What really happened? I’m sorry but shooting Trayvon Martin in self-defense seems like an unsatisfactory explanation. Based on the developing evidence and information that is being released to the public—something is not right.
First of all, it would seem that George Zimmerman is the one that was threatening Trayvon Martin not the other way around. Obviously it was Zimmerman who had the gun, not Martin. According to Martin’s last phone conversation, as I understand it, Martin is the one who felt fearful of Zimmerman.
It was Zimmerman who was taking the initiative, going after, following and pursuing Martin. Martin, having done nothing wrong, apparently minding his own business, didn’t know the why or wherefore as to Zimmerman’s actions. Thus, it was Martin who felt that he was being stalked, threaten by Zimmerman’s presence. Remember, Martin was completely unarmed, Zimmerman had the gun. Yet, Zimmerman makes it sound as if Martin was the one doing the threatening and thus justifies shooting Martin in so-called self-defense. It doesn’t add up.
Did not Martin have the right to run and try to flee from someone who, from Martin’s point of view, seemed suspiciously dangerous. Martin felt as if he were the one that was going to become a victim of a violent act. (And, as it turns out, Martin was in fact correct in this fearful assumption). Does this mean that Martin, who was innocent of any wrong doing up to the point of the altercation between him and Zimmerman, was not to try to defend and protect himself against whom (from his point of view) he believed to be a threatening presence ready to do him harm? As it stands now, whatever actually happened between the two of them, we won’t ever really know because it’s now all one-sided, Zimmerman’s side.
So is it now the case in these here United States of America that a person like Zimmerman can (1) carry a loaded gun and (2) threateningly follow and pursue anyone he believes to be suspicious and then (3) chase and proactively threaten the so-called “suspect” without due cause, other than mere subjective suspicions and then (4) shoot and kill the “suspect” when the suspect tries to flee and/or to confront and defend himself, all the while having no idea why he (the so-called “suspect”) is being chased, followed, pursued and threatened by a mysterious man (with a gun)? It’s just too one sided, too subjectively self-justifying, and too wide-of-the-mark in terms of due process, civil protection, and civil rights.
Zimmerman basically appointed himself judge, jury, and executioner over Martin. Zimmerman assumed that he had all the rights, privileges, and power in his hands and Martin had none. And apparently, given that Zimmerman has not been arrested to date, and has not been called upon to give account for his actions in a court of law, Zimmerman was correct in this assumption. This is not the American way and it does not bode well for a land that prides itself in being a land of freedom and justice that is supposedly upheld by the rule of law.
Zimmerman effectively performed a summary execution against Martin, without trial. Furthermore it has the flavor of racial discrimination. Would Zimmerman have acted as he did if Martin was white? Many think not, this despite the fact that Zimmerman himself also belongs to a minority group, being Hispanic.
As an outside observer, I have to wonder. Why did the police so quickly defend and protect Zimmerman’s actions rather than hold him accountable for shooting an unarmed man in the streets? Many officers in uniform around the nation would have been officially and strictly required to give a substantial and justifiable account for this kind of action whereas Zimmerman thus far seems to escape any real official accountability for his actions.
Secondly, at the time of the incident why did the police not immediately follow basic law-enforcement procedure and collect the necessary detailed evidence required—either to (1) invalidate or (2) substantiate Zimmerman’s claims and actions? Either way one looks at this, this was a crime scene, was it not? Zimmerman himself says that he was following Martin because he had reason to believe that Martin was either engaged-in or had already committed some kind of criminal activity. As such, the whole incident should have called for proper criminal investigation, should it not?
Apparently we are all simply to take Zimmerman at his word, as to what “went down.” This is a new low-level denominator for our law-enforcement and judicial procedures here in the United States of America?
No comments:
Post a Comment