An online friend made an interesting comment yesterday. Patrick is an intelligent guy–he’s no wide-eyed innocent, he’s been alive long enough to know how the world works and he’s traveled widely enough to see it works differently in different places. His comment about the Trayvon Martin case is astute and it would have made perfect sense, except for one thing: this took place in Florida. Here’s what Patrick said

I really don’t understand how this isn’t so clearly seen as what it is… a failure to investigate.

What also is striking about this is that Zimmerman was simply taken at his word. Had the dead boy been a white kid, Zimmerman probably would have been held until all evidence was in. But, of course, had the boy been white, it’s likely this never would have happened.

As I said, Patrick is an intelligent guy, but he’s making a mistake that a LOT of intelligent people are making. He’s assuming the police either fucked up or didn’t care enough to investigate.

The problem as I see it is less about the Sanford Police Department and more about the law. The police must have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed before they’re allowed to conduct an actual investigation. In the U.S., citizens have always had the right to use lethal force to defend themselves and their homes. If the police arrived at your home and found a dead body on your lawn, they’d be legally allowed (even required) to ask you questions–but they can’t truly investigate you in a serious, methodical, intensive way without some sort of cause to believe the shooting wasn’t justified. They have to have a positive reason to believe the shooting was against the law.

And that, believe it or not, is a good thing. We don’t want to give the police the authority to initiate an investigation of a citizen based on anything other than probable cause to believe a crime has been committed. The police have too much investigative power as it is.

The problem is the so-called Stand Your Ground laws have extended that right of self-defense in the home to–well, to everywhere. So while the police were able to temporarily detain and question George Zimmerman, they had no power or authority to begin an actual investigation into the matter. That step was precluded the moment Zimmerman said he believed his life was in danger and that he acted in self-defense. Without some obvious indication that Zimmerman was lying, the police response was necessarily limited.

It’s easy to blame George Zimmerman for killing an unarmed and completely innocent Trayvon Martin–because that’s exactly what he did. But it’s pointless to blame Zimmerman without looking at the social context that shaped the killing. Florida has very loose gun laws, which makes it possible for people like Zimmerman (who was arrested in the past for assaulting a police officer) to legally obtain a handgun. Florida’s laws also allowed him to obtain a permit to legally carry that weapon. Florida’s laws also allowed him to legally use that weapon in a situation that, until 2005, would have been considered criminal on the face of it. And finally, Florida’s laws limited the police response to the shooting.

There’s no doubt George Zimmerman is guilty of homicide–the killing of another person. But the law in Florida is such that he may not be guilty of murder–which is an illegal killing.

In Oliver Twist, the character Mr. Bumble is informed “the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction”. Mr. Bumble’s response: “If the law supposes that…the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”

The law in Florida (and some two dozen other states) is “a ass.” It’s to be hoped that the law may have its eyes opened by this experience. It’s to be hoped, but not to be expected.

A couple weeks ago I wrote a brief piece reminding folks about the presumption of innocence, and how it has to be applied to everybody–including George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed Trayvon Martin. I also noted that the way the Florida law is written, it probably doesn’t matter legally that Zimmerman almost certainly provoked the incident that allowed him to shoot and kill Martin. The sad fact is that the law in Florida is almost designed to create situations in which lethal force can be legally used.

(photograph by PressTV)

A few hundred people read that. Not a lot by internet standards, but enough to spark a bit of a fuss–including a comment by somebody named Jonathan Ledlester (his complete comment can be seen in the original post). Ledlester begins his comment with this:

Crayon Martin caused his own death.

You almost don’t have to read any farther to know what direction the comment will take. It’s all right there–the sneering, the dismissiveness, the need to justify, the need to find a way to interpret or invent facts to fit a worldview. The simple refusal to use the dead boy’s name–to give him even the least bit of respect–is telling.

Ledlester goes on to make this observation:

Crayon Martin COULD’VE CALLED THE COPS to report Zimmerman was following him. But Crayon Martin CHOOSE TO NOT CALL THE COPS.

At first glance, this seems to be a rational point. And it is–if you’re white. Ledlester doesn’t seem to be aware that black kids in general may not have the same faith in the impartiality and reliability of the police as do white kids. You can debate whether or not that lack of faith is justified, but it doesn’t change the reality that a lot of black folks don’t believe they can trust the police.

Ledlester then asserts a number of facts not in evidence, describing a scenario in which Martin assaults Zimmerman. That may be true; we don’t know. And that’s just it. We don’t know. But Ledlester omits one fact that we DO know. In his comment, Ledlester states: “Zimmerman told the police dispatcher that he’d lost sight of Martin.” What the recording actually notes is Zimmerman says “He’s running,” and a moment or two later, “He ran.” The reason Zimmerman lost sight of Martin is because Martin was running away. The police dispatcher told Zimmerman “We don’t need you to [follow Martin].”

That should have been the end of the situation. It wasn’t. Zimmerman claims he was returning to his vehicle when he was confronted and assaulted by Martin. Is that likely? Considering Martin was running away moments earlier, probably not. Considering the fact that the shooting occurred only 70 yards away from the townhouse where Martin was staying, it seems improbable that he’d stop, turn around, confront and assault the man he was running away from moments earlier. Is it possible? Sure, anything is possible.

Ledlester ends his comment with this:

Crayon Martin killed himself.

George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin. The law might be written in such a way that it allowed him to do so with impunity, but if there’s only one fact we know for certain, it’s this: George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin, who was unarmed, who’d done nothing wrong, and was simply walking back from a convenience store.