishonest recent past when he lied and told his wife to lie about their finances when he was having his bail hearings. All they have now is a jury of 6 women who have to decide, with just one side of the story, if George Zimmerman displayed ill will or hatred or acted with intent to kill or to injure Trayvon Martin when he decided to draw his gun and shoot an unarmed teen who, technically, lived in that neighborhood.
So now, all who have an interest in the outcome of this trail, we wait. We wait to see if the justice system works. We wait to see if Zimmerman will be found guilty of 2nd degree murder or even a lesser charge of manslaughter or if he will be acquitted. We wait to see if those 6 women on that jury see what many of us on the outside looking in see, a man who voiced his opinion of young Black males to a police dispatcher and ended up shooting one dead. We wait to see if the defense's strategy of painting Trayvon as a weed smoking, MMA watching thug who was looking for a fight will win over the jury. We wait to see if the jury will stand up and say it is not okay to randomly profile someone and kill them and claim self defense later. We wait to see if Trayvon Martin will be another statistic or if George Zimmerman will get a jail number. We wait to see if society still views young Black men stereotypically as threatening. We wait, we wait, we wait.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)