FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Self-Defense in Florida

by BINOY KAMPMARK

An intelligent, self-interested observer of this case, who happens to live in Florida, would not be wrong to do as George Zimmerman did – buy a gun, master the finer points of Florida self-defense law, and then wait.

Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Atlantic, Jul 14

Deliberations in the law court are one thing, often dull, often sterile.  The result can be something else.  George Zimmerman’s acquittal has unleashed a furious storm, though it is a complex one, riddled with overtones of race and legalism.

Among the great U.S. curses is that of race.  Colour blind legal systems only belong to the land of Cockaigne.  Policy makers race to the podium to call for “racial dialogue” after unpalatable decisions where the proverbial black man is deemed the devilish provocateur.  U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was quick off the mark. “This tragedy provides yet another opportunity for our nation to speak honestly about the complicated and emotionally-charged issues that this case has raised.”

Having been acquitted of killing Trayvon Martin under Florida’s expansive self-defence laws, Zimmerman has thrown a good deal of fuel on the fire.  He has insisted from the start that his act of violence, perpetrated as a neighbourhood volunteer, was made in the name of self-defence.

Martin continues in some instances to be portrayed as a violent thug who got his comeuppance after he “weaponised” (odd choice of words) the street.  He attacked Zimmerman. In true instinctive valour, the reaction followed.  What else could he have done?  Observing this reputational drubbing of the youngster, Geraldo Rivera contended that the jury that acquitted Zimmerman would have happily dispatched Martin, given the chance.  In milder language, Jelani Cobb has suggested that the trial’s most “damning” feature was not Zimmerman’s acquittal but “that Trayvon Martin was found guilty” (New Yorker, Jul 13). Should not anyone be surprised?  Hardly.

Zimmerman does have his supporters, not least of all the jury verdict itself in Sanford, Florida.   Commentators like Ta-Nehisi Coates feel that the jury did, for all the problems attending the case, get “it right”, if only “basically”.  For Coates, “any violent confrontation ending in a disputed act of lethal self-defense, without eye-witnesses, the advantage goes to the living” (The Atlantic, Jul 14).  The dead tell no tales.

As for the living, a study done by the Pew Research Centre for the People and the Press found that, while there was “relatively modest public interest overall”, black respondents were more likely to say they had followed the trial than white respondents (a 56 percent versus 20 percent reading).

The Justice Department, having been caught unawares by the verdict, claims it is “investigating” Zimmerman, though it is by no means clear whether the federal government can lay charges against him.  The Obama administration evidently feels some official front of interest has to be maintained in the case.  Ben Jealous of the NAACP has contacted Holder asking for formal federal charges to be laid.

The legal burden here will be a large one, a legacy of the Reconstruction Acts that arrogated power to the federal government in the context of civil rights violations.  “It’s not enough if it’s just a fight that escalated,” argued Samuel Bagenstos, who formerly served as the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the U.S. department of Civil Rights Division.  “The government has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant acted wilfully with a seriously culpable state of mind” in violating Martin’s rights.  Not merely does the act have to be shown to be unjustified – it must also be proved that Martin was attacked because of his race, and that he was using the street – in other words, a public facility.

The court of public opinion is now in session, and the site is an ugly one.  If one believes Andrew Cohen, trials “can never act as moral surrogates to resolve the national debates they trigger. In the end, they teach only what each of us as students are predisposed to learn” (The Atlantic, Jul 13).  It is also fitting to recall that the case may never have gone to trial to begin with.

Legal trials are not all-seeing pursuits of truth, but exercises of weighing and consideration, judgment made on available evidence.  That evidence itself is strictly controlled in terms of what is admitted.  An imperfect legal system merely reflects an imperfect social order to begin with.  Change and reform has to lie elsewhere. And it is not in Cockaigne.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne.  Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

 

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Weekend Edition
February 5-7, 2016
Jeffrey St. Clair
When Chivalry Fails: St. Bernard and the Machine
John Pilger
Freeing Julian Assange: the Final Chapter
Garry Leech
Terrifying Ted and His Ultra-Conservative Vision for America
Andrew Levine
Smash Clintonism: Why Democrats, Not Republicans, are the Problem
William Blum
Is Bernie Sanders a “Socialist”?
Daniel Raventós - Julie Wark
We Can’t Afford These Billionaires
Jonathan Cook
The Liberal Hounding of Julian Assange: From Alex Gibney to The Guardian
George Wuerthner
How the Bundy Gang Won
Mike Whitney
Peace Talks “Paused” After Putin’s Triumph in Aleppo 
Ted Rall
Hillary Clinton: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Gary Leupp
Is a “Socialist” Really Unelectable? The Potential Significance of the Sanders Campaign
Vijay Prashad
The Fault Line of Race in America
Eoin Higgins
Please Clap: the Jeb Bush Campaign Pre-Mortem
Joseph Mangano – Janette D. Sherman
The Invisible Epidemic: Radiation and Rising Rates of Thyroid Cancer
Andre Vltchek
Europe is Built on Corpses and Plunder
Jack Smith
Obama Readies to Fight in Libya, Again
Robert Fantina
As Goes Iowa, So Goes the Nation?
Dean Baker
Market Turmoil, the Fed and the Presidential Election
John Wight
Who Was Cecil Rhodes?
David Macaray
Will There Ever Be Anyone Better Than Bernie Sanders?
Christopher Brauchli
Suffer Little Children: From Brazil to Flint
JP Sottile
Did Fox News Help the GOP Establishment Get Its Groove Back?
Binoy Kampmark
Legalizing Cruelties: the Australian High Court and Indefinite Offshore Detention
John Feffer
Wrestling With Iran
Rob Prince – Ibrahim Kazerooni
Syria Again
Louisa Willcox
Park Service Finally Stands Up for Grizzlies and Us
Farzana Versey
Of Beyoncé, Trudeau and Culture Predators
Pete Dolack
Fanaticism and Fantasy Drive Purported TPP ‘Benefits’
Murray Dobbin
Canada and the TPP
Steve Horn
Army of Lobbyists Push LNG Exports, Methane Hydrates, Coal in Senate Energy Bill
Colin Todhunter
“Lies, Lies and More Lies” – GMOs, Poisoned Agriculture and Toxic Rants
Franklin Lamb
ISIS Erasing Our Cultural Heritage in Syria
David Mihalyfy
#realacademicbios Deserve Real Reform
Graham Peebles
Unjust and Dysfunctional: Asylum in the UK
John Grant
Israel Moves to Check Its Artists
Yves Engler
On Unions and Class Struggle
Alfredo Lopez
The ‘Bern’ and the Internet
Missy Comley Beattie
Super Propaganda
Ed Rampell
Great Caesar’s Ghost!: A Specter Haunts Hollywood in the Coen’s Anti-Anti-Commie Goofball Comedy
Cesar Chelala
The Public Health Impact of Domestic Violence
Ron Jacobs
Cold Weather Comforts of a Certain Sort
Charles Komanoff
On the Passing of the Jefferson Airplane
Charles R. Larson
Can One Survive the Holocaust?
David Yearsley
Reading Room Blues
February 04, 2016
Scott McLarty
Political Revolution and the Third-Party Imperative
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail