The bottom line is...

By 10:47 PM ,

Yes, I know I am on vacation, hence the sporadic posts, and I'm not supposed to be thinking too deeply about anything too heavy. However, I realize its hard to avoid anything deemed important by a country when you're across their borders.
What have I heard about every day (and night) consistently everytime I turn on the tv? The Trayvon Martin case.
Honestly, I'm not sure if I should be ashamed or not, but prior to my trip I knew very little about the case and cared even less. Now I find myself getting into arguments about it and realize there ARE some issues that need addressing. The final verdict is tomorrow morning. My opinion is one of many but the beauty of all this is that I'm posting it on MY blog.
My only disclaimer is to expect a few off-tangent by-the-way premises.
Firstly, I believe Zimmerman was wrong to pursue and engage the teen to begin with. Did he have conclusive reason to believe he was a criminal and/or about to commit a crime? No. Was he in a position or granted a position of authority to pursue? No. Did he create the circumstances of leading to the altercation? Yes.
* One - is it wrong to assume a young black man/boy with a hoodie is a criminal? Honestly, how many of us would cross the road if we saw someone walking down the street, late at night with a hood? Many, correct? However, not because someone is dressed a certain way or looks a certain way means they ARE the stereotype. Same way not all muslims are terrorists.
However, as far as I'm concerned that's all irrelevant in this case. Trayvon went and bought a bag of skittles and a Arizona juice, and then headed back home. From the store to home Zimmerman followed him on this journey.
* Two - What would you do if a strange man was following you? Would you not feel compelled to run? Would you not feel compelled to defend yourself?
How does Zimmerman get to plead self defense in a situation that HE created? He was defending himself against being stalked? Mugged? Followed in a car? What?
The cops said STAY in his car. Yet he left with his gun in tow.
* Three - Yes I'm aware of the limitations of excessive force with self defense. To me, regardless of who threw the first punch, Trayvon was defending himself. Consequently, Zimmerman ended up defending himself in the situation that HE created when he lost control of the situation.
* Four -  The bottom line is, he should've stayed in the car and let the police handle it. The vigilante argument doesn't fly with me very well either. A vigilante takes law into his own hands to protect the innocent. For example, Spiderman, Batman, etc. (Comical but valid easy references) Pursuing a young boy because he's black and in your neighbourhood isn't being a vigilante, it's being an idiot.
Would I say it was murder? I don't believe he intended to kill Trayvon. Do I think he pursued Trayvon into a situation beyond his control that escalated quickly? Yes. Do I think he should be acquitted? No.
My bottom line is this could've been anyone, easily - you, your kid, your cousin, your brother, your uncle, etc. I don't find it justifiable to stalk somebody and not expect some fearful reaction - be it running away, launching a first attack, calling the cops, whatever. It is not justice for Zimmerman to get off scotch free.
If he was black and the kid was white, it would've been a rap. I don't see what's taking this case so long.
He didn't do a community good. He didn't prevent a burglary, rape or any other crime. And he definitely didn't save a life - he took one, a child's at that.

You Might Also Like