A number of my good friends deny that race had anything to do with the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. I do not deny their sincerity in trying to judge this matter honestly; but I must ask: what other motive was there for George Zimmerman to get out of his car and stalk Trayvon? Mr. Zimmerman saw a person who was tall and black, who was wearing a hoodie and putting one foot in front of the other on pavement. That was all he needed to see in order to deem Trayvon suspicious and to target him. Whenever killings such as these occur, the claim is usually made that ‘no one knows what was in the mind (or heart) of the shooter.’ Fair enough. But the only other person to see Trayvon before his death was the grocer from whom he bought his snacks, and there is no evidence that Trayvon’s manner or appearance prompted alarm in that person. It is clear that Mr. Zimmerman moved against Trayvon because he associated his appearance with criminality. The madness of this case lies in the fact that Mr. Zimmerman was acquitted of wrongdoing on grounds of self-defense. That’s like one nation invading another on the basis of some vague and spurious threat to its security, and then claiming self-defense when its armies resist: it is the Cheney doctrine domesticated! Every bias, fear, and aggressive impulse stands ready to be legally vindicated through ‘stand your ground’. The logic of this law leads to absurdities that its creators and supporters have either willfully disregarded or have not thought through. Trayvon was being menaced by Mr. Zimmerman. Did he not have a right to stand his ground? And if so, then it stands to reason that he too should have had a gun to shoot the person who he reasonably believed threatened his safety. And if we accept that, then we must conclude that everyone capable of holding a gun, from babies to pensioners, should have one in order to target those they deem suspicious and, if necessary, shoot them in self-defense. The central idea of stand your ground is ‘a war of all against all’, which, Hobbes tells us, no person should esteem, for it is antithetical to any decent standard of law and order. Now, this has got nothing to do with responsible gun ownership; there can be no responsibility without accountability. Shooting a person who has assailed you or your family as you lie in your home or go about your business is one thing. Shooting someone who you have gone out of your way to stalk and provoke is quite another. Owning a firearm ought not to give one license to shoot without regard to consequence; and it ought not to make one a functional arm of the law: we cannot live in a peaceable society if one group of citizens is given legal sanction to arbitrarily police another group. Black and brown boys should not be subject to harassment and bullying or be in constant fear of execution simply for walking the streets.
Posted on: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 20:46:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015