As I am no doubt people are aware of, the documents in the Trayvon Martin investigation were released to the public last week. Media response has mainly depended upon political considerations rather than facts, although ABC News at least reported that much of what was contained in the investigation—rather than justify a second-degree murder charge—seemed to back-up George Zimmerman’s version of events. I’m no lawyer, but a good lawyer can certainly find plenty of holes in the prosecution case, and how irresponsible and politically-motivated was the murder charge indeed was. I was hoping to make this brief point and let it go, but a perusal of commentary by the public made it plain that many people are still intent on using this case to advance their political agendas and deny the evidence presented to them.
Despite the knowledge that most people will not be dissuaded from this course, I will take this time to explain my impression of what the evidence suggests. To begin with, upon reading the police report it appears that three witnesses seem to one degree or another confirm Zimmerman’s story. One witness reports to have seen one individual on top of another hitting him; by the clothing being worn by each, a second witness who was thirty feet from the scene identifies the man on top as Martin, and the man he is beating as Zimmerman, in a “mixed martial arts” style (which would hardly be the “style” of the overweight Zimmerman); he also confirms that it was Zimmerman repeatedly calling for help. Zimmerman’s claim that Martin was trying to take his gun is supported by a third witness who states that he heard a man say something to the effect “Don’t take my gun.” A fourth witness claimed to have heard three exchanges between the two but could otherwise add nothing useful; however, the witness admitted that she knew Zimmerman, and thought he was “even-tempered” but “passionate” about “neighborhood safety.” The police report, contrary to subsequent statements made by Martin’s father and an audio “analysis” commissioned by a Florida newspaper, states that they determined it was Zimmerman’s voice calling for help at least 14 times on a 911 call.
On the other hand, would-be witnesses for the prosecution range from sketchy to unhelpful; the “eyewitnesses” are only reliable as to what they saw after the shot was fired, and otherwise only provide inferences from what they heard, or thought they heard. One female witness at first claimed that she saw two men engaged in a fist-fight; but when later asked for clarification, she admitted she only had a “glance” at what she had seen in the dark—and only after she had removed her contact lenses. Another witness claims to have heard someone crying out and then a gunshot, but otherwise saw nothing. Another witness described Zimmerman as “Hispanic-looking,” but again had nothing useful to impart. In fact, the one person who would appear to be the “star” witness for the prosecution is far from definitive. She claims to have seen “everything,” but in fact seems to have seen very little. She admits that she couldn’t identify the race of either individual or make-out who was on top of who, because they were far away and it was “dark.” However, she is “certain” it was the 6’3” “boy” who was yelling for help, because it sounded like a “boy’s” voice; of course, “boys” tend to lose their “boyish” voice after puberty (especially when they are few months short being an “official” adult, like Martin), so it is more likely she heard a high-pitched voice, which Zimmerman’s voice has been described as.
Then there was an audio from Martin’s girlfriend’s interrogation in regard to her phone conversation with Martin. I didn’t find it nearly as revealing or “heartbreaking” as Democracy Now attempted to portray it as; her deliberate hesitancy either suggested a concealment of the true nature of what she was told, or she simply forgot exactly what was said and described in decidedly vague terms the tenor of what was said (or what she thought she should say he said). What she described as “scared” was more likely excitement; a “scared little boy” probably doesn’t know what an MMA move is—let alone apply it on a stranger.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department’s audio analysis could not “positively” ascertain that Zimmerman used a racial slur in his 911 call, although to me the demonizing of a Hispanic is the closest thing to a racial issue in this case. The Sanford police report notes that an anonymous call they received claimed that Zimmerman had “racist ideologies” and was capable of killing of someone; the female caller has not been identified. This was obviously an invented tale to raise the “outrage” level and insure that Zimmerman was arrested and charged. Given Zimmerman’s background as described in the Reuters’ story I brought to light a few weeks ago, describing Zimmerman as a “racist” is deliberate artifice; the accusation also makes light of the fact that “young black males,” who were recent arrivals, were being blamed for a wave of break-ins and thefts in Zimmerman’s neighborhood. Although the police reported that Zimmerman had called in three other black male “suspects” in the past, one of these “suspects”—who was seen by two roofers to be loitering outside a house with another black male while its owners were out—was subsequently arrested after being found in possession of a stolen laptop from that house. And then there was the story about a mother and her infant son cringing in fear in a closet after two “young black males” broke into her house and attempted to steal a television set—the event which led to the establishment of the “neighborhood watch” that Zimmerman was the “captain” of.
The problem with this case is that there has been virtually no effort by the media to examine all the facts surrounding the case, instead allowing the many mistruths and distortions and avoidances of facts by Martin’s family and handlers to drive the story. That doesn’t mean that the rest of us who do see the whole picture should be cowed into believing everything being reported by a clearly compromised media—or Martin’s parents. They continue to be in denial about his drug use (THC was found in his body by the toxicology test) and likelihood of being a drug dealer; despite the fact he came from a “good” family that was not hurting for money, he apparently broke into school lockers and stole jewelry. The only “business” he had in Zimmerman’s neighborhood at that moment was that his mother apparently didn’t want to deal with him after his third school suspension and made him his father’s problem—or rather his father’s girlfriend’s problem. While Zimmerman’s life has been examined six-ways to Sunday, with very little of it that seems to be out of the “ordinary,” equally very little has been said about who Trayvon Martin really was, or his parents’ deceptions.
Police have put forward the claim that the shooting was “avoidable,” and that is certainly true. If Zimmerman did not have a gun on his person and consented to be beaten on. If Zimmerman had not called 911 and just let things pass. If Zimmerman had not “followed” Martin. If Zimmerman had done nothing at all—which Sanford police had been doing in neighborhoods like Zimmerman’s in response to complaints of police abuse by the black community. Zimmerman was also criticized for not “explaining” to Martin his “watch” position and why his behavior (looking into houses) made him “suspicious”—as if that would not have “excited” Martin even more. Not mentioned was that the shooting might have been avoided if Martin had chosen a different tact to what he apparently viewed as “disrespect.” The tardiness of the police response to Zimmerman’s original 911 call and its aftermath seemed to indicate a lack of interest; after all, when Zimmerman reported a “suspicious” man looking into houses two weeks earlier, he followed the suggestion of waiting for the police to arrive. By the time they arrived, the suspect was gone—and that “suspect” would turn out to be the same person discovered with that stolen laptop a few days later.
One thing that can no longer be denied is that Zimmerman was viciously attacked by Martin. Police reports at the scene—before he was “cleaned-up” by medics—indicate that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of the head as well as his nose, which was swollen and appeared to be “broken.” After all that happened to him, one witness’ observation suggested that Zimmerman was in angst after the shooting, unlike Daniel Adkins’ killer: The witness saw Zimmerman checking for a pulse on Martin’s neck, and then ask the witness to call 911. He then “stood up and took a couple steps away and put his hands on his head and then walked back over to the guy on the ground. He looked at him for a minute, then started to walk away toward the road. That is when the police walked up.”
There is no doubt that this tragedy could have had a different outcome if only Zimmerman had not been carrying a weapon; on the other hand, this case also shows us how in a society where civility is lacking such tragedies can occur. Zimmerman claims that after he lost sight of Martin he gave-up and turned around to find a house number in which to provide as a location to police, at which point Martin appeared from nowhere to confront him, and then beat him. There are unfortunately a lot of people who will go to great lengths to beat “respect” into an “offender” in certain social circles in this country.
There is also a question about how people are supposed to respond to crime. I read a story in the paper about how during an alleged “home invasion” a man shot and killed the “invader.” The problem was that when the man’s girlfriend was calling 911, the two men could be heard “conversing,” as if they knew each other. There might be a question of who the “criminal” party was, but since the decedent was the “unwanted” guest, this story will likely end there.
Using a gun is one “response.” If you don’t possess a gun nor wish to, like me (guns tend to cause trouble rather than prevent it) you have to employ other means. I once experienced a robbery in the Kent public library. I was working on my laptop in the lobby area (before the building was remodeled) when a “young black male” had the audacity to burst through the double doors in order to “shock and awe” me and snatch my laptop before running out of the building. What was I supposed to do? Call the police, wait for them to show up, provide a “they all look the same” description, and police will do nothing because the laptop’s value is less than $2000? But I refused to be the helpless victim (particularly when he had interrupted a large file download). I ran after the thief, who was apparently “shocked and awed” that I would do so—so much so that he lost his footing and fell on his fundament on the parking lot pavement. After retrieving my laptop, I returned to the library. After another five minutes the police responded to a 911 call made by a witness of the event; one officer’s estimation of the situation was to ask a librarian if I was a “trouble-maker.” Perhaps in some people’s view, I was.
No comments:
Post a Comment