I have been thinking really hard about this topic for a while now. It started when I signed a petition on change.org to bring justice to the family of a slain 17 year old. Little did I know that I was taking part in a firestorm that has spread rapidly across the US over the last couple weeks. I am not an attorney, psychologist or specialist of any kind but I am a human being with feelings and emotions that I can use to put myself in other people's shoes so coming from my own perspective, here are my thoughts on the killing of Trayvon Martin.
First of all, I feel the media is assisting in turning this whole incident into a battlefield. You've got various news sources arguing over what they THINK really happened or debating what kind of a person they THINK George Zimmerman is or what they ASSUME Trayvon Martin was doing the night he was killed. The problem is that none of us were there and all we have to go on is the American media that has a problematic history of being biased and funded by special interest groups. So my question is, was it really self defense? If so, how did they prove it? If it hasn't been proved, it needs to be because an unarmed child is dead.
There has been no charge. There has been no trial. There has been no judge presiding over this case. In my opinion, there has been no justice served - whether it is in favor or against George Zimmerman. Because of this, I have some major problems that I view as a social injustice to two families who are caught in the middle of a firestorm.
Here is what I know and believe as fact:
28 year old George Zimmerman shot and killed 17 year old Trayvon Martin on February 26th, 2012. There are multiple accounts of what happened that night, but what I see is quite simple and straightforward.
a. There is a suspect and a victim.
b. The suspect is alive, the victim is dead.
c. The suspect was armed with a deadly weapon, the victim was unarmed.
d. There is a police report, video surveillance and 911 phone calls that contains questionable information - at least according to the family lawyer, the media and the police department.
e. The suspect was taken into custody on the night of the shooting but has not been in custody since that night.
With this in mind, questions and confusion has been circulating in my head.
A major argument is that Zimmerman killed Martin in self-defense and according to the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law, this makes Zimmerman immune to arrest. Here is the Florida statue in regards to this law:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) 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; or (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
According to Zimmerman, self defense was necessary and if so, he was within his right to use self defense. But the biggest question in my mind is: was deadly force necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm?
Zimmerman claims Martin attacked him and repeatedly slammed his head into the ground (article from abc.com) so in return, Zimmerman shot him with deadly force in self defense - does he have a ground to stand on? The definition of "imminent" death is such that death is ready to take place; death is overhanging; death is on the verge of occurring. The definition of "great bodily harm" is bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily injury".
My biggest concern: According to video surveillance, Zimmerman walked unaided out of a police car and into a police station on the night of the shooting with no blood on his clothing, a reported gash on the back of his head and no visible bandages. If he was in danger of imminent death or great bodily harm, based on the definitions, how could he have done that? Shouldn't he have been in the ER if he was on the verge of death; if he had serious disfigurement; if his bodily functioning was impaired?
It is possible that Zimmerman and Martin were involved in an altercation and that Martin caused injuries to Zimmerman, allowing him to use self defense. BUT it doesn't seem likely that Zimmerman was in imminent danger or at risk of great bodily harm - in fact he looks very put together in the surveillance video, fully conscious and walking normally. I cannot believe that deadly force was necessary in this situation - but once again, perhaps Zimmerman should be in court so this can be determined.
Another question is, does the "Stand Your Ground" law protect those who overstep their boundaries?
Zimmerman was instructed by 911 personnel NOT to approach Martin but he did it anyway, therefore potentially provoking a confrontation. If Zimmerman would have followed instructions given to him, retreated to his home or car or wherever, self defense and/or deadly force may not have been necessary and Martin could still be alive. Let's say Martin started a fight with Zimmerman - why didn't Zimmerman walk away? As a grown man, why didn't he have the wits to ignore the kid and leave the area? I'm assuming his neighbors trust him as a part of the Neighborhood Watch group, but you can ask almost anyone that provoking, participating in, or continuing an altercation is not part of being on Neighborhood Watch.
Some argue that Zimmerman had no choice, that Martin attacked him and Zimmerman could not get away so he stood his ground and used self defense - understandable but returning to the question above, did he have to kill Martin? Here is what the fathers of the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law have to say : It's Being Taken Out of Context.
The only way to get past this notion of whether or not he is justified in using deadly force is to take it to court and proceed with a trial involving a judge, a jury and witnesses. There are too many questions circulating about what really happened on the night of February 26th and since none of us were actually there, who is to say whats right and wrong? Who started the altercation? Why did Zimmerman really approach Martin? How badly did Martin injure Zimmerman? Who was actually screaming in the background of the 911 call? Who? What? Where? When? Why?
My answer is take it to trial. You can't ask a dead kid for his testimony, but you can at least give his family a fair trial to determine whether or not Trayvon's death was a homicide. If my son had been shot, I would want a fair trial. If my son shot someone else, I would want to give their family a fair trial as well.
Here are some articles I've found that are not tied to the Trayvon Martin case but that I think are interesting in light of it:
Soldier arrested for identity theft
Woman arrested for flour bombing
Man arrested and charged for shooting a cat dead
Pin It
Posts
