The Trayvon Martin verdict shows that with "Stand Your
Ground" laws, it's your word against theirs and they're dead.
By Donald Kaul
I wasn’t too surprised
when do-it-yourself vigilante George Zimmerman was found not guilty of
murdering Trayvon Martin. The trial took place in Florida, after all.
You have to be pretty
stupid or reckless or both to be found guilty of murder in Florida.
If you want to kill
someone in the Sunshine State, all you have to do is get him or her alone and
then provoke them into threatening you.
At that point, you can pull out a gun
and shoot them dead, later saying that you felt your life was in danger.
Remember Columbo, the
quirky and long-running TV mystery series starring Peter Falk? Columbo would
have been out of a job if he tried to exercise his funky detective skills in
Florida.
Only two people know
what really went down that night, and one of them is unable to tell his version
of the events. Zimmerman made sure of that.
His story is that he
saw Martin, a black teenager, acting suspiciously in a community where
Zimmerman was trolling for miscreants. He followed the kid for a while,
reporting the youngster to the 911 operator. Then, acting against the advice of
the operator, he got out of his car and started to follow the young man on
foot.
Eventually, Zimmerman
said, he stopped and began walking back to his car. At which point, the
defendant claimed, Martin jumped out from some bushes and attacked him,
knocking him down and repeatedly beating Zimmerman’s head against the sidewalk.
Fearing for his life, Zimmerman pulled out a gun he’d been carrying all this
time and shot Martin, killing him.
That was his story.
The jury bought it, though I can’t imagine why. (Actually, I can imagine why,
but I’m not going to say it. It might start a riot.)
This is a cockamamie
story from start to finish.
In the first place,
Martin was a skinny kid and Zimmerman’s an older, burly guy. If they got in a
fight, you’d bet on the bigger fellow, particularly if he fancied himself a
kind of cop.
In the second place,
there were no bushes for Martin to jump out of. Pictures show the site to be
clear of foliage.
In the third place, an
examining doctor said that Zimmerman’s head wound looked as though it were the
result of a single blow, not repeated bashing.
In other words, at
every point that could be checked, Zimmerman lied. In addition, he lied to the
judge about his resources at his bail hearing, for which he was jailed again.
Yet the jury seemed to
believe him.
This is what I think
happened: Zimmerman got out of his car to follow Martin more closely and,
perhaps, harass him. Martin, nervous (wouldn’t you be?), turned to confront
him. Maybe Zimmerman accosted the young man, maybe he didn’t.
In any case, thinking
he was acting in self-defense, Martin popped the bigger man, knocking him down,
all the while yelling for help.
Zimmerman, panicked
now, pulled out his gun and shot his assailant. Then he called the cops again.
I think that plays.
However, it’s no more
than a fiction, a work of the imagination. Were I a juror, I would not act on
the assumptions I made there.
As a matter of fact, I
would not vote for a guilty verdict on the charge of murder. By Florida law,
the evidence did not prove “beyond the shadow of a doubt” that Zimmerman
murdered Martin.
It’s a really stupid
law.
Given the opportunity,
I might vote for a manslaughter verdict (getting out of the car against expert
advice puts him somewhat at blame for what happened later). But the prosecution
was so lame I doubt I’d get the opportunity.
As President Barack
Obama pointed out, we are a nation of laws.
Justice has nothing to
do with it.
OtherWords columnist
Donald Kaul lives in Ann Arbor, Michigan. OtherWords.org