Michael F. McClure 19 July 2013 Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman: Justice Versus Law and the On-Going Racism of America On the day after the verdict in the George Zimmerman murder trial was announced a friend sent me the following tex: “So, Trayvon ...[?]” These remarks are the beginnings of a response. Trayvon Martin’s death is so horrible -- on so many levels from personal gut reactions to our national identity -- that the whole mess is painful to contemplate. Perhaps that pain is one clue about how necessary it is to contemplate. The George Zimmerman verdict is, of course, the reason for the current outpouring of opinion, most expressing varying degrees of outrage and or hand-wringing (I share some degree of both feelings) but also including the likes of Ann Coulter’s virtual “Trayvon got what he deserved.” In one sense, the murder charge acquittal is besides the point, and legally (I’m not a lawyer, so what do I know?) it seems probably the correct verdict, though emotionally it is so unsatisfying. Most of us want some sort official affirmation that this tragedy is WRONG. Trayvon’s death -- and the “perfect storm” of forces that created the milieu of his death -- are the tragedies here. It is the so unnecessary and yet so sadly predictable qualities of his death that fuel our public distress at the Zimmerman verdict. Even though, as many have said, the verdict can come as no surprise (more about that below). The notion that the verdict (not only the actual verdict but any verdict) could offer any real “justice” is ridiculous. How could Trayvon’s life be justly recompensed? How could his family’s never resolvable grief be erased or even significantly alleviated by any court finding? Above I said I said the not-guilty verdict seems to me probably the “correct” one. I speak, of course, as a white man who wishes to think our legal system is not a complete travesty. The original prosecutor who refused to bring murder charges against Zimmerman did so because the case appeared to be one impossible to win a conviction on because of the “reasonable doubt” problems, and that turned out to be the situation. I don’t really know. I’m not a lawyer. Reports about the jury instructions purposefully not including guidance about the “initiating aggressor” aspects of self-defense law disturb me and make my wishful thinking rather suspect at best. Maybe the verdict would be less disturbing if our “justice” system were (or ever could be) administered even-handedly. One friend has been searching for -- and failing to find -- ANY example of a black acquitted on the basis of a stand-your-ground law. Perhaps the verdict would be less disturbing if we, regardless of race and class, were treated as “equal in the eyes of the law.” But, of course, “we” are not so treated; the system is not (could it ever be?) administered even-handedly. There is massive data available that proves this claim beyond any reasonable argument. Trayvon’s death is a horribly singular event -- for him, for his family, for all who knew him as a real, complex, rounded personality -- but it is also a too-typical specific example of the on-going tragedy of our national failure to live up to our own rhetoric. When I read about the remarks Sybrina Fulton made upon hearing the verdict on her son’s killer, I was in awe of her fortitude. I don’t think I would that strength facing such a loss. It is literally painful to even try to imagine what she and her ex-husband Tracy Martin must be suffering. If I try to imagine the loss of my own son, I think I would collapse, that I would flee from everyone and everything if I had to face such an event. Of course, I don’t really know what I’m talking about. I hate that Sybrina and Tracy have to endure this crushing loss. How incredibly hard it would be if their loss were the result of a car accident, a fall from a tree, a sudden illness. But to have the loss caused by -- and exacerbated by -- a social/political system that is fundamentally racist must magnify their distress, must stoke the urge toward uncontrollable rage. What would be a just response from them? Many black commentator’s remarks published in the last few days express (carefully modulated after all, angry blacks are a threat, right?) anger, disappointment, and “disgust” (Sybrina’s word), but many of their comments boil down to (or literally say), “What do you expect? Nothing really changes.” Many whites, too, express similar anger and frustration -- if necessarily spoken from a position that is a big step removed from a daily reality that includes being at risk simply because of racial identity. So, what now? President Obama has urged the nation to accept the verdict. Does that mean move on as if nothing happened? At the least, we should give serious thought to the question asked above: What do we expect? And then we should ask further: What should we expect? What can we do to make different answers possible? To make sane, compassionate, just expectations more than simply wishful thinking? I don’t know.
Posted on: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 16:11:48 +0000