As the gun control debate has gone on and the Zimmerman/Martin case progressed and came to the valid conclusion based on available evidence and the law, the liberal media has put its stupidity on parade. Take, for example, the Huffington Post's "outrage" at a comment by Zimmerman's brother: "I want to know what makes people angry enough to attack someone the way Trayvon Martin did."
Then follow that with this sentence from the President's statement on the Zimmerman verdict: "We should ask ourselves if we’re doing all we can to stem the tide of gun violence that claims too many lives across this country on a daily basis." Pardon me for noting, sir, but this was not a simple case of gun violence and it was precipitated by non-gun violence. Whether you like it or not, a man may have saved his life by using a firearm - from an assault by someone who looks like your son would look if you had a son. Perhaps you should also ponder whether this is how your son would behave and if it would be a better outcome if Zimmerman had been killed. That, in essence, is what the critics are saying.
So I think we need to do that question better - let's ask ourselves if we - as a nation - and he - as a President - are doing all we can to understand and stem a tide of VIOLENCE (not just gun violence) in our society - one that is most especially evident in the proclivity for violence that we see in many young Americans. Quite clearly some of the answer to that can be seen in a culture of violent video games and music that glorifies crime, violence against women and any one else who challenges us or has expectations of us, that fails to teach better ways of responding to others, and passes on the symbols of that violence to new generations. And, just as clearly, we are doing nothing about that because we are focusing on guns for selfish political reasons. If all you see when you look at this incident is gun violence, then you are willfully blind.
Two acts of violence occurred in Sanford that night; one, the first one, when a 17 year-old who was verbally challenged as to his activities by an older male decided that the best response was to sucker punch and take to the ground the person who would dare challenge him. So - why is it that youth today are so ready to respond to anything with violence? Is it a lack of consequences? That act of violence by Martin precipitated the second act of violence that occurred that night. All the evidence presented at trial and evaluations of it by experts agree that Martin was pummeling Zimmerman from a full mount position. Zimmerman fired his pistol defending himself from that beating. A jury decided was a justifiable act of self-defense. You may wish and speculate that it was otherwise, but there is no evidence to support the idea that an innocent Martin was shot. Sadly, the ensuing debate has little basis in logic and fact. In fact, some seem to simply wish (and I will not speculate outloud on their motivations) that Zimmerman had allowed himself to be killed.
Thus, there are at least a couple of different steps along the way that may have kept this sad trail of events from unfolding as it did. If Zimmerman had shown wisdom and called in his report and remained in his vehicle to let LE do its job, this would not have happened. Still, he did not break any law by being foolish (and Lord knows what would happen if we outlawed stupidity - they'd be executing Nancy Grace). If Martin had not been so ready, so primed to react with violence, had not decided that the best response to being asked what he was doing was to assault his questioner, then this would not have happened.
The verdict as delivered was the only possible verdict under Florida (and most other state's) self-defense laws. These laws have their precedent in history in English common law. The available evidence suggests that violence was initiated by Martin as the aggressor and that it was reasonable for Zimmerman to believe that his life was in danger. Perhaps Zimmerman is simply a nerd who was unprepared to defend himself - again unwise. Perhaps Martin got the jump on him with a sucker punch from behind as Zimmerman walked away. Perhaps Zimmerman lives a cushy lifestyle and does not get into fights on a regular basis and has not lived a life of violence. In any case, he was being beaten that night and in fear of his life. Hence, he was not guilty of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. While it is clear that this does not satisfy the emotional need for revenge, it is, after all, the data and the law.
In the aftermath of what, in truth, was the only possible verdict, there are many questions to ask. If we can, but for a moment, put away the need to infantilize Martin as a child victim in this case (Yes, he was someone's child, but he was not "a child", not that cherubic 12 year-old we keep seeing), it is clear that one of them among many is the question that Zimmerman's brother suggests; what is it that makes people angry enough to attack people who merely question them? Such youth violence is, sadly, not a rare occurrence. We hear it on the news every day. Fortunately, deaths associated with it are rare.
In that light, perhaps we need to consider whether the likes of Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson and others - whose actions can clearly be seen as stoking and justifying that anger and violence and, thus, placing many young men at risk - have some stake in creating and fomenting unrest and must take some responsibility for such outcomes. They desperately want and need this to be about race, about an innocent child (of course, Al, we all remember the Tawanna Brawley affair); they seem to think that acting in anti-social ways will somehow change the perceptions of a society. Sharpton is a huckster.
We need to ask why some people want to foment such violence and why some young people are so ready to act in such violence, why are they infected with so much anger? We might also ask how this is a response that will be helpful (as opposed to potentially getting you shot by a shopkeeper and being the next media trial)?
Asking such questions - in the words of the President's statement - is "...the way to honor Trayvon Martin."
No comments:
Post a Comment