I read about this case and listened to the pundits quip about various aspects of what happened and why. First and foremost, the outrage seen here would not be as overwhelming if the applicable law (which is not the "stand your ground" law, but simply the affirmative defense of "self defense") allowed Florida law enforcement to take Zimmerman into custody pending determination of the outcome of the crime. Furthermore, a society that emboldens vigilante action in the form of a "community watch" which similarly does not advise such "community watch" participants against the risks of racial profiling is flawed at its core.
The media has broadened this discussion because you have an innocent looking kid who inspires sympathy whose sole stereotyping factors are his skin color and his choice of wardrobe. Meanwhile, you have a far less congenial "aggressor" acting under the guise of authority with a loaded gun on him despite his designated role as a "watch".
Meanwhile, the general public intervenes in this discussion with partially informed views on fairness and equality, driven more by emotion than factual basis and/or legal understanding. This is, in fact, one of the tougher fact patterns to distinguish what happened -- particularly because one of the main witnesses is dead.
That said, my belief (while partially informed) is that the DA in Seminole County needs to bring charges against Zimmerman for his actions in causing the death of Trayvon Martin. At trial, Zimmerman will have the right to raise affirmative defenses as to whether he was justified in his shooting and killing Trayvon Martin. The DA should not be the arbiter of the facts in the case.
In my opinion, actions evidencing a crime were committed resulting in the death of Trayvon Martin. Whether those actions were justified requires a determination of facts that the DA is incapable of determining by himself because the main witness is dead.
Any decision not to bring the case against Zimmerman does two things (i) it denies Trayvon Martin's family their "day in court" and (ii) it encourages vigilante behavior where the aggressor creates a scenario where they are acting in "self-defense".
As a policy matter, I would want to discourage behavior like Zimmerman's where he aggressively confronts another person relying on self-defense to protect him. I think the affirmative defense of self-defense should be costly to the person asserting it (i.e. force them to show up in court to prove it) to discourage people from acting under its guise. A jury of his peers can determine whether he was justified or not.
To answer the question posed -- were the actions in the video reversed would it be racial? The statement that, by itself, a criminal act from one race to another is racially motivated is by itself ignorant. Without some prior bias or stereotyping behavior with racial overtones, there is no reason to raise the "race card". Martin's case has racial stereotyping on tape prior to the altercation. Your video doesn't, it simply has two different races involved. This one doesn't pass muster.
To a deeper degree, there is no need for "white people" to raise the spectre of "black on white" crime. It happens both ways everyday. The media frenzy here, as I said above, is that you have (i) a sympathetic victim, (ii) a menacing but "justified" perpetrator, (iii) a cloudy fact pattern and (iv) a failure by authorities to take arguably required action. It makes for good media story. It is what is cause we are what we are.
3/30/2012 1:18 PM
