Trayvon Martin: Rush to judgment? (2nd comment)

The killing of an unarmed black youth by a quasi-licensed vigilante in a rural Florida town brings back some of the worst memories of the civil rights era. As the story— and the case— goes viral, however, there is much to give one pause.

Is the story so simple? Is the anguish and grief of Trayvon Martin's family quite untainted by commercial motive? Is the federal government's involvement appropriate?

It is uncontested that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin to death. The original investigators concluded that Zimmerman, who was standing a town watch, should have been charged with manslaughter. Had that been done, a grand jury would have duly investigated the evidence.

It seems clear that the decision not to press charges of any kind was cursory at best. The citation of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Act as a reason not to pursue the case, absent a thorough investigation, was ludicrous. The fact that Zimmerman's family was politically connected was additionally suspicious.

Zimmerman's claim

On the other hand, George Zimmerman, when and if he is charged, will be entitled to the presumption of innocence. A physical altercation of some kind occurred; Martin was not shot at a distance. Zimmerman has claimed that Martin attacked him from behind, knocked or wrestled him down, and was attempting to pound his head into the pavement.

It is a story, not an established fact. If true, however, it could establish a case for self-defense. This wouldn't exculpate Zimmerman from all possible charges. It might, however, acquit him of unjustified homicide. It would also cast a very different light on Trayvon Martin's conduct.

To demand justice in this case is one thing. To make Trayvon Martin an unalloyed victim is another. Perhaps he was a victim, but the only certain thing we can conclude about him at this point is that he is dead. That's tragedy enough; but the tragedy will only be compounded if a dispassionate search for the truth cannot go forward.

Obama plays the race card

President Obama, the lawyer who always seems to forget his calling, didn't help matters when he said he could particularly identify with Martin because he could well imagine him as his son. This is playing the race card with a vengeance, and Newt Gingrich, with whom I don't often agree, was right to call him out on it.

That the Justice Department is preparing to intervene on the basis that a hate crime may have been committed only makes matters worse. The concept of hate crimes is a legal abomination. I would suggest, as well, that an attorney general who argues that the assassination of American citizens can be justified by executive fiat is hardly qualified to comment on justice.

Meanwhile, Trayvon Martin has evolved from victim to martyr in advance of any public accounting. Vigils and marches have been held with protesters dressed in hoodies. Congressman Bobby Rush of Illinois delivered a speech dressed in a hoodie, for which he was ejected from the House chamber. The Philadelphia Inquirer ran an editorial cartoon depicting the four Mount Rushmore presidents sorrowfully hooded as well. Martin's case has become a story, and the story is one with no room for shadings of fact or intention.

Copyrighted slogans?

I think everyone will normally cut grieving families plenty of slack, and the Martin family has ample cause for anger as well as grief. Nonetheless, I was taken aback to read that the family has taken out copyright patents on some of the slogans associated with the case. This act, they hasten to assure us, is taken with no thought of profit in mind, but only to create a "fund" for families who find themselves in like circumstances.

Let's take a breath here, shall we?

Without a hue and cry, the case of Trayvon Martin might never have been heard. It certainly deserves— requires— justice. It won't be aided by becoming a circus.♦


To read a related comment by Maria Thompson Corley, click here.♦


To read a response, click here.