Video [embedded] The Politics of Black Masculinity: The Op-Ed columnist Charles M. Blow on the difficulty of explaining the Zimmerman verdict to his sons.
By CHARLES M. BLOW Published: July 15, 2013
In a way, the not-guilty verdict in the trial of George Zimmerman for his killing of Trayvon Martin was more powerful than a guilty verdict could ever have been. It was the perfect wrenching coda to a story that illustrates just how utterly and completely our system of justice — both moral and legal — failed Martin and his family.
This is not to dispute the jury’s finding — one can intellectually rationalize the decision — as much as it is to howl at the moon, to yearn for a brighter reality for the politics around dark bodies, to raise a voice and say, this case is a rallying call, not a death dirge.
The system began to fail Martin long before that night.
The system failed him when Florida’s self-defense laws were written, allowing an aggressor to claim self-defense in the middle of an altercation — and to use deadly force in that defense — with no culpability for his role in the events that led to that point.
The system failed him because of the disproportionate force that he and the neighborhood watchman could legally bring to the altercation — Zimmerman could legally carry a concealed firearm, while Martin, who was only 17, could not.
The system failed him when the neighborhood watchman grafted on stereotypes the moment he saw him, ascribing motive and behavior and intent and criminal history to a boy who was just walking home.
The system failed him when the bullet ripped though his chest, and the man who shot him said he mounted him and stretched his arms out wide, preventing him from even clutching the spot that hurt.
The system failed him in those moments just after he was shot when he was surely aware that he was about to die, but before life’s light fully passed from his body — and no one came to comfort him or try to save him.
The system failed him when the slapdash Sanford police did a horrible job of collecting and preserving evidence.
The system failed him when those officers apparently didn’t even value his dead body enough to adequately canvass the complex to make sure that no one was missing a teen.
The system failed him when he was labeled a John Doe and his lifeless body spent the night alone and unclaimed.
The system failed him when the man who the police found standing over the body of a dead teenager, a man who admitted to shooting him and still had the weapon, was taken in for questioning and then allowed to walk out of the precinct without an arrest or even a charge, to go home after taking a life and take to his bed.
The system failed him when it took more than 40 days and an outpouring of national outrage to get an arrest.
The system failed him when a strangely homogenous jury — who may well have been Zimmerman’s peers but were certainly not the peers of the teenager, who was in effect being tried in absentia — was seated.
The system failed him when the prosecution put on a case for the Martin family that many court-watchers found wanting.
The system failed him when the discussion about bias became so reductive as to be either-or rather than about situational fluidity and the possibility of varying responses to varying levels of perceived threat.
The system failed him when everyone in the courtroom raised racial bias in roundabout ways, but almost never directly — for example, when the defense held up a picture of a shirtless Martin and told the jurors that this was the person Zimmerman encountered the night he shot him. But in fact it was not the way Zimmerman had seen Martin. Consciously or subconsciously, the defense played on an old racial trope: asking the all-female jury — mostly white — to fear the image of the glistening black buck, as Zimmerman had.
This case is not about an extraordinary death of an extraordinary person. Unfortunately, in America, people are lost to gun violence every day. Many of them look like Martin and have parents who presumably grieve for them. This case is about extraordinary inequality in the presumption of innocence and the application of justice: why was Martin deemed suspicious and why was his killer allowed to go home?
Sometimes people just need a focal point. Sometimes that focal point becomes a breaking point.
The idea of universal suspicion without individual evidence is what Americans find abhorrent and what black men in America must constantly fight. It is pervasive in policing policies — like stop-and-frisk, and in this case neighborhood watch — regardless of the collateral damage done to the majority of innocents. It’s like burning down a house to rid it of mice.
As a parent, particularly a parent of black teenage boys, I am left with the question, “Now, what do I tell my boys?”
We used to say not to run in public because that might be seen as suspicious, like they’d stolen something. But according to Zimmerman, Martin drew his suspicion at least in part because he was walking too slowly.
So what do I tell my boys now? At what precise pace should a black man walk to avoid suspicion?
And can they ever stop walking away, or running away, and simply stand their ground? Can they become righteously indignant without being fatally wounded?
Is there anyplace safe enough, or any cargo innocent enough, for a black man in this country? Martin was where he was supposed to be — in a gated community — carrying candy and a canned drink.
The whole system failed Martin. What prevents it from failing my children, or yours?
I feel that I must tell my boys that, but I can’t. It’s stuck in my throat. It’s an impossibly heartbreaking conversation to have. So, I sit and watch in silence, and occasionally mouth the word, “breathe,” because I keep forgetting to.
Did George Zimmerman's prosecutors try to get him off?
George Zimmerman, second from right, stands with his defense team Mark O'Mara, left, Don West, second from left, and Lorna Truett, right, during his trial in Seminole circuit court in Sanford, Fla. Thursday, July 11, 2013. Zimmerman was acquitted of second-degree murder for the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin. (AP Photo/Orlando Sentinel, Gary W. Green, Pool)
By Jarvis DeBerry, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune on July 15, 2013 at 3:00 PM, updated July 16, 2013 at 10:05 AM
George Zimmerman was acquitted of killing Trayvon Martin [ http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2013/07/jury_george_zimmerman_not_guil.html ], a New Orleans attorney complained to me Monday, because the prosecution didn't want to win a conviction. The attorney, who has worked at Tulane and Broad as an assistant district attorney and as a defense lawyer, called me to say that he's handled hundreds of homicide cases over his career and that he's never seen prosecutors who want to win make the series of missteps that the Florida prosecutors made. So he's convinced they lost on purpose. He offered six reasons for his belief that the state threw the case.
1) Prosecutors didn't demand a change of venue. The recusal of the Seminole County district attorney and multiple judges from that county is proof that the case was a political hot potato and that there was a fear that there would be negative political ramifications following a Zimmerman conviction. Therefore, the state should have moved to have the venue changed.
3) They didn't fight to get a single man on the jury. This, my source said, is prosecuting 101. In a fatal fight between men, you fight to get men on the jury. Men are more likely to convict.
4) Rachel Jeantel was poorly prepared. The lawyer said he's dealt with witnesses from age 6 to 85 and has had to rely on witnesses who had no more than a second-grade education. Jeantel, a close friend of Martin [ http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/06/trayvon_martins_friend_ends_te.html ], and the closest thing the state had to a star witness, was on the phone with him as he was being followed by Zimmerman. At times she seemed hostile to the questioning and her demeanor was all but certain, my source said, to turn off a jury that was reportedly five white women and a Latina. "We made 'em into witnesses," my source said of those folks who came with shortcomings. "That's called preparation."
5) Prosecutors played for the jury a television interview that Zimmerman gave to Fox News' Sean Hannity. The defense wouldn't have been permitted to play that tape if they'd asked, he said, "so what's the prosecution playing it for?" Didn't prosecutors play the tape to highlight Zimmerman's inconsistencies? I asked. Those inconsistencies were "microscopic," he said. He said he was taught that "if it hurts your case, let the other guy do it." But in this case, the defense wouldn't have been able to do it because, he said, the tape was clearly hearsay [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaua8aAUpOs (next below)]
and not subject to cross-examination.
6) A Sanford police officer who was asked if he believed Zimmerman's story of self-defense was allowed to answer yes without the prosecution objecting. Witnesses should not be permitted to offer an opinion on the credibility of other witnesses or other evidence. The next day prosecutors asked the judge to strike that portion of the investigator's testimony, and she complied. But why did the prosecution sit quietly as the question was asked and answered?
My source said he's polled about 20 prosecutors in New Orleans, and though all aren't sure that they would have been able to get Zimmerman convicted as charged, each of them is convinced he or she could have got more than an acquittal. It was a clear case of tanking, he argued: "They didn't want to win this case."
Zimmerman Attorney To Media: "You Had A Lot To Do With" Turning My Client Into A Monster
Posted on July 13, 2013
MARK O'MARA, ZIMMERMAN DEFENSE ATTORNEY: A man who believes in the system, whose dad was a judge, who maybe wanted to be a cop, and gets a system --
Two systems went against George Zimmerman that he can't understand. You guys, the media. He was like a patient in an operating table where mad scientists were committing experiment on him and he had no anesthesia. He didn't know why he was turned into this monster. But quite honestly you guys had a lot to do with it, you just did, cause you took a story that was fed to you and you ran with it, and you ran right over him. And that was horrid to him.
The 6 Decisions That Could Have Saved Trayvon Martin's Life
By Ryan Grim Posted: 07/15/2013 4:43 pm EDT | Updated: 07/16/2013 11:02 am EDT
It's impossible to know whether it was Trayvon Martin [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/trayvon-martin/ ] or George Zimmerman [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/george-zimmerman ] who threw the first punch in the confrontation that ended Martin’s life. The jury apparently relied on that ambiguity to acquit Zimmerman of murdering Martin [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/13/george-zimmerman-not-guilty_n_3588743.html ], because he said he killed the 17-year-old in self defense. But despite the confusion, there are plenty of facts that both sides can agree on. While Zimmerman may have been found not guilty, that doesn't mean he wasn't responsible. Trayvon Martin would be alive today, but for at least six decisions made or not made by Zimmerman and the state of Florida.
1. Zimmerman could have decided not to follow Martin.
For starters, George Zimmerman is not a law enforcement official trained in spotting suspicious or criminal behavior. Zimmerman told a 911 operator that Martin [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/16/trayvon-martin-911-audio-_n_1354909.html ] seemed suspicious and appeared to be "on drugs or something. It's raining and he’s just walking around, looking about." It was not 3 a.m. when Zimmerman spotted Martin. Rather, it was early evening, a time when people typically "walk around, looking about." Had Zimmerman simply gone about his business, we never would have heard about either of them.
2. Zimmerman could have listened to the 911 operator and not followed Martin.
Talking to an operator, Zimmerman complained, "These assholes, they always get away." He later narrated, "Shit, he's running.”
"Are you following him?" the operator asked.
Zimmerman confirmed he was. "Ok, we don't need you to do that," the operator told him. If Zimmerman had simply let Martin run away, he'd be alive today. Martin, it later emerged, found Zimmerman as deeply suspicious as Zimmerman found him. Only one of those judgments turned out to be correct.
3. If Zimmerman had not been secretly armed, he probably wouldn't have followed Martin.
Zimmerman knew that he had an advantage in any possible confrontation with a neighbor: He was concealing a weapon. If a fight started, and Zimmerman began losing, he could pull out the gun and shoot his opponent. The state of Florida allows Zimmerman to patrol his neighborhood armed, which emboldened him.
4. If Zimmerman's weapon had not been hidden, Martin probably would have dealt with him differently.
When a man follows another, tensions rise. One way or another, those tensions led to a physical confrontation. But if Florida law barred concealed carry, Martin would have been able to see that Zimmerman was armed. Zimmerman defenders suspect Martin threw the first punch. But even if that's true, would he have done so if he knew Zimmerman was carrying a loaded weapon?
5. Zimmerman could have been barred from carrying a weapon.
6. Zimmerman could have not shot and killed Martin.
Regardless of who threw the first punch, a series of aggressive decisions by Zimmerman led toward the fight that broke out. Zimmerman therefore bears some responsibility for the altercation. If one starts a fight and loses, the result is generally a bloody nose, a fat lip, a black eye, a concussion or even a broken bone. That's the price one pays for getting into a fight, and it tends to be a deterrent to starting a fight. Zimmerman could have chosen to take his lumps and rethink the decisions he had made that landed him where he was. Instead, he pulled out his gun, squeezed the trigger and killed Trayvon Martin.
Of course, there's a seventh decision that could have been made that night -- Trayvon Martin could have chosen to not defend himself.
It's important to note that the jury's verdict sends a message to anyone confronted or pursued by another man: If you engage the confrontation, even an act of self defense could be used as justification to shoot and kill you. What led up to the confrontation in the Martin-Zimmerman case was ruled irrelevant; only Zimmerman's state of mind at the time he shot him was to be taken into account by the jury. That doesn't leave someone being followed through their neighborhood many options other than fighting back.
Rachel Maddow Skewers Fox News For Trayvon Martin Protests Coverage
By Rebecca Shapiro Posted: 07/16/2013 8:44 am EDT
Rachel Maddow tore into Fox News for what she called the network's illogical outrage.
Fox News reported on a conspiracy theory in which conservative watchdog Judicial Watch alleged to have obtained documents that detailed "the role the Department of Justice played in organizing Trayvon Martin protests" soon after the teen was killed last year [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/george-zimmerman-gun-back_n_3598228.html ].
After playing a clip of a Fox News segment discussing how the Department of Justice "was involved in helping to organize anti-George Zimmerman protests last year," Maddow reacted:
"In the real world, the Department of Justice sent officials to meet with protesters, city officials and law enforcement to try to keep all the protests peaceful," she said. "And if they were supposed to be there in secret, they probably wouldn't have worn the T-shirts that said "DOJ" on them when they went to all these meetings. So yes, the protests about the verdicts have basically been peaceful and emotional demonstrations [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/15/trayvon-martin-protests_n_3593469.html ]. Yes, the Justice Department planned to help keep protests peaceful. And yes, Fox News is going to be outraged about all of that, all the time, even if in this case its outrage would logically seem to be self-canceling."
Lester Chambers Trayvon Martin Tribute: Soul Singer Attacked After Performing Dedication Song
BEVERLY HILLS, CA - FEBRUARY 22: Lester Chambers attends 'Imagination Heals' Children's Art Launch at The Beverly Hilton Hotel on February 22, 2013 in Beverly Hills, California. (Photo by Vivien Killilea/WireImage)
Posted: 07/15/2013 6:44 pm EDT
Soul singer, Lester Chambers is reportedly recovering from an attack following a performance dedicated to Trayvon Martin during Saturday’s Hayward-Russell City Blues Festival in Hayward, California.
“She must have been an acrobat. She did it in one leap. He didn't see her coming," Chambers’ wife, Lola told the paper adding that the 73-year-old told those in attendance that if the song was recorded today Mayfield would change the lyrics from “there’s a train a comin’” to "there's a change a comin.'"
Chambers' son, Dylan, took to his Facebook page on Saturday night to post a photo [ https://www.facebook.com/lester.chambers.96/posts/616417788382197 ] of the singer’s injuries and writing; “DAD... A bruised rib muscle and nerve damage and he is sore all over...”
Rush Limbaugh: Mainstream Media Wants To 'Limit Individual Liberty And Freedom'
By Rebecca Shapiro Posted: 07/16/2013 10:30 am EDT | Updated: 07/16/2013 10:38 am EDT
Rush Limbaugh told listeners of his Monday radio show that the mainstream media only covered stories that pushed political agendas.
He also suggested that Trayvon Martin's death received so much media attention because the media was trying to "limit individual liberty and freedom." Limbaugh said:
My point is this: take the Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin case. The moment it's first reported, all you have to know, to know what the likely truth is, is who's pushing it. And if CNN, MSNBC—anybody in the big media—is pushing this thing than you know. They are not concerned with the nature of the evidence. They are trying to advance a political perspective. Because they want to change the country and empower government so that it can't be stopped. Their objective is to limit individual liberty and freedom ... All these crimes where black thugs kill or beat up white people that don't get reported -- why? You know it as well as I do. It doesn't advance liberalism. Not only does it not advance liberalism, but it exposes it for the fraudulent existence that it has.
Demonstrators outside the Seminole County Courthouse react after hearing the verdict of “not guilty” in the trial of George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida. (AP Photo/John Raoux)
Aura Bogado on July 14, 2013 - 12:05 AM ET
A jury has found George Zimmerman not guilty of all charges in connection to death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. But while the verdict came as a surprise to some people, it makes perfect sense to others. This verdict is a crystal-clear illustration of the way white supremacy operates in America.
Throughout the trial, the media repeatedly referred to an “all-woman jury” in that Seminole County courtroom, adding that most of them were mothers. That is true—but so is that five of the six jurors were white, and that is profoundly significant for cases like this one. We also know that the lone juror of color was seen apparently wiping a tear during the prosecution’s rebuttal yesterday. But that tear didn’t ultimately convince her or the white people on that jury that Zimmerman was guilty of anything. Not guilty. Not after stalking, shooting and killing a black child, a child that the defense insultingly argued was “armed with concrete [ http://colorlines.com/archives/2013/07/zimmerman_defense_trayvon_armed_himself_with_concrete.html ].”
In the last few days, Latinos in particular have spoken up again about Zimmerman’s race, and the “white Hispanic” label especially [ http://www.latinorebels.com/2012/03/29/the-white-hispanic-label-yes-people-racism-is-a-latino-thing-too/ ], largely responding to social media users and mass media pundits who employed the term. Watching Zimmerman in the defense seat, his sister in the courtroom, and his mother on the stand, one can’t deny the skin color that informs their experience. They are not white. Yet Zimmerman’s apparent ideology—one that is suspicious of black men in his neighborhood, the “assholes who always get away—” is one that adheres to white supremacy. It was replicated in the courtroom by his defense, whose team tore away at Rachel Jeantel, questioning the young woman as if she was taking a Jim Crow–era literacy test. A defense that, during closing, cited slave-owning rapist Thomas Jefferson, played an animation for the jury [ http://www.thenation.com/blog/175228/animating-black-bodies ] based on erroneous assumptions, made racially coded accusations about Trayvon Martin emerging “out of the darkness,” and had the audacity to compare the case of the killing of an unarmed black teenager to siblings arguing over which one stole a cookie.
When Zimmerman was acquitted today, it wasn’t because he’s a so-called white Hispanic. He’s not. It’s because he abides by the logic of white supremacy, and was supported by a defense team—and a swath of society—that supports the lingering idea that some black men must occasionally be killed with impunity in order to keep society-at-large safe.
Media on the left, right and center have been fanning the flames of fear-mongering [ http://www.nbcnews.com/id/46979745/vp/52467630#52467630 ], speculating that people—and black people especially—will take to the streets. That fear-mongering represents a deep white anxiety about black bodies on the streets, and echoes Zimmerman’s fears: that black bodies on the street pose a public threat. But the real violence in those speculations, regardless of whether they prove to be true, is that it silences black anxiety. The anxiety that black men feel every time they walk outside the door—and the anxiety their loved ones feel for them as well. That white anxiety serves to conceal the real public threat: that a black man is killed every twenty-eight hours by a cop or vigilante [ http://mxgm.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/07_24_Report_all_rev_protected.pdf ].
People will take to the streets, and with good reason. They’ll be there because they know that, yes, some people do always get away—and it tends to be those strapped with guns and the logic of white supremacy at their side.
Stevie Wonder Boycotts Florida Over Stand Your Ground Laws, Zimmerman Verdict
07/16/2013 Stevie Wonder told a crowd on Sunday that he won't perform in Florida until the state repeals its controversial Stand Your Ground laws, effectively boycotting any state with similar legislation on its books. "I decided today that until the 'Stand Your Ground' law is abolished in Florida, I will never perform there again," the singer said in Quebec City. "As a matter of fact, wherever I find that law exists, I will not perform in that state or in that part of the world. The truth is that -- for those of you who’ve lost in the battle for justice, wherever that fits in any part of the world -- we can’t bring them back. What we can do is we can let our voices be heard. And we can vote in our various countries throughout the world for change and equality for everybody. That’s what I know we can do." [...] "You can't just talk about it," Wonder added at his concert on Sunday. "You gotta be about it." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/16/stevie-wonder-boycotts-florida-stand-your-ground-zimmerman_n_3603571.html [with comments]; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i9GSbwgvcQ
--
Zimmerman Verdict Renews Focus on 'Stand Your Ground' Laws
By Maggie Clark, Staff Writer July 14, 2013
The acquittal of George Zimmerman in the killing of unarmed teen Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Fla., raised fresh discussion of “stand your ground” laws.
The case centered around whether Zimmerman acted in self defense and drew national attention to Florida’s law, which allows people to defend themselves with force if they feel threatened in their home, business, car, or a place where they “have a legal right to be.” At least 22 states have a similar law [ http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/justice/self-defense-and-stand-your-ground.aspx ], according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
It was not until the case drew national attention and a Department of Justice investigation that prosecutors found evidence to charge Zimmerman with second-degree murder. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund is urging Attorney General Eric Holder to undertake a review of the case and encouraging Trayvon Martin’s family to pursue civil action against Zimmerman.
Across the country, at least 22 states have “stand your ground” laws, with varying degrees of requirements for when citizens may use deadly force to protect themselves. Before these new laws were put in place beginning in 2005, people who felt threatened outside their home were required to flee from an attacker before they were allowed to use force to defend themselves.
The new laws make clear, however, that if someone feels threatened either inside or outside their home, they do not have to run away and are legally justified in using force to protect themselves.
Some states just allow people to defend themselves in their homes or businesses, while others extend the law to cars or any place someone “has a right to be.” Florida’s law falls into this second category.
The Zimmerman case drew national attention to the “stand you ground” laws, which were promoted by the National Rifle Association and the American Legislative Exchange Council through model legislation and advocacy.
In a study of “stand your ground” laws commissioned by the National Bureau of Economic Research, researchers found [ http://www.nber.org/papers/w18187 ] that in states with “stand your ground” laws, the number of homicides had significantly increased from the years before the law was enacted. They found that the provision that allows self-defense “in any place a person has a legal right to be” is the driver of the increase in homicides. The increase in homicides, they argue, negates the claim that these laws reduce crime.
*
"STAND YOUR GROUND" STATES Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and West Virginia
George Zimmerman Case Echoes Trial Of John White, Black Man Convicted Of Manslaughter George Zimmerman (top left) shot and killed Trayvon Martin (bottom left). His trial echoed that of John White (top right), who shot and killed Daniel Cicciaro Jr. (bottom right) -- except White was convicted, Zimmerman was not. 07/16/2013 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/16/george-zimmerman-john-white_n_3604068.html [with comments]
Ta-Nehisi Coates, Senior Editor At The Atlantic, Discusses Obama's Reluctance To Talk About Race
Posted: 07/15/2013 2:07 pm EDT
In the aftermath of the Trayvon Martin verdict, Ta-Nehisi Coates' interview with The Huffington Post at the Aspen Ideas festival [ http://www.aspenideas.org/ ] last month is strangely prescient.
"Racism has, in a real way, decreased in this country," Coates, a senior editor at the Atlantic, told HuffPost's Ahmed Shihab-Eldin. "But on the other hand, there's still a very, very long way to go."
Is it surprising, then, that Obama has become the president to have talked about race the least in the last 50 years?
"It's very simple -- it's not politically advantageous at all (for him to discuss race)," Coates said in the interview. "The president exists within a system, and if he makes that decision, it doesn't mean that he doesn't necessarily think those issues are important."
Watch the entire video [embedded] to hear from Coates about the Voting Rights Act, the importance of history in responding to racial issues and the Trayvon Martin case.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
