Zimmerman Trial: 'Above the fray of Race'

A response to Zimmerman's acquittal. New York City Protest.
Photo credits to Hannah Riley, www.hannahriley.co.uk 

Two wrongs don't make a right. This should be taken into account by Louise Mensch, former Conservative MP, who has written one of the many articles (Louise Mensch article can be read here) stating that Zimmerman's aquittal is in no way to do with the fact that Trayvon Martin was black. I was originally going to write this article- the first on my political blog- explaining why I think the case was in every sense a race issue, but after reading hers, I will do so with a response to Mensch's article and the subsequent comments from her readers. Not only do I disagree, but much of Mensch's argument is based on the sentiment that Zimmerman should be let go because Florida's gun laws are 'wrong'. To me, that makes very little sense and involves even less logic. She stated:

"If George Zimmerman had not had a gun, the worst that would have happened here is a fist-fight. If Florida had not had a Stand Your Ground law, possibly manslaughter charges could have been proven." 

My response to this concurs with a readers comment who bluntly points out that the article is "so unimpressive and totally misses the point". The reader goes onto to stay that  "regardless of gun laws, Zimmerman bears responsibility for this young man's death and a more developed society would punish him".

It is a weak, and a surprisingly immature argument from a former politician to try and justify a murder by saying that Zimmerman was merely acting within laws that Mensch herself acknowledges to be wrong. As I said, two wrongs do not make a right.

"A more developed society" is certainly what we're lacking. In the article, it feels as though Mensch is refusing to acknowledge that racism is an issue here, it's as though she's 'above the fray' of race itself. There is no need to put on the front of being colour blind; the backlash against Zimmerman's acquittal was because America is far from that. And some of the comments below her article are saddening enough to prove it. It's really quite sad. In fact, Mensch labels racial politics as "simply disgusting". I see it as quite the opposite. Why do we think we can ignore the fact that racism exists when it is a prevalent part of every day life in America. It is here too, when I was at school, causal racism was the norm among peers- I was the one of the 'strange ones' because I despised it when people referred to Asian people as 'Pakis' and made jokes about Turbans. Yet Mensch dismisses racial politics as being vile and refuses to tackle it head on. Surely racial politics is a good thing? If we can acknowledge racism, we can combat it and create equality. I mean, just look at Congress- there is just one black Senator, and yet American society is 14% black. Racism is rooted deep into America's history and they have failed in removing it.

A reader going under the name "Phyllis" has posted a number of comments in response to Mensch's article, comments that are in no doubt racist. He is an example of the fact that the case is surrounded with "racial politics"- whether Mensch likes it or not- the case has revealed a number of worms that were hiding beneath the very thin, non-racist surface that American society was hiding behind. 'The threatening black teenager' features in many of his posts; a profile that was created by white people who feel threatened by the increase in ethnic minorities. There seems to be an inherent issue with this, white racists struggle with the fact 'white supremacy' doesn't reign and they feel vulnerable by the escalating percentage of ethnic minorities in America. 

Phyllis describes Martin as a "statistic", a representation of young black people, and goes on to describe photographs of Martin in which he poses with large wads of cash, and in one photo has "raised middle fingers". The reader goes onto to explain Martin's publicised increased interests in drugs via social networking sites. Phyllis attempts to paint the picture of a foul individual and is suggestive that Martin was in fact the criminal and in some way deserved what was coming.

I'm a teenager. I know many people of different races and different sexes who have experimented with drugs and who have tweeted, and published photos of their experiences. This does not make them potential murderers, nor does it make them representatives of teenagers. They represent themselves and I am represented by myself. Being black shouldn't have made Martin any more threatening than a white kid doing the same things.

Look at Mensch, she has publicly admitted that she got into drugs as a teenager and she is now a successful author and former politician; a highly respectable person. I doubt that looking at photos of her youth that Phyillis would draw the conclusion that she was a 'yob' and therefore had it in her to murder someone.

Stop turning on the victim.

The supposed 'rebellious Trayvon' in the photographs was not with him that night. He was alone, walking home, and he was shot dead because of it.

The reader, Phyllis, goes onto say:

"Zimmerman saw a full-grown man, a druggy, a wannabe street fighter, the tattooed, gold-grilled, self-dubbed “No_Limit_Nigga.”

I ask, how?

How could have Zimmerman possibly drawn the conclusion that a lone teenager making his way home was out to cause harm. Zimmerman is known to have said that Martin was acting "suspiciously". The suspicion was that he was black. 

I believe that this case became a race issue the moment Zimmerman started following Trayvon Martin. If hasty generalisations such as 'the threatening black teenager' can be made, then lets turn to Zimmerman's back story. Two weeks previous, Zimmerman had followed another black youth, this time correctly helping the police identify and catch a burglar. From this, he'd built a profile of a criminal, stereotyped black teenagers and saw fit to follow and consequently shoot dead a harmless boy.

Use all the pictures and social networking comments you want to against Trayvon Martin but the point is this: Only in the possession of a black teenager can a packet of skittles and a can of iced tea become a lethal weapon.

Many who oppose my viewpoint turn the blame to Martin for attacking Zimmerman. A fight did happen, I do not deny that, the screams from the 911 call are enough to show that Zimmerman and Martin were fighting before the shot was fired. However, the details are clearly vague with many different people trying to draw up their version of the 'clear picture' from a string of facts and a mass of grey areas. For instance, in Mensch's article she tries to justify Zimmerman's gunfire, as do many of her readers. Here's one of the many points mentioned in Mensch's article.

"The forensic pathologist who corroborated Zimmerman’s account of self-defence after he was attacked by stating the gunshot was fired from beneath the victim."

The issue here is that we do not know how long Zimmerman was "beneath" the victim. He may have simply waited for the right moment to fire the shot in order to maximise his defence case when evaluating the "Stand Your Ground Law". And if that's the case, it clearly worked. 

It is also mentioned in a comment beneath the article that Zimmerman only fired once and therefore only intended to 'hurt' Martin, and he apparently did not mean to kill him. OR did he just have a precise shot and had every intention of killing Martin knowing that people would side with the neighbourhood watch guy over the black school boy?

Points such as these have many holes in them and it's upsetting to see that many people are trying to depict Martin as 'the threatening black teenager'. The evidence above is not enough to justify Zimmerman killing Martin, nor should it be used to create a negative image of the teenager.  

Because that's what it's turned into; Zimmerman vs. Martin. This is actually about how the justice system is carried out; how unfairly it is skewed against black people. This case has everything to do with race and it's odd that people are trying to branch out to other reasoning and issues involved. 

The justice system in America is historically skewed against Blacks and this can be summed up with just two statistics showing the disproportionate amount of black people in prison in America. The 2010 census shows blacks compromise 13.6% of US population whereas they made up 40% of inmates in the previous year. The amount of black people living in the US is wildly mismatched by the fact that 'African-American' is the highest ethnicity in prisons. More specifically, looking at Florida's conviction rates where Zimmerman's trial took place, it was found that in an all white jury, blacks are convicted 16% more often than whites. To say that the justice system in America is not inherently racist is absurd, and to say that this case involves very little about 'race issues' is extremely blinkered. 


And as for Mensch's comments about tweeters being "morons" who can't articulate their argument into saying WHY the case is racist, she has half a point. But let me first point out that she addresses the people 'defending' Trayvon as morons but does not mention the amount of racist slurs that were tweeted against him- these are the tweets that most people would consider to be much more moronic than those that are against racism.  But I do agree that many people protesting against the verdict wouldn't be able to form a decent enough argument to stand against hers. But neither can many people on the other side of the debate. And to be quite honest, many of the people she labels as 'morons' are simply trying to put their voice forward against racism as a whole. The majority are not causing hate and they aren't making problems- it's a positive message so there's really no need to to tarnish them by name calling. 

There are parts of Lousie Mensch's article that I agree with. The prosecution was poor; the case was practically handed to them on a plate and yet they failed to succeed in any of the charges brought against Zimmerman. But the fact that there were poor attorneys on the case doesn't mean that the trial had nothing to do with race. I also disagree with Florida's gun laws but, as already mentioned, I do not like how Mensch uses them in her argument. Nor do I think that the protests are aimed at the six jurors- the case has been taken by the public as an example to show that the justice system as a whole in America is skewed, biased, and racist. It needs to change. I do not think that the protesters were necessarily aiming their angst directly at the six women, but at the case as a whole and at racism itself.

It is a recurrent theme to act as though cases are 'more' about race, as with the Rochdale sex gang who targeted white girls, but it's simple and people are just afraid to accept it. If we can accept it, we can change it. Pretending to be better, or above the the matter in hand is damaging because society will just end up sweeping racism under the carpet once more and this case will come around again, in a different form, but with the same debate.   

The only way to end racism is to end racism.


Hannah Riley
@hannahtheduck