Mr. Zimmerman, you are wrong. While his life is very changed at the moment, and very stressful, that is because your son made a series of bad decisions that brought that on himself. Your son killed a young man about whom he made a series of wrong assumptions, and on the basis of those mistaken assumptions, he followed him. THAT decision reasonably caused Trayvon Martin to be afraid, to feel threatened. Your son created the conflict and initiated any confrontation that resulted.
What part of 'that was wrong' do you not understand?
The notion that the black caucus, or the President, or the NAACP is objecting to your son murdering Trayvon Martin is for some sort of PROFIT is deeply offensive.
How DARE your son take it on himself to do anything more than contact police? Trayvon Martin was in no way accountable to your son or anyone other than lawful authorities. This is the United States, so far a free country despite the inroads on freedom by conservatives.
Mr. Zimmerman, your son was wrong; your son was the catalyst for this tragedy.
For the President to recognize and empathize with the loss experienced by Trayvon Martin is NOT hatred, and you have badly flawed values if you believe that to be what he said or did. Is there anything MORE hateful than killing another human being when that was an avoidable act?
I have a friend here in Minnesota, a conservative blogger who supports shoot first laws in Minnesota, Mitch Berg. He has a son, only slightly older than Trayvon Martin. He loves his son. He lives near a convenience store - in this case a SuperAmerica.
I asked him how he would feel if his son walked back some night from there, a place both his kids have gone to often over the years, and someone made those same assumptions and followed HIS son with a gun, chased him, shot him. How would he feel if someone who had neither moral or legal authority made those assumptions about his son doing something wrong, or being drunk or on drugs, when those things were not true? How would he feel if someone without authority acted like a vigilante, and then after creating the threat to his son, shot his son because his son responded to that threat?
His son, perhaps even a little more so than Trayvon Martin, has had his screw ups and made his share of mistakes, but he is essentially a good kid who has straightened himself out after those minor missteps in his life. Certainly if I believe anything about anyone, I believe he dearly loves his son regardless of successes or failures. I don't believe in that circumstance, my friend Mitch would have agreed with the Shoot First / Stand Your Ground / Stand SOMEONE ELSE'S Ground laws if it was HIS son who had been shot in circumstances like this. I believe that my colleague Pen would feel that way, and that KR would feel that way if it were his son who had been shot after being wrongly pursued.
But it is NOT only Trayvon Martin who was the victim of an avoidable, tragic killing. It was the shooting of a devoted father trying to protect his 8 year old daughter from a crabby old man pulling out a gun on a basketball court in a public park. It is perfectly reasonable to me that the father believed he was protecting his daughter and the young boy on the skateboard from the old guy who shot him. I would have perceived someone pulling a gun in that situation to be a threat, given the many instances of gun violence in road rage or similar but pedestrian situations. That old man who shot the girl's father in front of her had the notion that he was somehow the park police and Rambo all rolled into one when he went to get his gun, and to confront the lawful users enjoying that park. That young girl no longer has a father, and will live with the memory of seeing him shot dead, as will the other witnesses. The shooter was exonerated, despite initiating the confrontation. That was wrong, but it is the law under these Shoot First laws.
That is wrong; that is a completely avoidable tragedy resulting from these flawed, deadly wrong gun laws. Over and over, there is a totally disproportionate use of violence under the Shoot First laws, violence which the law permits and excuses. That is unjust. That promotes lawlessness, and vigilante justice which is not justice at all because it precludes due process and legal remedies, and public accountability.
A young man, shot in Slinger, Wisconsin for hiding on a porch from cops after a loud party with underage drinking -- that was another avoidable tragedy that was excused under these laws. The police were there, right next door; the man's wife was talking with the 911 operator. The police had already made it clear they were positioned so as to watch the party so they could intercept the kids when it broke up. The shooting of an unarmed kid was unnecessary and avoidable, as so many other shootings and the occasional stabbing have been where the police could better have dealt with the situation without loss of life.
My colleague Pen has a son, younger than Trayvon Martin, but not a lot younger. Our commenter KR of the crickets has a son, older than Trayvon Martin. I can't help but believe ANY parent, whether of a son or daughter, would not sympathize with the loss felt by the parents who have recently buried their son. That is not hate, that is sympathy, it is empathy.
When George Zimmerman decided to take his gun with him, he assumed the responsibility for using it, including making mistakes when he used it. George Zimmerman's made MANY mistakes the evening that Trayvon Martin died, but at no point did the President comment on those actions, those assumptions, those decisions.
Given the failure of the police to do a professional job, as evidenced by the new prosecutor bringing charges after a more thorough investigation, it was absolutely appropriate for there to be protests about how that police department and first prosecutor did their job. It was part of a larger pattern of bad police performance, one that specifically involved crimes involving racial elements, including by the son of one of the officers of that police department. To say there is no racial issues, in a community where a Fox News station identified the local white supremacist neo-nazis a 'civil rights group' when they went out patrolling to protect the WHITE community, presumably by shooting more black people. Apparently the neo-nazis are unfamiliar with the concept of vigilanteism, or maybe they just don't care so long as they can shoot some uppity black people who don't belong in those white neighborhoods. That this group is doing openly armed patrols past the house where Trayvon Martin was staying, the home where his father lives, because they want to protect the neighborhood from black people is obscene. That should not have been tolerated by police, for the same reason they do not condone neighborhood watch groups from patrolling with guns, but apparently it was allowed, even those these people do not live there and are not guests, and in spite of this being intimidating conduct towards the black residents of that housing development. To the credit of Fox News, they did eventually correct their mistake, but it is shocking that they could make such a mistake in misidentifying a hate group in the first place.
THAT is hatred. There were no race riots; in point of fact, the gatherings and protests and marches have been distinctive for the ABSENCE of racial tensions, and for the peacefulness of the protesters.
The feckless rantings of a group like the New Black Panthes, who were NOT present, in offering a bounty to find George Zimmerman was a farce. I don't believe that group of a few loud-mouthed posturing fools could raise $100 dollars between them, much less the $10,000 they claimed they were offering. The group was condemned, by those protesting the death of Trayvon Martin, as well they should be, but they did not act, they only spoke stupidly, and as such should not have been given the time of day, much less the media attention they received. THAT was hateful, but far less dangerous than the Neo Nazi group's conduct.
I am no fan of the Rev. Sharpton; he has behaved badly in the past, and he has been badly wrong in the past, and made many serious mistakes. But he did not behave badly in this incident, he seems to have learned substantially from those earlier mistakes. Rev. Sharpton is correct that there is still racial inequity, and that is most accute in incidents like the shooting of Trayvon Martin. To stand up against that inequity is not hateful; it is in the best tradition of this country that he has been joined by so many people.
The fault here, and in so many other killings, is not the black community, is not the protesters who have come together to heal racial tensions. The fault here is in the lax gun carry laws of Florida that make guns too prevalent in public places. The fault here is in the inequities of the Shoot First laws that give too much leeway to claim slef-defense when a conflict is initiated by the aggressor who shoots. The fault here is holding a person who should not shoot free from liability and accountability for wrongful death. The fault here is a law which gives citizens far greater permission to shoot other citizens than we would afford the police who have an duty to protect their community.
George Zimmerman behave badly in the actions which are not disputed. The laws are wrong for contributing to this situation, and for impeding true justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment