HOW TO HANDLE A TRAYVON-ZIMMERMAN MOMENT
BY WILLIAM DWIGHT MCKISSIC, SR.
No one disputes that George Zimmerman initiated the communication with Trayvon Martin. No one disputes that Neighborhood Watch Volunteers are trained not to carry a weapon. No one disputes that Neighborhood Watch Volunteers are trained not to personally intervene if they observe a suspicious person or activity, but rather notify law enforcement. No one disputes that the 911 dispatcher counseled Zimmerman not to pursue Trayvon. No one disputes that Trayvon had just as much right to be on those premises in Samford, Florida, as Zimmerman. Yet, Trayvon was the one viewed with suspicion and being pursued by Zimmerman. No one disputes that Zimmerman was the aggressor in the encounter.
The truth of the matter is young people, and not so young people, will inevitably face a Trayvon-Zimmerman-like encounter. A sudden, unanticipated, confrontational situation—with the potential to escalate to a violent encounter—could happen to any one of us—even in close proximity to our homes.
Someone can deem you as suspicious. Someone can approach you without identifying themselves and ask you questions that you deem are inappropriate. Someone can engage you with the wrong attitude. Someone can encroach upon your personal space and cross your comfort zone. Someone can form wrong and premature conclusions about you. Someone can report you to authority figures based on their false assumptions. Someone can approach and address you with a superior, judgmental, authoritarian and condescending attitude and disposition. This is what Trayvon Martin encountered at the hands of George Zimmerman on that dreadful evening in Samford, Florida.
Without the benefit of any prior knowledge, Zimmerman concluded that Trayvon Martin was an “a …hole, suspicious, and a f…ing punk.” He also categorized him as belonging to a group called “they” who always get away. Either Zimmerman had a mysterious, inexplicable discernment regarding Trayvon, or he profiled him. Those are serious and sordid assessments to make upon sight regarding a total stranger.
How do you reach such strong conclusions about a person that you’ve never met? It is impossible to harbor those kinds of feelings toward a person and it not be reflected in your actions, attitude, body language and speech when you approach and address that person.
People sense when these are your feelings toward them. Trayvon sensed Zimmerman’s unjustifiable disposition and attitude toward him. Zimmerman’s profile of Trayvon was based solely on externals and perception. Trayvon’s externals were: race, clothes, age, gender, skittles, tea, and a cell phone. Armed with only that knowledge, Zimmerman concluded that Trayvon is again, an a…hole, f…ing punk, suspicious and a member of a group called “they.”
It is my belief that we all engage in selective racial profiling at times. I certainly am no exception and neither was Zimmerman. To that extent I can identify with Zimmerman. The problem, however, is when we act on our “suspicions” or profiling. That is totally unacceptable and can easily ignite a dispute, fight and racial unrest—that can escalate to a national crisis—as we now all see.
Let me be clear. Had I been on the Zimmerman jury, I would have found him, guilty. If Zimmerman had been a 34-year old Black Man behaving in this manner toward a 17-year old White, Asian, or Hispanic child, I would also have voted—guilty.
President Obama is correct in stating the outcome would have been different if Trayvon had been the one left standing. We all know that if Trayvon would have been the one remaining alive that night, he would have been immediately arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to life in prison. And that is why the vast majority of Black America are enraged by the verdict. Not having an African American on the jury exacerbates the outrage. The racial composition of the jury and the verdict reminded African Americans of an era that we’d hoped was past and gone.
As painful, disappointing and unjust as the Zimmerman verdict was, I found a sense of hope and healing from a surprising source—the President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC—Dr. Russell Moore. Reading what Dr. Moore said on this matter in the Washington Post produced a therapeutic and euphoric moment for me. Moore’s words represent the fact that the SBC may truly be on the verge of systemic and substantive change with regard to race. The fact that Moore is Anglo makes his words in this instance more impactful and helpful toward healing the wounds Blacks have felt over Trayvon’s tragic death. In our mid-week service last Wednesday, we put Moore’s quote on the stage screen and read his quote verbatim. These words were like apples of gold on plates of silver:
“Regardless of what Trayvon Martin was doing or not doing that night, you have someone who was taking upon himself some sort of vigilante justice, even by getting out of the car. Regardless of what the legal verdict was, this was wrong,” said Russell Moore…”
“And when you add this to the larger context of racial profiling and a legal system that does seem to have systemic injustices as it relates to African-Americans with arrests and sentencing, I think that makes for a huge crisis.”
“Most white evangelicals, white Americans, are seeing [the Martin case] microscopically, in terms of this verdict, and most African-Americans are seeing it macroscopically. It’s Trayvon Martin, it’s Emmitt Till, it’s Medger Evers, it’s my son, my neighbor’s son, my situation that I had,” Moore said. “Most white Americans say we don’t know what happened that night and they are missing the point.”
For a White Southern Baptists to truly understand the depth of our pain and to be willing to articulate and identify with our perspective without needlessly trampling on Trayvon’s grave is truly extraordinary.
When faced with a Trayvon-Zimmerman moment, there are only three possible responses one can make. Jesus in Scripture was also profiled based on His background. Therefore, He could identify with Trayvon. Jesus faced unwarranted and unanticipated opposition, as did Trayvon on the night of the Zimmerman encounter. By example and teaching, Jesus shows believers how to handle a Trayvon-Zimmerman encounter.
All believers of all colors will inevitably face an adversarial person that could be any race or color. Before we encounter that person(s) we need to make sure that we are armed and equipped with the mind of Christ (Philippians 2:5). Lessons from Jesus and Trayvon’s legacy can guide believers through an unanticipated moment of potential conflict.
The three options available when faced with a Trayvon-Zimmerman moment are to (1) fight; (2) finesse; or (3) flee. Jesus addressed all three.
1. The option to fight should only be employed when there is absolutely no other possible way to remedy the situation. And even then one can take the option of not fighting back and hoping that the aggressor will relent. Jesus taught that you should turn the other cheek. I know that sounds archaic and unrealistic in today’s culture; but this was the method employed by Jesus and Martin Luther King, Jr.
As a matter of fact, Jesus told Peter to put up his sword, because he who lives by the sword will die by the sword (Matthew 26:52). Jesus taught that responding to aggression with aggression is not wise. Trayvon responded to aggression with aggression, and that proved to be fatal and tragic for him. We all need to learn a lesson from that. The option to fight, according to Jesus, is not the best option to take.
2. The option to finesse when faced with a Trayvon Martin situation is also available. By finesse I mean to respond with conciliatory, constructive, non-threating dialogue. Jesus said in Matthew 5:25:
“Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.”
To finesse when faced with a Trayvon-Zimmerman encounter, simply means to seek common ground in the dialogue—not battle ground. Jesus makes it clear that the consequences are weighty if the two parties don’t find—common ground. Jesus also makes it clear that the right kind of dialogue can lead to a peaceful resolution.
3. The third option available when faced with a Trayvon-Zimmerman encounter is to flee. This is probably the best option. Especially in the kind of situation Trayvon faced on that dreadful night.
Jesus said if peace don‘t abide, flee (Matthew 10:14). Jesus fled when he faced an aggressive group that was prejudiced against Him for false reasons. If Jesus fled in this situation, you and I can flee (John 10:39).
My mother warned her children that we would face a Zimmerman encounter in life. And again, we all have. Her advice was “It is better to be a live coward, than a dead hero.” And I believe mother was right and so was Jesus.
There comes a time, when you don’t allow someone else to take your life. By fleeing and finessing, you freely lay your life down.
You are to fight only if this is the only option that you believe is available to you.
Zimmerman was wrong. But to respond to the jury verdict with violence would be equally wrong. Two wrongs will never make a right. Innocent Hispanics and Whites who have been verbally and violently assaulted in the aftermath of the Zimmerman verdict—have been racially profiled, and we need to cry out against that kind of senseless violence as well. The media should publicize the names of the victims and perpetrators in these instances as they have done Trayvon and Zimmerman.
Ironically, the SBC may be the only ecclesiastical body that can bring our nation together for prayer and dialogue surrounding this issue across racial lines. The SBC sanctioned the segregation of American society from her inception through the first century of her existence. Perhaps, now the SBC can lead the way to the healing of racism and racial distrust in American society in the 21st Century. Zimmerman may have gotten by, but he is not going to get away. Remember O.J.? Maybe out of Trayvon’s death will evolve a resurrection of constructive racial dialogue and healing that could lead to the prevention of unnecessary racially motivated deaths in the future.
I would love to see the SBC lead the way on this very important issue.
It is time for action.
Tom,
You & I both. Let’s pray for Dr. Moore & the ERLC. He has all the essential qualities to take the lead on this issue and do well. He is probably receiving a lot of negative feedback as well. We are going to have a special time of prayer for him in our service tonight.
Dwight: I agree with the great majority of your piece. The only thing that troubles me is your assertion that you would have found Zimmerman guilty. This sounds premature considering that you do not have all the facts before you, as the jury did. It seems to imply that the jurors reached their unanimous verdict for some other reason other than the facts, such as race.
We all have judged the case in a sense. From what I know, I don’t think the prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt, which is the standard for guilt or acquittal. But I wasn’t a juror, so my knowledge of the case is not as complete as theirs. And I would hesitate to judge them guilty of racism for their verdict.
The question for Christians is not whether Zimmerman is legally guilty, but morally guilty. I think he is, not necessarily of murder, but of initiating a process that led to someone’s death.
If I go into the woods, spot a bear, follow it, confront it, and then have to shoot it because it attacks me, I may not have done anything legally wrong, but I was stupid and reckless. Not a perfect analogy but apt I think.
I do not believe that the jurors were racists, nor persons who agree with them. Technically, the jurors may have followed a microscopic view of the law and the facts presented in court, and based on the reasonable doubt clause–the decision that they came to is plausible.
Again, as I interpret the facts and the law, I would have come to a different decision. But I believe the jury’s decision must be accepted even if one is disappointed and disagrees with their decision. Just as in the OJ case, the jurors and their decision needed to be respected, so it is in the Zimmerman verdict.
There was no one on the jury that could understand the cultural background and communication style of the witness that was so castigated–Rachel G., and that was unfortunate.
This sounds premature considering that you do not have all the facts before you, as the jury did.
“Facts? We don’t need no stinkin’ facts.”
-Monty Python, as adapted by D. Joseph Blackmon, II
Joe, Joe, Joe. ~shakes head~ Since when did Monty Python write “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre”?
Haa, sorry. Next time I’ll look it up. 🙂
Sorry, Dwight, but assertions are not facts. Asserting that “We all know…” while I suspect are emotiionally satifying for you, don’t change the fact that we most certainly do NOT all know. In fact, a great point made by Dave in his post over the jury verdict is just that–we do not know. Also, it is quite laughable that you besmirch the integrity of the jury simply because you don’t like the color of their skin but then assert, bascially, that a black person would have been able to see the truth. Thank you, I needed a good laugh this morning.
I am thankful to live in a country with a legal system that found George Zimmerman not guilty.
Dwight,
I agree with most of what you say in this article. You are aware of the fact that the FBI has reported that not only is it abundantly clear that Zimmerman is not a racist, his life PROVES that he is NOT a racist. His actions prior to this tragic event point everywhere BUT to that conclusion.
You said if you were on that jury you would have found Zimmerman guilty. I find that rather disturbing since you did not hear the testimony. Add to that the fact that the Sheriff’s department did not arrest Zimmerman because of the injuries he had sustained that night and the fact that the district attorney did not file charges because it seems clear that there was no evidence to suggest that Zimmerman did anything criminal.
The one fact that is not even mentioned in your article is Martin’s response. I don’t care what Zimmerman may or may not have said to Martin, he had no business attacking Zimmerman. His nose was broke and his head was being banged against the side-walk. This is what the STATE’S witness said he saw. The only eye witness to this event, with the exception of Zimmerman testified that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman pounding him in a MMA fashion. This is the STATE’S witness; not some individual the defense presented.
We do have serious racial issues in this country. There is a lot of injustice on the streets and in our neighborhoods. I am not sure this kind of rhetoric is what we need to heal the hurt. We all need to be part of the solution. I do not dismiss the history that you have lived nor the one I have lived and the differing perspectives but that does not mean that yours is any better than mine or anyone else’s.
While Trayvon Martin’s death is a tragedy, the real tragedy may well be more related to his troubled past and the actions he took on that night that caused his death. Was his past racially affected? Probably. Did his parents divorce play a factor in his possibly troubled life? Seems to be so. Did his circumstances leading to his being in Sanford have anything to do with his attitude and trouble his mother faced? That does appear to be the case.
George Zimmerman does not appear to be the monster he is being portrayed as. Trayvon Martin does not appear to be the innocent victim he is being portrayed as.
Maybe out of Trayvon’s death will evolve a resurrection of constructive racial dialogue and healing that could lead to the prevention of unnecessary racially motivated deaths in the future. I do not believe that will be the case as long as this kind of rhetoric is what leads the way.
Bob,
I don’t know what Zimmerman’s history is on the issue of race. What I do know is this: On the rainy night in Samford, Fl., when Zimmerman saw a young Black male walking along, minding his own business–for him to draw the conclusions that he drew, without one iota of evidence to support his conclusion, he racially profiled that young man, and acted on his conclusions. Because most, if not all the other commentators on this thread has never experienced that, it is impossible for them to comprehend or relate to that. I accept that. Thank God that we have a President who has experienced what Trayvon experienced that night and consequently can relate to what happened. Thank God that he can and is speaking to and addressing the pain and the error in this situation. I am shocked and saddened that commentators on this thread are giving Zimmerman a pass on his prejudging Trayvon based on external factors.
Because Zimmerman took a Barbados lady to prom, and mentored a Black kid, does not by any stretch prove that he is not racists. That simply means that he liked that particular Barbados lady, and that particular kid. It is not uncommon for racists to have social interactions with a few people of the opposite races. Even KKK members have social interactions with people of different races. I heard a commentator on TV a couple of night ago call it “selective racism”. That is what I believe Zimmerman engaged in that night.
The only eyewitness saw a 17 year old kid defending himself against the unwarranted aggression of a grown man. If Zimmerman head had been pounded on concrete as alleged his injuries would have been likely, muck more severe.
Bob,
I just read the 911 transcript that Jason K. supplied a link to on this thread. Early on he was asked about Trayvon’s race and Zimmerman responded that I think he is Black.
Later Zimmerman volunteers the statement “he is walking with his hands in his pocket and he is Black.” Why reference his race on this time and what is wrong with walking with your hands in your pocket? Is there something inherently wrong with a Black kid walking with his hands in his pocket.
Commentators on this thread who said that Trayvon was walking looking through windows need to repent. You are slandering a dead child. Zimmerman said that he was walking by houses. You had to walk by houses in order to get home to your daddy’s house. To intimate that Trayvon was doing something sinister simply walking home is beneath the dignity and decency of the quality of people who comment here. Please read the transcript. And please apologize–not to me–but to the memory of a dead child who has been needlessly murdered once–and certainly should not be slandered by believers after his death. Have a conscience. Search your hearts.
For the record, I did not make any such remarks about Trayvon peering in any windows. I do not owe you or anyone else an apology for the comments I made earlier. It is interesting that you continue to speak of unwarranted aggression of a grown man. Perhaps that is true and perhaps it is not. Neither of us has any idea how true that statement is nor to what extent it is true.
I noticed you made no comment as to the events surrounding Trayvon’s life had any bearing on his reaction to whatever may or may not have happened on that tragic night.
May I add one other comment to the fray; the music that teenagers are exposed to and this gangsta mentality I am sure had absolutely nothing to do with the attitude of a 17 year old male; not racial mind you because kids of all races are guilty of listening to that gut wrenching music that is by the way a product of the rap genre heavily influenced by black artists. The devil has had a hay day playing in the minds of our children and it is only getting worse.
So in your opinion, Trayvon had no culpability in what happened on that tragic night? He was an innocent boy that was in the wrong place at the wrong time? He had no anger issues; no attitude problems; no self-perceived hangups about creepy old white guys?
This was ALL Zimmerman’s doing that lead to the senseless death of an innocent 17 year old who was by the way on his way back from the store with skittles and a can of Arizona watermellon drink that mixed with cough syrup is supposedly a cheap man’s version of PCP? That is what I read. I have no idea whether that it true or not; just a comment.
I really believe that you and I both know there is more culpability that Zimmerman here. I am also convinced that young 17 year olds dressed in hoodies in the middle of the summertime in Florida where it is normally hot… make people of all races uncomfortable… whether they are black, white, Hispanic and oh God forbid they be of middle eastern descent.
What is missing in the above comments however is the fact that Zimmerman did not identify himself as a concerned citizen or a neighborhood watch patrol. He went against the advice of the police and the 911 dispatcher by getting out of his vehicle and following Trayvon.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/05/us/trayvon-martin-shooting-fast-facts
We all know that if Trayvon would have been the one remaining alive that night, he would have been immediately arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to life in prison.
Yes, because that’s what happened in the case of Roderick Scott, a black man who shot a white teen in self defense.
Oh wait, no it isn’t.
Not guilty: The verdict in the manslaughter trial of Roderick Scott. After more than 19 hours of deliberations over two days, a jury acquitted the Greece man in the shooting death of Christopher Cervini, 17, last April.
Now, I know you won’t respond to this “for obvious reasons” (your words from a previous comment directed to me) but the fact is, there were no riots after this verdict and no sweeping, blanket accusations. No one called the integrity of the people who served on the jury into question. You know what happened? People went on about their lives. Maybe the people who are spending so much time wringing their hands and sobbing over the Zimmerman verdict should do the same, escpecially since they don’t have the right to be upset about the verdict anyway.
Dwight,
No caveat’s here. Solid piece. Your article concludes with the options we all face were we Martin not Zimmerman. A fact that may be missed as you lay out your initial convictions about what you do know.
What I have observed from your piece is that we all face the situation Trayvon Martin faced. We have options. It also seems apparent that what is being criticized is your assessment of what happened in the fateful moment that took both Martin and Zimmerman’s life. Surely no one thinks Zimmerman will ever have a semblance of the life he once had. His brother even said as much when interviewed by Piers Morgan.
I fear what is missed as that you point out the way we, were we Trayvon, might respond. According to the way John Locke fashioned the notion of self-defense, that is the bedrock for the way we practice such a notion in our Country, the moment a person becomes the aggressor self-defense is now the table. Getting out of the car re-shapes the scenario. That happened long before a broken nose and a head injury.
For me there is another implied in what you wrote. Not only must we think about how we would respond were we in Trayvon’s situation, we must also consider what we would do when our own internal impulses lead us to be in the same shoes as George Zimmerman. In other words, there are many times, as you noted, we become suspicious and profile. It happens in the comments on this site with regularity.
Something is typed and immediately the reader KNOWS the other person, forms a response, and often mischaracterizes the person completely. That is no laughing matter. In fact, it is not Christian. So, when we read the comments here we all face a Zimmerman moment. We either choose to cast the other person in a category that fits our before understanding commitments and paints us the more spiritual and, of course, conservative. Or, we could do what someone suggested as a viable option for Zimmerman, the person who rescues people from a car and provides other acts that do not seem so racist. He could have offered Trayvon a ride home in the rain. Now there is a love for neighbor and our enemies that seem to comport with the Way of Jesus.
Dr. Cornel West offered a harsh criticism of President Obama. Not that he disagreed when the President noted he could have been that guy that was deemed suspicious, the one who heard the locks on cars click as he passed by. What West criticized the President for was leading from behind. He is too late to offer leadership when it concerns the healing of the racial divide that still exists.
I hope that in the midst of your encouraged and encouraging conclusion we can overcome leading from behind. We have, as you note, taken steps to re-establish some moral authority to speak on the subject but we must act and not wait.
You reference Dr. Moore’s words. You offer a hope-filled possibility. I hope your are right. I hope we in the SBC may lead in ways not witnessed before on the public stage. I say public stage because I know of others who quietly work diligently to look for ways to create an atmosphere of reconciliation and restoration of those wounded relationships. We need to publicly lead.
Todd,
Dr. Land was correct about one issue. He said that the majority of the SBC agreed with his remarks before the trial regarding this incident. Most of the comments on this thread are proving him right. Perhaps this also explains why your motion/resolution was rejected in NOLA.
Thanks for being a voice of reason and moderation here. Had you lived 200 years ago in the USA, I believe that you would have been a abolitionist. I have a heartfelt identification with you. Thanks.
Todd,
Question. Since the majority of the SBC agrees with the Zimnerman verdict & obviously agreed with Dr. Lands initial remarks concerning this matter; why then did he apologize? All of those who support the verdict & Lands initial assessment of the TM/GZ matter see no reason to be apologetic; therefore, it leaved somewhat baffled: why did Labd apologize & why did the ERLC board back away from their initial 100% support of Land and his remarks? They later acknowledged that Land’s remarks were “racially inflammatory” or something to that effect. But it’s clear to me reading this thread that Land was reflecting the majority mindset of the SBC constituency. So, again, why did Land apologize. He clearly had the majority of the persons in the SBC & those who vote on his side.
Not only Todd, but I would love to hear a logical answer from anyone on this question. Prior to this thread, I honestly believed that Land represented the minority viewpoint in the SBC on this issue. Now I know better. Moore represents the minority viewpoint. So would someone please answer the question: Why did Richard Land apologize for his TM/GZ initial commentary?
Apologies for the typo.
” . . . self-defense is now off the table.”
Has Dr. Luter addressed the issue of race since becoming President of the SBC and if not why not?
Tom,
Russell Moore is doing a fabulous job addressing this subject. The comments on this thread has me absolutely convinced that President Luter would probably best serve the convention & himself by not addressing this issue. I am convinced if he spoke, his message would be similar to President Obama on this issue. He did speak on this matter when it first became a public issue in sympathy of Trayvon, and a few SBC personalities were critical of him then. Mark Lamprecht being one of them, if memory serve me correctly. When the negative responses to President Luter’s race message became known, it would do nothing but create a greater distance between Blacks & the SBC, and produce additional votes for the Democratic Party. I am convinced after reading this thread, Blacks will fair far better under a judicial system governed by Democrats than Republicans. At last, I now better understand why 90% of African Anericans vote Democrat. It boils down to race & social justice. The Democrats simply are more fair minded & do a better job on these issues. They have a macroscopic view. They do a better job of caring about & addressing fairness, justice & equality issues in life after the womb. That is important to those of us who are people of color as life issues in the womb. It is a shame that there is not an option to vote for a party who merges these two issues. I am so buoyed by President Obama’s healing, helpful, wholesome , and timely word on this matter, ’til I would be incline to vote for him if he were eligible for reelection. The majority of the SBC is unfortunately, not where Russell Moore is on this issue. If Fred Luter addressed this matter in the manner that he did at the onset, I would hate to see the negativity & narrow microscopic reaction be hurled toward him. Therefore, again, I would hope he would leave it to Dr. Moore.
Dwight:
I greatly respect you for your willingness to address this issue in the graceful way you have been doing!
Pastor McKissic: “I am convinced after reading this thread, Blacks will fair far better under a judicial system governed by Democrats than Republicans. At last, I now better understand why 90% of African Anericans vote Democrat. It boils down to race & social justice. The Democrats simply are more fair minded & do a better job on these issues. … I am so buoyed by President Obama’s healing, helpful, wholesome , and timely word on this matter, ’til I would be incline to vote for him if he were eligible for reelection.”
[One eyebrow highly raised. Slowly scans room. Not once, but twice. Stifles not only laughter, but the involuntary acid reflux that’s coming up.]
Sir, I know that you’re not kidding; you are quite serious, and not in jest with your remarks.
I am just so sorry that you think and feel that way. As I think you are gravely and deeply mistaken in your convictions in this matter.
Truth Unites & Divides,
Your moniker is so true. I am as serious as I can be. Reactions to this verdict have been an eye-opener for me. Listening to the pundits on TV who are Republuican & listening to the denials on this thread regarding the seriousness of Zimmerman’s false, prejudice, and baseless allegations against Trayvon-really alarm me. The people who responded to the Washington Poll indicated that Democrats tend to interpret the issue as I do. Republicans don’t. If I were going before a judge or jury, I think that I would fair better under people who view this issue as I do. And according to the WP poll, 86% of Adrican Anericans view this matter as I do. We, like President Obama, have been Trayvon. We have felt the sting of Zimnernan’s false claims. We have suffered as a result of person’s like Zimmerman pre-judging us. We have felt the pain of a judicial system that we were left out of the jury box. It simply is not a good feeling. But this case clearly reveals who is likely to view these matters macroscopiclly-which would include considering the attitude of one who prejudges based on external factors.
Dwight,
Just because White people see things in a more microscopic view, does not mean that it’s wrong. It’s just the way we see things. You act like the way that White people see issues is somehow negative and narrow. Brother, racial harmony will not be achieved that way. Dr. Moore was just simply pointing out that the different way Black people and White people see issues could be a contributing factor to why we’re seeing this issue so differently. I dont think he meant that White people are negative or narrow, just because we look at it that way. If he did mean that, then I disagree with Dr. Moore. But, that’s not the way I took it.
He was just saying that Black folks tend to look at Trayvon, and they see all the injustices of the past…as a whole….as if this is just another thing showing that Black people are treated bad. While White people tend to look at the individual case….what were the facts? What does the evidence show? Was this man guilty of this particular crime?
It’s not that one way of seeing things is somehow superior to the other. Or, that one is sinful, or bad, or mean, or negative, or narrow, and the other way is righteous and good and glorious.
It’s just the different way we see things…based on the culture we were raised in….I can see that….I can see what Dr. Moore was saying….to a point.
David
Volfan,
One thing is for certain; people from different backgrounds tend to interpret and process the same set of facts and circumstances differently. It does not make either side good or bad-just different. My issue is there was no one on that jury that understood and could articulate what the President said about this issue. No one on that jury had felt the sting of being pre-judged as Trayvon was based on external factors. There was not one Black person on that jury. That is hugely problematic for me.
Dwight,
Then, your beef may be with the Prosecution….they most certainly had a say in who was on the jury, and who wasn’t…. don’t they? Why would they agree to such a jury? Why would they agree to just having 6 people on the jury, when they could’ve had more? Correct? Or, am I wrong?
David
Dwight,
A few thoughts. Black folks often say we need to have a dialogue on race. Too often this means a one sided dialogue and if white folks say the wrong things, they are labeled racist. We should not be so sensitive and should be more open about hearing both sides. This is not in reference to you, just a general observation.
I believe a good, godly Christian can be on either side of this issue.
I notice you do not mention the racist comment Trayvon said in reference to Zimmerman, a Hispanic. And Zimmerman is as Hispanic as President Obama is black. But obviously, Zimmerman should not have used such crude language.
You list several things that you say no one disputes. In fact, many, including the jury, dispute some of your points. You see this incident as racist, most consider it not about race, but about self defense.
According to most, Trayvon was the aggressor and attacked Zimmerman, and Zimmerman defended himself as he was being beaten. There is a big difference between a neighborhood watch person following a suspicious acting person, and that person physically attacking the one following him.
We should not vote guilty or innocent based on political issues or prevailing opinion.
Some make this appear as if black teenagers are being hunted down and killed by whites. This Martin-Zimmerman incident in no way means that. But if that is going to be alleged, then the number and percentage of black on white violence, and black on black violence should also be presented and openly discussed.
A black lady in Houston was being attacked by another black man. She got a rifle out of the trunk of her car and, after he had struck her, shot and killed him. Strangely, a local black activist (like Jackson or Sharpton) who had been condemning Zimmerman, immediately praised her for defending herself and killing her aggressor.
I respect you, but I will not always agree with you. I’m sure you will return the favor.
David R. Brumbelow
David B,
Points well made and received. The point that I agree with you most is that good and godly people can be on both sides of this issue. Volfan and I have been able to discuss this issue at Voices without resorting to name calling, or threatening our mutual respect and friendship. Even if one agrees with the legal verdict, it would be helpful to know that all believers view Zimmerman guilty of bad judgement in getting out of the car, and is guilty of an unncessary immoral killing of Trayvon,even if somehow he is technically not guilty of murder in a criminal sense.
it would be helpful to know that all believers view Zimmerman …guilty of an unncessary immoral killing of Trayvon
So, if someone believes that Zimmerman was justified for shooting someone who was bashing his head into the concrete they’re not a Christian? Wow. Just…..wow.
Let’s appreciate the stark clarity that Pastor McKissic is arguing for.
I too am appalled at your blanket statement “Had I been on the Zimmerman jury, I would have found him, guilty.”
PLEASE TELL US BASED UPON WHAT EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY YOU WOULD HAVE REACHED THIS VERDICT.
Greg,
Based on the testimony that Zimmerman was counseled not to pursue Trayvon & despite the denials on this thread–Neighborhood Watch Groups are trained not to carry weapons. Furthermore, Zimmerman’s attitude toward Trayvom solely based on externals give me a window into his mind and his decision making process. Therefore, based on these three facts, I would have voted guilty.
Wm. Dwight McKissic, Sr.,
I like your second point where you say, “By finesse I mean to respond with conciliatory, constructive, non-threatening dialogue.” This would have been the proper attitude for both Trayvon and George to have. I have been approached kindly by police officers who were suspicious of me and I responded conciliatory back, and it worked. Sometimes we do not disciple our people on this principle.
The demonstrations on this issue are not productive and never have been. If we side with those who want to demonstrate against the justice system every time Sharpton and Jackson want to throw their opinions out there we are failing, too. I see more preachers leading these type of demonstrations and they are sending a message that racism can never be overcome. Until these preachers begin to disciple their congregations in how to live their lives and set the example themselves there will never be change.
This nation claims greatness, our motto is “In God We Trust”, we have exceeded in every competition and we have set the pace for success throughout the world, but we cannot handle a race issue. It has been 45 years since the Civil Rights movement. How much progress have we made?
Bruce H.,
We have made huge progress on the racial front. But this was a huge setback. Thus the protest in the streets and the unrest in the community. The church needs to get out front on this issue.
Dwight,
It is my thinking that if we make huge progress in love, the setback would be minimal. We are talking on the Christian viewpoint and the World’s viewpoint here when it comes to progress. The world will not have progress, just laws to force men to get along and programs to put everyone together. The Christian is the only one that can change and setbacks have little effect because a growing Christian lives for setbacks. Grace motivates us through our setbacks, but not the world.
The church that is out front on this issue right now is being led by Al Sharpton with the wrong message. That takes me back to forgiveness and we can discuss that another time.
Bruce H.,
“The demonstration on this issue are not helpful and never have been.”
These demonstrations have given an opportunity for people to vent their anger, frustration, disappointment & fears in a largely peaceful, constructive & goal oriented manner. For those reasons, the demonstrations have been very helpful to the people participating. The goal if the demonstrations are two fold; (1) To demonstrate to the Federal Government that there is a large demand for Federal Charges to be brought against Zimmerman. (2) to ask that the stand your ground laws be repealed. To the persons that are marching, these are very satisfying reasons to them.
Dwight,
If a demonstration allows people (especially Christians) to vent anger, frustration, disappointment and fears in any form it goes against God’s principle of trusting Him and His sovereign plan. None of those emotions are of the Spirit. His plan is for individuals and people groups to suffer through what we cannot see from His standpoint and wait on Him. We must trust Him after the verdict, whether guilty or not guilty. If the verdict was not guilty and white Christians demonstrated, would that help anything? No. Agreeing with the demonstration contaminates the cause because Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson fuel the works of the flesh, and that ain’t Christian. I cannot agree with Christians demonstrating on this issue after the verdict was announced.
BTW, as a side note, Zimmerman getting out of the car did not make him the agressor and most certainly did not take the option of self defense “off the table” when he was getting the snot beat out of him and his head was being bashed into concrete. Just throwing that out there.
Joe: Yes it did. It made him the aggressor by ignoring the police and the 911 dispatcher. None of the above would have happened and he wouldn’t have shot Trayvon had he followed expert advice.
I promised Dave I would not engage you or respond to your comments.
If someone breaks into your home, and you call the police, the standard line that the dispatcher is going to give you is to run and hide. Even if you tell them you are armed and can defend yourself, they will tell you to go and hide in a closet and wait for the police to arrive. So if in your home, you call the police, they tell you to hide, but your child is between you and the criminal. Do you run and hide? Or do you do every thing to protect your child, including but not limited to stopping the criminal? How is it you did not then become the aggressor if you do.
Here is a news flash, in most municipalities, 911 dispatchers are NOT P.O.S.T. certified officers, cannot make arrests, give legal advice, ect. Not following their words ARE NOT THE SAME as ignoring an order from a law enforcement officer on the scene.
Not following their words ARE NOT THE SAME as ignoring an order from a law enforcement officer on the scene.
x2
Joe,
I understand your point. What I am attempting to describe is that had Zimmerman not gotten out of his truck to pursue Martin surely we could all agree, even with our past disagreements well noted, his nose would be straight and no wounds on his head.
Let me reiterate what I read of a pastor’s comment in Sanford, “We all lost.” And, I am avoiding the insertion of race into that comment. Had the situation been between two white males, I would believe the same. No one wins when we have the outcomes we have. That is really what I took from Dwight’s piece.
“He went against the advice of the police and the 911 dispatcher by getting out of his vehicle and following Trayvon.”
Actually, he was already out of the car (apparently because the dispatcher asked where person he was reporting was) by the time the dispatcher made the suggestion, and apparently at that point stopped and went back to the car.
One of the things this situation has convinced me to do, oddly enough, is go back and finish reading Daniel Kahneman’s “Thinking, Fast and Slow”. You can see a number of the biases he notes (“What You See Is All There Is”, the tendency to gauge the completeness of the information you have by whether you can construct a coherent narrative from it (and it is often true that the less information you have, the easier it is to construct a coherent narrative), confirmation bias) being played out in the public discussion of this. Kahneman, I think, shows some bias in how he applies his findings (IIRC, he seems to be more apt to attribute these biases to conservatives than to liberals. Of course, that may be him Bulverising. I’ll know better once I finish the book).
Bro. Dwight said: Someone can approach and address you with a superior, judgmental, authoritarian and condescending attitude and disposition. This is what Trayvon Martin encountered at the hands of George Zimmerman….
Sorry Bro. How do you know this? You said a LOT of good things in this article. And Moore is right when he says its not all about the verdict. I get that this brings up mental images of all kinds of injustices perpetrated because of racism. I do! I get that. But when it comes down to the verdict, a group of people who I can in NO way impugn, and neither should you or anyone who doesn’t know them, were not convinced it was even manslaughter!
Should Zimmerman have done things differently? Yes.
Did he probably say something less polite that, “Excuse me sir, may I ask what are you are doing here tonight?” Yes. I doubt Martin would have popped him for that.
But to say you would have found him guilty looks like profiling on YOUR part. Not good brother. Not good.
Now, what can we do to move past this? I don’t ever want this to happen again! I’m sure you don’t. And I do want there to be healing. Is there a way to agree to disagree?
I don’t want to say you Have to see things My Way for us to ever work together as believers and brothers in Christ.
Or will this be a bone of contention forever? Did we ever get past OJ? I hope so, but not sure why he was brought up.
Here’s the thing. Why CAN’T we all get along?
Clark Dunlap
Clark,
If Zimmerman said the things that I quoted in my post concerning Trayvon, as recorded in the 911 call he made to the Sanford Police–then why would you think he approached Trayvon with any other attitude than “superior, judgemental, authoritarian, and condescending”? On what basis did Zimmerman draw the conclusions that Trayvon was all of those unflattering adjectives that he ascribed tom him? As far as I am concerned, once the police dispatcher told Zimmerman not to pursue Trayvon, Zimmerman was responsible for everything from that point forward. My guess is that in a civil suit he will be found guilty, because he is.
As far as I am concerned, once the police dispatcher told Zimmerman not to pursue Trayvon, Zimmerman was responsible for everything from that point forward
As far as the jury is concerned, he wasn’t. And thankfully, in our system of justice, juries decide cases based on evidence and testimony, not racial angst.
Clark,
A key instruction to the jury in this case, given by the judge was: “use your common sense”. Based on that instruction, my common sense tell me that a grown man had no business pursing a child with candy in his hands. The child was not engaged in any criminal activity. The child was headed toward the home where he lived. The man was told by authorities not to pursue the child. The man had externally falsely negatively profiled the child and interacted with him accordingly. Later this man proved to be strong enough to rescue two people from a car. But his lawyers argued at the trial that shooting & killing a innocent child was the only way that he could protect himself. Clark, based on the jury instruction–“use your common sense”–I would have used my common sense & found GZ guilty. A jury member just yesterday is now saying something similar to what I just said. She was a Hispanic lady. She felt pressured to go along with the others. It was a huge mistake not to have at least one African American on the jury. It is a high probability that that person based on the “common sense jury instruction” would have viewed things like me,. We would have then a different outcome. This lady said that the jurors let a murderer go free. I agree.
The child was headed toward the home where he lived.
Incorrect.
The man was told by authorities not to pursue the child.
Incorrect.
Later this man proved to be strong enough to rescue two people from a car. But his lawyers argued at the trial that shooting & killing a innocent child was the only way that he could protect himself.
Common sense says that since the car accident happened after the trial it would have no bearing on the decision.
Common sense also says to read all of Juror B29’s comment because she also said race was not an issue in this case, that the case was a publicity stunt that should not have gone to trial, and she stands by her decision. Therefore, common sense says the juror did not let a murderer go free, but if they did, she let him go free.
Mark,
Are you denying that TM & his dad lived in that neighborhood? Are you suggesting that TM was in an inappropriate place? Are you suggesting that the 911 dispatch operator did not counsel GZ to not follow GZ?
I read that he was headed to the apartment where his dad’s girlfriend lived. Not sure that makes a lot of difference.
Yes, I am denying that TM and his father lived in that neighborhood. His father did not know the address when he called to report TM as missing. It was the father’s girlfriend’s home.
I don’t know what you mean by “inappropriate place” but, according to the internal affairs police statements, TM was sent to Sanford because his mother kicked him out to spend time with his father during his school suspension. Even though TM was on his third suspension of the school year, his father left him alone in a foreign neighborhood with his girlfriend’s 13 yr. old son.
While TM had a right to be there, excepting any HOA rules, he was visiting without adult supervision on private property that night. Even the police had to get permission from the HOA to patrol the neighborhood. He was a stranger in GZ’s neighborhood.
The non-emergency number (NEN) dispatcher suggested that he did not need GZ to follow TM, but said nothing about pursuing. In fact, the dispatcher also mentioned keeping an eye on – watching – TM. The dispatcher’s suggestion go watch TM came before GZ got out of his truck, while the suggestion not to follow came after he was already following. It can be sensibly argued based on the NEN recording that GZ stopped following seconds after the suggestion. I.e. Listen to the background noise after GZ says, “OK.” GZ continued with the dispatcher for another 2 minutes or so without much background noise and no further mention of TM.
All of this was brought out in the trial. In fact, most of the prosecutions initial witnesses seemed like defense witnesses because the case was so weak.
Mark,
You acknowledge that TM had a right to be there. Then if that’s the case on what basis did GZ find him suspicious & all of the other ugly stuff he said about a person that was a stranger to him? Was it the age, youth, clothes, color, or what was it that GZ found so disgusting & detestable that he followed him, and called 911 on TM? What crime was T M committing? And since you honestly are good with details & documentation, would you tell the readers of this blog that there is no record of TM “looking through windows ” that night in that housing addition? Would you clear this up and apologize to the memory of this slain child? I know we don’t see eye-to-eye on this or most other matters, but on that one detail, can we agree that there is no courtroom testimony; no 911 transcript; absolutely no documentation that TM was peering in windows in the housing addition where the daddy lived with his girlfriend, and where TM was staying as well on the night in question? Thanks.
(Oh and Joe, the quote I think you were adapting was “Badges, we don’t need no stinking badges.” Not Monty but from the movie Treasure of the Sierra Madre.)
Well, to be *really* persnickety about it, “Badges, we don’t need no stinking badges” is a misquote of the line “Badges? We ain’t got no badges. We don’t need no badges! I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ badges!” from the movie. The popular misquote “Badges, we don’t need no stinking badges” apparently shows up first in, of all places, a Monkees episode in 1967, and then in Blazing Saddles in 1974.
Bill O’Reilly offers some additional things to do. He is not off either.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2560422134001/president-obama-and-the-race-problem-/
Yet, we know the real answer; Jesus.
Bruce H.,
Bill O’ Reilly was spot on here. I agree with everything he said. He could have been a little less strident in his tone. But his content was spot on. I am grateful for what he said.
Bruce H.,
Bill O’Reilly was spot on here. I agree with every thing he said. I am grateful that he was willing to say it.
Hey Bro. Dwight,
I’m looking forward to getting to meet you in August.
John,
E. Stanley Jones wrote a book on “The Unshakeable Kingdom”. It is with keen excitement and anticipation that I look forward to meeting you as well and dialoguing with you concerning The Kingdom of God. The very issue under discussion should be viewed through the lenses of the Kingdom of God. If I did so, and all of us did so, we could come closer to reaching unity surrounding this and all issues.
I hate to see Emmit Till and TM put in the same sentence. Both were young. Both were black. Both are dead. That’s about all the similarities there are between them.
I share many of Dwight’s thoughts on this.
One other thing I got out of this is that the media is even more incompetent than I had previously thought. That is, when they’re not deliberately twisting things, as NBC was caught doing. I hope Zimmerman dings them but good in his lawsuit against them.
Brother McKissic,
As a former Neighborhood Watch Commander for several years, retired US Army combat veteran as well as a pastor I have several problems with your lead paragraph.
You state: “No one disputes that George Zimmerman initiated the communication with Trayvon Martin. No one disputes that Neighborhood Watch Volunteers are trained not to carry a weapon. No one disputes that Neighborhood Watch Volunteers are trained not to personally intervene if they observe a suspicious person or activity, but rather notify law enforcement. No one disputes that the 911 dispatcher counseled Zimmerman not to pursue Trayvon. No one disputes that Trayvon had just as much right to be on those premises in Samford, Florida, as Zimmerman. Yet, Trayvon was the one viewed with suspicion and being pursued by Zimmerman. No one disputes that Zimmerman was the aggressor in the encounter.”
I base my response on my personal knowledge and experience and I do dispute your statements.
First, being a NWV qualifies no one to carry a weapon nor does it instruct those individuals authorized to carry a weapon not to carry one. The facts are that Zimmerman was trained and duly authorized to carry a concealed weapon. The instruction I received did not even address weapons.
Second, my instructions by the local police department was:
1. Keep my eyes and ears open to anyone or anything out of the ordinary.
2. Report immediately any activity out of the norm
3. Seek to safely secure vehicle description, license plates and pictures if possible.
4. Provide as clear a physical description of the individual(s) who do not live in the area and or are acting suspiciously.
5. Observe and provide police with movement with personal safety always in mind.
6. Refrain from confronting individuals when possible unless life or property damage requires verbal confrontation and statement that police have been called.
Third, from personal experience, I called the 911 operator (who by the way are NOT police officers but rather a clerk) to report an on-going assault of a senior couple across the street from home in the front yard. The perpetrator then started stabling the older couple. I reported the same to the operator and told her I was going to intervene to which she responded, “Oh, don’t do that. Stay on the phone, the police are on their way.” My response was, “You’re crazy, he’s killing them” and immediately ran across the street yelling. The individual stopped stabbing the couple and backed away. I cornered him so he couldn’t get away and kept him isolated there for more than 10 minutes until the first officer was on the scene. The couple survived the incident but only because I directly intervened. The police officers thanked me for stopping the incident and keeping the subject isolated until they could get there.
As the NWC I often followed and reported the activities of people who did not belong in our area. I’ve observed them climbing over fences, going thru gates into yards and/or walking around or between houses looking in windows.
As you can see, I do dispute your statements from personal experience. If I were in Zimmerman’s shoes I would have done the very same thing with the exception of carrying a concealed weapon, only because I’m not authorized to carry.
The race based emotionalism evident in your article and claim you would have found him guilty apart from the facts and the law is sad. We do not know exactly what happened apart from that which was presented during the trial and the jury found him not guilty.
What we do know is that Trayvon did not live in this gated community. He was apparently walking between houses and looking in windows. That is suspicious and I would have called 911 and followed him at a distance too. From the information released his race had nothing to do with him being initially targeted; rather it was his actions and Zimmerman’s belief that he did not belong in the neighborhood. Exactly what NWV are told to look for.
Let me give one more example where I was on the receiving end. While pastoring a multi-racial church in a major eastern city I often visited a primarily black housing area. The first time I went into the area I parked in the only vacant spot which just happened to be in vicinity of a fire burning in a 55 gal drum with several young black men standing around. As I got our of my car I acknowledge the men and began walking toward the area where I believed the family lived. Several of the young men followed close behind. After about 30 or 40 feet I turned around and asked the young men if I could help them. They asked who I was and what I was doing there in not too complimentary terms. After I told them who I was and what I was doing I turned and proceeded on my way.
I visited four families that night and several of the young men followed me to every house and back to my car. Before getting into my car I thanked the young men for walking along with me and hoped I would see them in church this coming Sunday.
I was someone who was not from the area and they were right to follow me and to question me about who I was and what I was doing there. I have done, and continue to do the same thing to this day.
My wife’s therapy is coming up so I have to leave. My prayers are with the Martin and Zimmerman families. Both have been greatly traumatized. My heart aches for this mother who has lost her child and I ache for this man who took the life. Our prayers and efforts need to be directed at bringing order to the chaos in which we live.
Blessings.
Richard,
THE BEST Comment of the day.
David
Indeed. Erudite and clear. Thank you, Richard.
Richard,
I listened to a presentation on TV regarding the the origin, concept, and initial training of Neighborhood Watch Persons, and clearly it was communicated that they are instructed to not carry weapons. Carrying a weapons while on duty makes them law enforcement officers, and can lead to the very thing that happened–a totally uncalled for an unncessary murder.
Trayvon did live in that community with his father who also lived there. He had every right to be on the grounds where his father was renting a place. Please don’t spread falsehoods on a dead child.
Richard, if Zimmerman’s assessement of Trayvon was not based on race–what do you attribute it to? He had never met this child, so how could he have known so much about him? Please answer the question about Zimmerman’s description of Trayvon? What was that information based on?
My brother,
Nothing I’ve seen or heard from the record indicated a black person. Nothing in the record indicates Zimmerman is a racist,however, if I identify a suspicious person and describe him as black – that doesn’t mean I’m a racist. Instead it indicates I’ve given an important item of identification.
TV coverage,especially on this subject have been full of errors. I just checked with our NW. Officer and there is no mention about carrying as weapon.
It is my understanding that this17 year old young man’s father lived outside the gated community and that Trayvon had just recently been sent to his father because he had been kicked out of school. If this is the case,he didn’t belong. Having said that, I must say that even I would have recognized him as living in my area, if I saw him cutting between houses and looking in windows I would have called the police and followed until her was out of the area or the police arrived.
Sorry we can’t agree on this one.
Blessings
Richard,
On what basis did Zimmerman conclude that Trayvon was a “a…hole” ….” a f…ing punk” and a member of a group called “they” who always get away? What information did Zimmerman use to draw these conclusions? Please answer this specific question?
Dwight,
Was this stated by George after he was beaten by Martin or before? Opinions of others are heightened (if we are worldly) when we have more convincing information about that person. Unfortunately, Zimmerman was not humbled by getting a beating from a 17 year old, however, he was still fighting for his alibi of self defense.
My brother,
I do not support the use of such language, however, as both you and I know such verbage has become common usage. I find it being used by an exasperated individual – exasperated by the slow response of local police.
The old adage that “Sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never hurt you.” definitely isn’t true. Words do hurt but Zimmerman never addressed Trayvon with these words, he sounded off to a 911 operator musch the same as I did when I told one they were crazy.
The “they” Zimmerman is referring to is not a racial “they”, I would wager. It is a “they” as in “gangbanger” “thug” etc “they”. I would further wager if Martin had been native american, martian or purple with pink polkadots he would have been referred to in the same terminology. And further, I take exception to you calling him a child in previous posts. Martin was not a child, his height, weight, arm length, age and other bodily proportions preclude him from the child category.
Richard,
This article (link below) makes it crystal clear that Neighborhood Watch Volunteers are trained NOT to carry weapons. I agree with the title of the article: “Trayvon Martin would be alive if Neighborhood Watch rules followed.”
(http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-14/news/os-trayvon-martin-beth-kassab-031512-20120314_1_orlando-police-block-captains-zimmerman)
Richard Tribble’s testimony makes it quite clear that training for Neighborhood Watch groups vary. They do not all train in exactly the same way. The article makes it crystal clear that *some* Neighborhood Watch groups train to not carry weapons. Richard’s testimony makes it crystal clear that some do not. The real question is, what was the training for the particular group that Zimmerman was involved in? Until you have an answer to that question (not the answer to what other groups train), you really don’t know.
“Brother McKissic,
As a former Neighborhood Watch Commander for several years, retired US Army combat veteran as well as a pastor I have several problems with your lead paragraph.”
Your tone as well as the rebuttal argument you have offered to Pastor McKissic are both wonderful.
Thank you Pastor Tribble.
I, like Captain Kirk and First Officer Spock, have no trouble with tribbles. 😉
Oh those lovable tribbles!
🙂
“What we do know is that Trayvon did not live in this gated community.”
One quibble: Trayvon, though normally living with his mother, was staying with his father (who lives in the gated community), apparently due to a 10-day suspension from school. I think, though I’m not sure, that this was the first day of that suspension, so it would not be surprising that Zimmerman did not recognize him as living in the community.
Bruce H.,
Zimmerman made these comments on the 911 call prior to having an altercation with him. Here is where the prosecutors I believe could have done a better job. Just as no one here will date answer this question–not even Joe Blackmon–who has volunteered answers in defense of all things Zimmerman–this is the question America does not want to tackle. Why not? Because the answer to the question completely destroys the argument that Zimmerman was not bias against Trayvon. And it begs the question, what was the biased based on? And until someone provides me with a more satisfactory answer-I will maintain my belief that the bias was based on race. It was certainly based on external factors. And that was Trayvon’s most salient external factor. What say ye, now that you know that Zimmerman made these statements only armed with the knowledge of sighting Trayvon? Please explain this personality profile given by Zimmerman of a 17 year old young person that he’d never met?
Dwight,
I agree that George went into the situation with a strong point of view of the person that was dressed like Trayvon in his neighborhood. I do not know about a group called “they” unless there was one in the area and George was profiling Trayvon as one of them. That may have removed George’s comment from the situation here. I don’t know. The 3 points in your post make more sense for us to consider.
Bruce,
Thanks. If Zimmerman’s assessment of Trayvon was based on “dress”….how sad. This young man lost his life because of Zimmerman’s dislike of his dress. And yet he’s found–not guilty?
Again, I must accept the verdict. But I am having a very difficult time understanding why others cannot see that to be armed with a pistol & to pregude a person based on “dress” is a serious matter & merits some level of punishment when you based on your prejudices confront & ultimately pull the trigger. Because Zimnernan’s felt this way about Trayvon, that means that he is apt to pull the trigger quicker than he would have with someone “dressed” differently. And again, this is why Black People are enraged. A young man was confronted & ultimately killed because of his “dress.”
No, actually, Trayvon was killed because he decided to attack Geroge Zimmerman. If he had not made that decision, Zimmerman would not have shot him.
Joe-
The only person who says Trayvon struck the first blow is George Zimmerman. He’s the only voice we get to hear because he is the only one still alive.
Given Zimmerman’s past record of assaulting a police officer and having a restraining order filed on him by an ex-fiancee pardon me if I have trouble believing his story, since the person who could have given another version is dead.
Most likely scenario is that Zimmerman, a hothead by all definitions, confronted Trayvon with similar language that he used to describe him on the phone (which by the way is verbal assault), tried to restrain him when Trayvon did not respond, got his butt kicked when he did so- by a 17 year old kid- and responded like all bullies do- by overreacting to losing- which resulted in Trayvon’s death.
You can spin the facts any way you want to, but the fact of the matter is a known hothead with a gun murdered a child because he didn’t stay where he was told to stay and because he assumed- for whatever pathetic reason- race, dress, hood, skittles- that the child was the one committing the break ins in the neighborhood.
It’s still no reason to shoot someone.
And given Trayvon’s past history of drugs and fighting, please forgive me if I don’t think he’d be a credible witness.
As far as your “most likely scenario”….you can prove that, right? Because in a court of law, jurors that heard testimony and evidence came to a markedly different conclusion. 🙂
And Joe that is my point.
You are willing to dismiss ANY mention of Zimmermans past while continually using Trayvons past as an excuse to say he instigated the altercation. I’m not sure how those two very divergent ways of arriving at truth square in your mind but I’m sure the mental gymnastics you use to get there are fun for you.
I also dispute much of what you say no one disputes. But rather than get into a retort of your points let me ask one question.
From your understanding of the “facts”, if roles were reversed and Zimmerman was the one being followed and Trevon took the actions as you see them. Would you conclude that Trevon was guilty?
Lets look at it another way. What race did God create? Is mans definition of race Biblical?
Here is my answer to the question about race presented five years ago at a Together for the Gospel Conference by Thabiti Anyabwile. Thabiti delivered a message on the myth of racial categories. He presents his answer better than I could ever state it. I hope we all listen to this and draw a conclusion on:
Did God create race or did man?
http://t4g.org/media/2010/04/bearing-the-image-identity-the-work-of-christ-and-the-church-session-ii/
John K.,
The race of either party is somewhat inconsequential. If Zimmerman was the 17 year old kid, being pursued by a 34 year old Black Trayvon, who had been told by the dispatcher to not follow the “suspicious” person, then I would maintain that the 34 year old Black Trayvon was wrong, and should be found guilty of murder. The reality is if that scenario had played out that way–we would not be having this discussion. Because the 34 year old Black Trayvon would have been found guilty of having illegally killed Zimmerman. And that is the very reason Black America is outraged.
Yes, Dwight, because that’s what happened when this black man killed a white teen.
http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/#sthash.1iQ1V6my.dpuf
Oh, wait, no it didn’t. He was found not guilty. Huh? Imagine that.
Black America may be outraged, but Black America has no right to be outraged.
Dwight,
Sorry that at one point you say “The race of either party is somewhat inconsequential.” Then go on to say “Because the 34 year old Black Trayvon would have been found guilty of having illegally killed Zimmerman.”
I know you as a great man in Christ, I hope you have a chance to listen to Thabiti also a great man in Christ. It may be hard to listen to, although God never promised us life and his word would be easy.
John K.,
Do you disagree with my statement, which is also the opinion of the POTUS and a constitutional lawyer, that a 34 year old Black Trayvon would have been found guilty if he had acted exactly like the 34 year old real-life George Zimmerman?
I would also like to know from you, on what set of facts or perceptions did Zimmerman conclude that Trayvon was suspicious, and a “a…hole”…”a f….ing punk”….and a member of a group, called “they” which always get away? No one in this comment thread has up to this point answered this question. Why not? This is a very important question that gets to the hard of the issue.
You and others in this comment stream, and even the jury expect us to believe that Zimmermans opinion of Trayvon was pulled put of thin air, and it had no bearing on his decision to murder Trayvon? A 17 year old Anglo girl would not have been murdered by Zimmerman, even if she did exactly what Trayvon did that night. You know that to be true. Please admit it. Neither would Zimmerman had expressed such an opinion about, or treated a 17 year old young Anglo male as he did Trayvon.
The POTUS did not become President being “emotional” and irrational in his thinking. He understands law and history. His is an informed opinion. Please explain, what makes President Obama and my opinion wrong on this issue?
We are all supposed to view this case in the wider context of racial history. I’ve read that a million times.
Your question no one will answer is important. And one answer is context. At trial there was evidence about Zimmerman’s perspective that night:
– History of burglaries in the neighborhood
– History of burglary suspects
– Behavior: slow pace in the rain near windows and buildings
– no familiarity with Martin
– history of good racial relations
More context on Martin’s view of Zimmerman:
– being followed
– creepy a** cracker
– Rachel J’s speculation that Zimmerman might be someone dangerous
– no familiarity with him
This is all context. In addition, a federal Justice Dept. investigation concluded there was no evidence supporting a hate crime.
I am sad that you feel Zimmerman would not have followed an Anglo male in exactly the same circumstances. None of us knows these people and we feel very comfortable saying the best and worst about them. Unlike the jurors, we’ve not heard all the witnesses, seen all the evidence, read the jury instructions, etc. (And most of us have some stuff wrong: a blogger assured me that there were “no eyewitnesses except Rachel J”; truth is that 4 partial eyewitnesses testified, plus Rachel J re her phone conversation). Yet we feel perfectly fine impugning the lawyers, the witnesses, the parties, the jurors, just whomever.
That makes me incredibly sad.
And yes, the whole thing would probably never have happened if Zimmerman had stayed in his truck. Unfortunately the law there does prevent a neighborhood watch person legally carrying a gun from getting out of his/her vehicle. (Whether it should or not is a separate, complex policy discussion).
But totally separate: I am a mom. The saddest thing in the world to be is to see Mrs. Martin — an incredibly dignified woman who speaks with quiet grace — sit through this, while people politicize and pontificate. Mrs. Zimmerman too seems to be a woman of dignity. Maybe in other circumstances they would have much in common.
Dwight,
Yes I disagree with POTUS and you on your conclusions that the Jury was racists in their conclusion of the evidence. I believe the Jury would have came to the same conclusions given the same facts in the same manner no matter what tribe of God the defendant came from or what tribe the assailant came from.
This was a all female jury, were they sexist? NO.
This was a all female jury, were they racist? NO.
The prosecutor presented the best case the evidence allowed. The prosecutor picked the jury as did the defense.
When we become a nation that does not respect a juries verdict and say a defendant is guilty even after he has been tried and acquitted we are no longer a nation that respects the laws and constitution that governs this land. For the POTUS as the Chief constitutional law maker to undermine our legal system is not what should be accepted by the people, even if one does not agree with the juries verdict.
Dwight I respect you and I know you respect the law. If the law failed in your mind, then fight to change the law of self defense.
I hope you would have focused some of your retort on:
What race did God create?
Is mans definition of race Biblical?
That is the issues I will strive to understand.
I had a thought yesterday.
The Martin/Zimmerman case is kind of like a political/racial/sociological Rorschach test. We each look at the events and we see a truth.
But what we see tends to reveal what we are, who we are, where we are. It reveals more about our own convictions and beliefs than it does about the case itself.
I am amazed at the reaction in the Baptist blogosphere to this case. There is a passion and a force of opinion here that I’ve not seen on many topics. And people on all sides are absolutely convinced they are right.
My point is that I think most of us THINK we are looking at the facts (and the other side isn’t). But in reality, we are looking at the facts through the lens of our own experience and belief and each coloring the facts in our own way.
And, while I may not agree with everything Dwight said, as always, I appreciate his tone, his grace, and his godly spirit, even as he argues his points forcefully.
I am always honored, Dwight, when you send me a post!
But what we see tends to reveal what we are, who we are, where we are.
I disagree. The two sides i see to this situation are the right side and the side that wants to make this about race. “If Trayvon had been alive…..if there had been a black juror….if Zimmerman hadn’t been white….”
There is a segment of the population, like Dwight, who have what they believe is a righteous anger that a white man (who was Hispanic, but, he let’s not let facts get in the way) got away with murdering a black child and if the races were reversed that would NEVER have happened, so they opine.
Except, of course, a black man was found innocent of having shot a white teen in self defense.
http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/
I also find his attitude toward the jurors offensive. “If they’d been black, they would have gotten it….” as if a white person is unable to hear testimony and examine evidence and make an unbiased decision. And then, when he was not a juror and didn’t hear the testimony or examine evidence, for him to declare “I would have found him guilty”…well, it doesn’t exactly paint him as an impartial citizen who is only interested in the truth.
Joe, I think the force and emotion of your views on this says something about you as much as it does about the facts of the case.
The same is true for all of us.
And what exactly does it say about me? Oh, that’s right, I’m a white man so I don’t understand “the struggle”.
By the way, my passion is due to the fact that someone posts an article here basically calling the jury’s integrity into question and suggesting that a black man on trial would have gotten a different outcome, which I’ve proven via news links is not the case. Further, my passion is due to someone saying they don’t view this racially when in fact their entire article and their comments are dripping with race.
The only people who have any right to be upset about this verdict in any legitimate fashion is the family of Trayvon Martin. That would make sense because they not only disagree with the verdict but they lost a loved one. The rest of the race baiters who disagree with the verdict should do the respectable thing and stand down.
Yes, you are a white man, and NO, you do not understand what it is like to be a black man in America. Neither do I.
But your bluster and absolute certainty that you know everything about this case says more about YOU than it does about the case.
And, my point is true on all sides here. Each of us puts on the glasses of our own experiences, convictions and judgments and views this situation through that lens.
We are colored by our own views and are subjective.
Here you have godly men discussing an issue and disagreeing vociferously. Why would that be? Because in our imperfection, we each see this situation NOT just from biblical and godly viewpoints, but through the lens of our own experience.
You would do well to accept that and be a little less sarcastic to your brothers in Christ as we discuss this.
You would do well to accept that and be a little less sarcastic to your brothers in Christ as we discuss this.
Tell you what–I’ll do that when you give a similar repremand to Dwight for his assertion that the jury reached the verdict they did due to the racial make up of the jury. Fair enough?
It is not a matter of having opinions or advocating them strongly. It is sarcastic disregard for brothers that bothers me.
Dwight has every right to advocate his position here. He has done so forcefully. I don’t agree with him in all his views (in particular, I think not-guilty was a reasonable verdict based on what I know).
But he articulates his positions with grace. In fact, I feel ashamed when I see how he treats people who disagree with him. I wish I had his grace, calm, integrity and character.
You have every right to disagree and to advocate your position. But the sarcasm and disrespect towards others does not help your case. I consider you my friend and it turns me off.
“not subjective”
I think you means “not objective”.
“You would do well to accept that”
I know you’re addressing this to Joe, but for this really to be effective, each of us has to take this and make it “I would do well to accept that”. It’s easy to see how others’ convictions are colored. It’s much harder to accept that mine are as well. And the trick is to do it without descending into post-modernism (though there I think the difference is that post-modernism says that the problem is that nature of the world – that you can’t know truth, hence everything is by nature subjective. Our position would be expressed more as “I can know truth, but I frequently don’t” – the problem’s in me, not in the nature of the world).
You are right, Ben. I made an edit in my previous comment (moderator’s privilege).
But your bluster and absolute certainty….
Ah, yes, but Dwight’s “We know it would have been different if he was black….” “We know Zimmerman started the confrontation….” and statements that litter this comment thread of the like are not blustery or expressing absolute certainty?
Sounds legit.
“And people on all sides are absolutely convinced they are right.”
And on this I come back to “If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know”. If we don’t see ourselves as capable of being being convinced of things that aren’t so, if we fail to see ourselves as fitting into exactly the scenario Dave talks about – seeing things filtered through our own experience and coloring the facts while thinking we’re looking objectively at the facts – then we’re operating without some very basic knowledge, knowledge that we *ought* to know. We easily and quickly convince ourselves that we’re right, when perhaps it should be the other way around – we should make things a matter of conviction only after a long and perhaps laborious effort to ensure that the biases that so easily skew us aren’t operating.
“As far as I am concerned, once the police dispatcher told Zimmerman not to pursue”
As I understand it from those who dug into the trial testimony and the dispatcher tapes, Zimmerman was out of the car *before* the dispatcher told him “You don’t have to do that”. And that he at that point stopped the pursuit and returned to the car.
What is funny here is that the subject is about “how to handle the moment”, not the facts, opinions and assumptions. Three points were given and I don’t know if anyone has tried to give support or provide additional answers on how we deal with the moment. One thing for sure, George and Trayvon never showed an ounce of Christian character. I doubt any of the worldly elements out there can produce the character of Christ without Him living in them.
BH,
Great Observation. I actually initially penned these thoughts to address the young people at the church where I pastor regarding “How To Handle A Trayvon-Zimmerman Moment.” That is the salient point or big idea here. I wish there were more commentary on the big idea here, without denying needed and healthy discussion regarding…the rest of the story.
The desire to address a similar situation is lost in the mis-statements and apparent racial biasis. It’s hard to begin discussing how one should handle such a situation when people’s vision is distorted by the weeds in front.
We need to spend more time in our pulpits focusing on dealing respectfully with people and standing against the wrong and violence of our society. When pastors put forth wrong statements as facts and flame racial tensions loose any integrity in trying to change the conversation.
sorry it has come to this.
Richard,
Where is the “misstatement” and where is the proof of the “racial bias”?These are cruel things to say without any supporting evidence. I am beginning to feel like Trayvon. He felt the sting of false accusations that night. Please provide evidence for your accusations.
Brother,
The racial bias I see in the article is summed up in your statement: “It is my belief that we all engage in selective racial profiling at times. I certainly am no exception….” and my percieved treatment of the subject. Add to this the fact that the only racial statement made in the course of this incident was made by Trayvon and inflamed by those who have turned this tragic event into justificationb for more race bating.
The Martin-Zimmerman event was not about race and should not be about race today. Black Americans who have attempted to point this out and speak to the national tragedy of continually promoting a Black – down and out mentality so anything is justifiable. As ministers of the gospel we need to be lifting people up, encouraging people and that includes living wholesome lives regardless of race, religion, etc.
As to your mis-statements, I’ve already addressed them in detail.
Richard,
Reading your remarks have helped me to better understand why the majority of Blacks vote Democrat and voted for President Obama. If we expect to get a fair, objective hearing and a “macroscopic” view of issues as the one under discussion–it appears that the majority of persons who vote Republican simply have a different view of the world on issues like this(thank God that there are exceptions). A Washington Post poll recently confirmed this. Moore is right. You are viewing this microscopically. I am viewing this macroscopically. Therefore, we will never see this eye-to-eye. But I appreciate the dialogue. And appreciate the things that I learned in the process of this dialogue.
I am so grateful for President Obama today and the words of healing and understanding that he spoke on this issue. Aspects of this issue I don’t believe can be understood unless you have experienced the prejudice that Trayvon experienced that night. Never before have I not regretted, having not voted for President Obama. This conversation has brought me to the brink of that regret. Because he is concerned about the life of a young Trayvon Martin, and can identify and sympathize with his plight, in ways that many of the “Pro-Life” Republicans simply can’t. The wounds behind the death of Trayvon are deep and real. But thank God, the message of the President and Dr. Moore are providing perspective, identification, therapy, hope, and healing to this senseless, brutal, and although many Republicans are in denial–it is a racial situation. The Republican reaction to this situation will likely seal Black votes to the Democrats for years to come. They may even sway some independents who want justice and fairness from the womb to the tomb–not just in the womb.
Richard,
Specifically, you have not addressed my “misstatements.” Neither have you demonstrated a racial bias on my part. Let’s admit we all engage in a certain level of racial profiling in various context & situations. Are you denying that you have never done this? Beyond my honest admission-you failed to show any racial bias on my part. And you deny that Zimmerman’s baseless adjectives toward Trayvon were prejudice speech on his part. You write it off to frustration or irritation at the slow response to the 911 call. Quite frankly, unbelievable. If you are going to level those inaccurate, and un-Christlike allegations toward me, integrity should dictate that you be specific & clear–not generic in your charges . Charges of ‘misstatements” & racial bias are serious allegations. Please be more specific.
Richard,
But we are the elite (or elect), the cremedelacreme of Spiritual knowledge and we know all, see all and tell all. Sometimes we sound like tinkling bells and sounding cymbals. I wonder what the Catholic priest are blogging? Bet they have a few answers. Are there any Muslim blogs that are talking about this? You know we are going to have to hand this race thing over to them to deal with one day anyway. What is the Muslim’s answer to racism?
I lived and ministered in 3 muslim contolled countries. One-on-one I had absolutely no problem but when there were 4 or more and only me there prejudice was very evident. I chose not to respond in kind but to keep on treating them as I would want to be treated. Didn’t always work!
Sadly, I feel that racial tension will always be with us until Jesus returns but that doesn’t justify it.
Richard,
Amen.
I think you hit on a fourth point in Dwights post. Approach people like you want to be approached. “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.” Matthew 7:12
I often disagree with President Jimmy Carter, but he has some interesting comments on George Zimmerman:
Former President Jimmy Carter says the jury in the George Zimmerman trial “made the right decision” based on the evidence and the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the neighborhood watch volunteer acted deliberately and was not defending himself.
“It’s not a moral question,” Carter said in an interview with Atlanta NBC affiliate WXIA television. “It was a legal question, and the American law requires that the jury listens to the evidence presented.”
http://abpnews.com/ministry/people/item/8688-carter-supports-zimmerman-verdict#.Ue_Z0PIo66k
David R. Brumbelow
Correction: above I said “the law there does prevent a neighborhood watch person legally carrying a gun from getting out of their truck” when plainly I should have said “does NOT prevent.”
K. Gray,
You gave context, which is always important, but you did not answer the question: Based on what factors did Zimmerman form his opinion of a young man he’d never met before that dreadful night? Your context & response did not answer that question. I’m assuming that-that was your intent. I appreciate your commentary here.
I’m not a mind or heart reader so I don’t know. I will say this: the evidence showed there had been many break-in attempts at The Retreat, not many had been caught, Zimmerman was a neighborhood watchperson who was out that night on an errand, Zimmerman thought Martin was acting odd and suspicious in the rain at night at The Retreat, called 911, and described the “suspicious” behavior. (I read a list of Zimmerman’s prior calls. He called 911 about people’s garage doors being open, a child unattended in the street, a pit bull, etc.) Was that suspicion based on race? Zimmerman did not mention race until asked to identify Martin by race, to which he responded that Martin “looks black.” When he lost sight of Martin he became upset and uttered the line These ** ****, they always get away. “They” is people up to no good at The Retreat. He was completely wrong about Martin… you say, because of Martin’s race. Do you believe Zimmerman meant “these *** blacks, they always get away? Nothing at trial supported the idea that Zimmerman was prejudiced or racist, no racial slur, nothing. He’s been investigated up the wazoo by a number of state and federal organizations, and probably private groups. Any racially charged evidence on Zimmerman should be flushed out by now.
But, this is one of those “of course” moments that people feel in their being, because in their experience it is truth, and no specific evidence is needed. Many, many people have declared it, as you have: absolutely no doubt whatsoever – certainly no reasonable doubt — that Zimmerman acted out of racial profiling, and everyone who doesn’t get that is probably racist…or worse, “pro-life” Republican! This seems to be the standard inference we apply to one another these days.
I am wondering one thing. If in the future there is no federal civil rights case but there IS a state civil conviction for wrongful death – which might not involve race at all — will that feel like justice from your perspective? That is a sincere question.
David B.,
What do you believe that Zimmerman based his 911 commentary regarding Trayvon on prior to their physical altercation–when he referred to Trayvon as “suspicious,” “a f…ing punk,” and a “a…hole.” What in your opinion did Zimmerman base these comments on?
Jimmy Carter’s position is a plausible one. You and I agree on that. The outstanding question is, did race play a factor in Zimnernan’s treatment of Trayvon? If not race, what would cause Zimmerman to have such a negative opinion of a person that he had never met?
Dwight: what if the truth is that we *can’t* know if race played a factor? You seem to be expecting us to try to reliably read the mind of a stranger, where majority of the public information available about the character of *both* participants is partial and conflicting, in some cases misleading, and in some cases deliberately twisted. I think you have vastly overrated the ability of humans to read minds in such circumstances.
Add to that the fact that he may have made those comments because of the man’s apparent age and the fact that he didn’t recognize him. Onlly somone looking for a reason to be offended would conclude Zimmerman was a racist.
And let me state once again, the black community has no right whatsoever to be angry about this verdict.
Ben,
I am not asking you to read his mind. I am asking you to be logical. His opinions had to be based on his observations. And what he observed was race, age, clothes, and gender. Pick one. It doesn’t matter. Neither one of those were a worthy reason to call the law or approach Trayvon with a weapon. Either one of these reasons don’t constitute being labeled the names Zimmerman called Trayvon. You all should be just as outraged by this as Moore, Obama, and 86% of Black Anericans are.
“I am not asking you to read his mind.”
I believe you are. or close enough. You are asking me to discern the motives of a stranger, as though I was God, looking into his heart. Now, I understand that in today’s Bulveristic public discourse, it has become commonplace to speculate on someone’s motives, and then assume that those speculations must be true, to the point where it has become standard practice. I don’t agree with doing that (as my own complaints about Bulverism should show).
“His opinions had to be based on his observations.”
Ha! You do read blogs, don’t you? Opinions come from all kinds of things, some of them very strange. And I think you’re erring by construing those statements as “opinions”. While you and I wouldn’t use such language, a lot of non-Christians splatter such language like breathing. Exasperation, irritation (being outside on a rainy night because you feel you have to deal with a stranger in the neighborhood (whether he would have been justified in feeling so, it wouldn’t have been surprising if he felt that way)) and dozens of other things can easily cause such commentary, whether or not it is justified. Treating it as though it was a rational, considered opinion of the person he was following and then back-deducing his attitude from that isn’t justified.
And, please, don’t single out one (of the potentially dozens) of the examples I used and come back with “You mean a young man was killed for irritation?” The point isn’t that I’m asserting that he was irritated, the point is that there are enough potential causes of him saying those things that asserting that those things prove racism on his part isn’t justified.
Ben,
I don’t have to read Zimmerman’s mind. He told us exactly what he thought of Trayvon in very explicit terms. People of color understand exactly what Zimmerman meant and what his motivations were. Every Black man in America–as Obama intimated–has experienced what Trayvon did that night. You can deny the obvious as long as you like. But to have such an opinion of a complete stranger constitutes prejudice–which means to prejudge–at the least, and racism at the worst. I will allow you to live with denial–but it is an experience that most Blacks undergo daily. Therefore, we can’t live with denial. It is a matter of survival for us. And, if the three major points of this post are heeded, then it will prevent some Trayvon type tragedies in the future. For that, I will be grateful.
Other possibilities are: youth, style of dress, composure, etc
My question to you is this, I think you said that once Zimmerman disregarded the 911 operator’s request, he was at fault for whatever took place, are you saying that Trayvon could have justifiably killed him? Once Trayvon started beating up Zimmerman are you saying Zummermsn deserved whatever Trayvon did to him even death!
Adiel,
Absolutely not. What I am saying is that you shouldn’t be able to pick a fight with an individual based on clothes, age, gender, race, etc. , & then, when you start to lose the fight, you pull out a weapon, kill the person; and claim self defense. It is something wrong with a law that permits what happened in Samford, & the killer goes free. Inasmuch as we all are acknowledging that the initial confrontation was based on some arbitrary external factor.
I must have missed something in this case. Where did you learn that Zimmerman started a fight with Trayvon?
It’s my understanding that Zimmerman rounded a corner and was jumped and pummeled by a younger, more atheletic individual – not the other way around.
Richard,
We all know that Zimmerman started this encounter. He profiled Trayvon based on external factors, called 911 & documented his negative & baseless feelings toward Trayvon. And then confronted him against the counsel of the 911 dispatcher. Had Zimnernan’s stayed in his car & minded his business we wouldn’t have had this problem.
We all know that Zimmerman started this encounter. He profiled Trayvon based on external factors, called 911 & documented his negative & baseless feelings toward Trayvon. –
And not one of those things he did merited his being physically assaulted which you seem more than willing to give a pass on.
Fact–if Trayvon hadn’t unjustly assaulted Zimmerman, Trayvon wouldn’t have died.
Dwight,
So, you’re saying that Zimmerman should’ve just layed there and let Trayvon pound his head into the pavement? and killed him? Let’s move beyond the fact that Zimmerman did a bonehead thing by getting out of the truck and confronting a young man in a hoodie, who was unknown to him, and who was looking into windows of houses….let’s get beyond Zimmerman’s and Trayvon’s racist words….AFTER Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman…pounding his head into the pavement….are you saying that Zimmerman should’ve just let Trayvon beat him to death? that Zimmerman had no right to defend himself? to keep from dying?
David
David,
None of us know for certain what took place that night. If I saw Zimmerman’s weapon, or if he threatened to kill me with it, and there was no opportunity for me to escape, I probably would have behaved as you allege Trayvon behaved. Zimmerman placed Trayvon in a position to kill or be killed. And of course we know the end of the story. But the one who did not follow the operators instructions is the responsible party from my vantage point.
Dwight,
If I saw you in a hoodie, I wouldnt be afraid of you. But, if I saw you in spandex, or in a speedo swimsuit, then I would be very afraid….well, maybe afraid is not the right word….
🙂
David
are you saying that Trayvon could have justifiably killed him? – See more at: https://sbcvoices.com/how-to-handle-a-trayvon-zimmerman-moment-by-wm-dwight-mckissic-sr/#comment-200132
Great point because it sure sounds like a way of saying that Trayvon’s attack on Martin was justified.
Dwight,
Wouldn’t it be great if we got to the point that we judge based on the content of character and actions and not on race at all?
Zimmerman, because of previous break-ins, and previous examples there of people causing trouble and getting away with it, likely would have directed that crude language at me (a white boy) if I were there looking in windows and acting suspiciously. Maybe, just maybe, race was not a factor at all.
When a white man gets cut off in traffic by another white man, he thinks the guy who cut him off is a jerk (not a racist). Sometimes, when a black man gets cut off in traffic by a white man, he may think the guy is a racist. Maybe, in both cases, the guy is just a jerk. Maybe, regardless of color, the guy is just a thoughtless, selfish driver. I’m for treating the situations the same, rather than playing the race card, as some are inclined to do.
David R. Brumbelow
“Looking in windows & acting suspiciously”…When did that happen. Who said that he was looking through windows? Was it Zimmerman who needed an alibi or someone else? Hadn’t heard that before. And, exactly what made Trayvon suspicious to you & Zimnerman? He was walking to his dad’s house with skittles, tea, & a cell phone. What exactly is suspicious about that? Did the notion of him looking through windows come up in the trial? Where is the evidence of that?
Dwight,
If a white boy(17 or 18 yrs old), with a muscle shirt and tattoos on his arms, comes walking into your neighborhood late at night….and, he’s wearing a bandana on his head….let’s say that he has a scruffy beard….and you look out your window…where you live….and you dont know him…dont recognize him as a neighbor….would you keep looking out your window to see where he was going? what he was doing?
I would.
David
David,
Probably not. But even if I did, your scenario does not fit the Trayvon -Zimmerman situation.
Trayvon was not dressed in the manner that you describe, nor was he dressed in a way that would have been threatening or suspicious fro my vantage point.
For sure, what I would not have done with regard to your scenario, is to confront the person, based on externals. Blacks are very sensitive to judging people based on externals. We have been victimized by that from the inception of this nation.
If Trayvon had burglar tools in his hands, or was indeed appearing to be peering through strangers windows that’s a different story. I would call the law in that scenario-regardless of the person’s external factors.
Volfan, where did the allegation come from that Trayvon was looking through windows and acting suspiciously? What constitutes a suspicious looking act? You have not made such allegations against Trayvon. But others on this comment thread have. Where are they getting this information from?
Dwight,
I dont know where they’re getting that info.
But, Dwight, if I saw a white man in a hoodie, with a scruffy beard come into a convenient store in Memphis…late at night….and, it was just me and the clerk in the store….I would get very nervous. I’m just being honest with you. I dont care if the man was Black, White, or Latino….if he comes into a convenient store in a big city, late at night, and he looks kind of rough looking….I’m not gonna sit here and act all spiritual….I’m gonna get nervous.
Why? you might ask….well, it seems like every bank robber, and convenient store robber, and other gangsters and criminals, out there, seem to all be wearing hoodies. I mean, a lot of the news stories I see on TV…where they got footage from the camera’s…. it seems like a lot of them use those hoodies to try to hide their identity. So, I don’t care if they’re White, Black, or Green Mint colored….I would be a little nervous about a situation like that.
David
Dwight,
You can get the 911 transcript from
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html
and see where the Trayvon clothing description and housing comments derive from. Although people are not quoting perfectly the transcript, you will get the factually quotes there.
On whatever skin color: any combination of clothing that obscures face, build, and is baggy enough to conceal a weapon makes me nervous.
I’ve got enough drug-addicted white people in this county that will kill for enough Sudafed to make more meth to let race be a bias on that one. When I lived in Memphis, time was a factor, too: the same group at 5 PM was more nerve-wracking at 11 PM. When I worked fast-food, the same small group that was not alarming when in the restaurant until closing time had me scared when they were in the parking lot 30 minutes later.
Coming back to now, instead of arguing the case over and over:
What do we actually do, now?
Surely we do not want to start imprisoning people because it makes us feel better after verdicts we disagree with, do we?
I guess this is my question: short of advocating locking up Zimmerman to satisfy the “macroscopic” issue in spite of a jury trial finding him not guilty (which is not the same as innocent), what do we actually do?
Because I think that the road from ignore jury verdicts we don’t like leads someplace very, very bad.
Doug,
In the early ’90’s a White Canadian gentleman, now living in Arlington, Tx. woke up one morning, and after a few beers, he decided that he wild go out and randomly shoot the first Black Man he saw. After riding for several blocks, he spotted a Black Man outside doing mechanical work on his car. He pulled out his pistol and killed him. He was arrested and charged with murder. None of the facts in the case were disputed. The jury found him guilty, but guess how many years the sentence was? ZERO!!! That’s right he was not sentenced to prison at all. He was placed on ten years probation.
About ten thousand Black People marched in the streets of Ft. Worth to protests the sentence. Calls were made to ask the Federal Justice Department to bring charges as they are asking for in the Zimmerman case. The Feds did bring charges and the man was found guilty and was sentenced to a lengthy prison sentence. I’ve forgotten just how long.
Exactly what do we do from here? I hope that there is a Federal Investigation into this matter, and I am willing to except the outcome. no matter what that might be.
This verdict is polarizing the races. The church needs to get out front on this issue, and address it redemptivitely, and therapeutically, in a Russel Moore/ President Obama fashion, or else I got a feeling that this verdict will impact race relations and politics in a negative way, for a LONG TIME TO COME.
I can’t see where having a Federal investigation other than those which have already occurred will help anything. If the feds bring charges, there will be plenty of people who will think that the Obama administration has unconstitutionally subjected Zimmerman to double jeopardy for political purposes. If the feds charge and the verdict is guilty, you will probably have the Hispanic community protesting (if they’re not protesting just from the double jeopardy aspect). If the feds charge and the verdict is not guilty we’re right back where we started.
I think it’s best to look for solutions other than going down, as Doug Hibbard put it, the ignore verdicts we don’t like road.
Dwight,
Are you speaking of the Christopher William Brosky case in Texas?
On what legal grounds do you think the Feds can place Zimmerman on trial for, the FBI already concluded this was not a hate crime. When should double jeopardy be an issue? Lots of issues need to be considered before we advocate double jeopardy trials.
Surely it’s a different case than that, given that the Brosky case was of a juvenile perpetrator who was not the actual shooter. The actual shooter in that case got 40 years, after all.
Also, Brosky was convicted on a state charge, not a federal one. The state went back and charged Brosky with conspiracy to murder someone, and convicted him on that count.
Which allowed a sentencing on that count–what makes no sense there is why they didn’t just fix the sentencing mistake in the first place and give him the prison time the jury recommended.
That is why I ask Dwight for clarification. I know a little about the Brosky case and it is the only case in Texas that I know of that matches some of Dwight’s criteria. Although Brosky ultimately was sentenced on conspiracy charges and sentenced for 15 years that he served and now lives in Canada but was from Arlington.
Brosky was involved in a true hate crime and although the jury tried to sentence him to 5 years in prison and 10 years probation because of a confused jury on sentencing instruction it turned out by some unique Texas law only the probation would take affect. Brosky was not the shooter and all the defendants were 15 or 16 at the time of the shooting. Brosky ultimately got a reasonable sentence when you compare it to adults that are convicted of murder in Texas.
It was a horrible hate crime by skinhead youth that murdered Donald Thomas and Brosky served his time, 15 years. Is that enough time for the crime? I don’t know, but it is what he got for a true hate crime. If he and the other 2 were sentenced to death for this murder, would biblical justice been served?
John K.,
I don’t recall the shooter’s name, but the man who was shot last name was Thomas.
That kind of travesty is a different problem: a man was convicted of murder and then let go. He should have been thrown under the jail.
Here, a man is found not guilty. A federal trial is possible, although the longer it takes, the more I doubt it will happen. I actually expected Zimmerman to be arrested on federal charges on his way out of the courthouse after the not guilty verdict, honestly.
If there is no evidence, only inference, should we still want Zimmerman in prison? This is not a case of someone even hiding his actions, but of providing an explanation for them that there is inadequate evidence to counter. We infer that, since Martin is African-American and Zimmerman is that race motivated the killing, when that is simply a conclusion.
Again: do we lock up Zimmerman to stop the polarization of America? Is that how we are going to solve the racial tensions in this country?
I see the point on asking for a federal investigation, but how long have they had? Do we honestly think that the Department of Justice hasn’t already looked at this, back when President Obama was commenting that Trayvon could have been his son?
What do we do when the long-awaited federal charges turn out for naught?
Doug,
If the long awaited federal charged turn to naught, then we would have exhausted all legal remedies to redress this issue. At that point we will do what many of us have done, & that is to put this matter in the Lord’s hands. God has the final word on this matter. And He said, “Vengeance is mine.” Therefore, I am convinced, that in His own timing & in His own way, God will Handle George Zimmerman. We must simply put this matter behind us & move on after we hear the results of whether or not federal charges will be held.
If anyone is still inclined to thrash out the details of this incident, I highly recommend that you read the exhaustive article on Wikipedia before continuing. it seems to include information from all sides, and handles things pretty evenly-handed, from what I can tell. *This* is what the media should have produced, if they were really as objective, fair and balanced as they claim. The folks at Wikipedia have put them to shame.
Oh how I want to tell the devil to stop smiling and rubbing his hands with glee!
Mr. McKissic, I sense you are hurt. I refuse to sit on the devil’s bench. So I hope to meet you someday on this earth and hope that I am your sister in Christ — as you are my brother in Christ — no matter my skin color or how I vote. And now I’m going off to cry. For real.
K Gray,
I am hurt. Your perception is correct. But I am a big boy and can take it. This conversation simply reminds me of a few things that my mother taught me–for which I am grateful, or else my hurt would be much deeper, and it has given me a deep appreciation for my President–which up to this point I have not had—-and a better understanding and appreciation for my people. I will get over this and be fine. But you are right; at the moment I am saddened and hurt. Thanks for sensing that and acknowledging my pain. That helps to ease it some. Know that I am not angry with or hurt by any commentator on this thread. We have had, good, frank, honest, conversation. The tension & reality of staking a claim, and arguing a position from a frame if reference where no one on this blog really can feel or understand my frame of reference is difficult. Russel Moire understands. I am encouraged by that. They dialogue has been helpful. They also document that the polls are accurate with regard to how different races view this matter differently. Thanks again for sensing & feeling my pain. May The Lord encourage and comfort your heart. I love your spirit.
We as christians can’t expect the world to judge righteously. Spiritual discernment is only for a man who is born again and his mind is on things above where Christ is seated. Our faith in God and our humble hearts is our protection. The enemy is Satan (spiritual) not man (flesh). Let’s not forget who we are actually at battle with. We need to be in unity. One heart in Jesus our Savior and our Lord. If Jesus is with you when your walking down the street you don’t have to listen to a spirit of fear. Take a moment get your mind quiet and ask God his point of view. How does He see the person you are fearing, offended by, angry with? Give God a chance to change your opinion. We have the ability to walk in love no matter what someone else does to us. We must prepare ourselves before the test comes.
Meditate on the Word day and night so that you may observe to do it. Joshua 1:8
Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spiteful use you and persecute you. Matt 5:44
Blessed are the peacemakers. Matt 5:9
When confrontation comes we can look at it as our opportunity to get direction from the Word and the Spirit. Wide is the way that leads to destruction but narrow is the way to life. Let us teach people who they are in Christ and nothing else. Forget who the enemy says you are. For He can only lie. Our righteousness comes from the work of Christ alone. You can call me wrong, but if He says I’m right, then I’m right. Guard your hearts from to much of man’s point of view. We only see part of the picture .
Eph. 1:15 -23 may God open the eyes of our understanding being enlightened
The world needs love. God uses us to love people. Expect His power to work through you blessing every man you see today. Get Gods vision of you. A man of strength and courage with no room to fear, but a vision of the harvest in front of him. Amen
Jeffro,
Amen and amen. If we are prepared as you have put it, the moment will take care of itself.
If I’m understanding Dwight a little bit (which I may not be), cases like Treyvon are focused on by the black community because these cases at least superficially look like what they fear: the return of a situation where blacks can be mistreated and the law just looks the other way. It’s emotional, and given the background of the American Black community, I can understand the emotion, and I can’t tell them “Don’t feel that way”. At bottom, they fear being killed by non-blacks and having the law dismiss it more than they fear being killed by other blacks. On the “I can see humans reacting that way” level, I can understand that. If I’m understanding this correctly, this is the “macro level”.
What I don’t agree with is insisting on continuing to operate that way. Even valid emotions can be deceptive (that’s the nature of the human heart (See jer 17:9)). An insistence that “my feelings can’t be wrong” (in the sense that “each of the deductions I make based on those feelings can’t be wrong”) is foolish in the classic sense that it is in the long term, self-defeating. If the black community can’t accept that there will be situations that superficially look like what they fear, but are *not* in fact the situation they fear, if they insist that every situation that looks that way *must* be treated as though it is definitely full-on racism, then every time one of those situations come up, things will be set back, whether the situation actually represents a set-back or not. And determining whether a situation actually is what it looks like requires thinking at the ‘micro’ level.
Ben,
I find your comment here so offensive, demeaning, insulting, and devoid of facts and truth ’til it is probably best for me not to respond; other than to say that to label the “macroscopic view” as “emotional is an assault on the 86% of us who hold that view tantamount to the groundless, baseless, prejudicial–and flat out wrong allegations that Zimmerman made on Trayvon.
So, I’m not understanding you correctly. Thank you.
Perhaps I am missing something – what “allegations” were those?
He certainly made “assumptions” based upon previous experience, yes. Believing falsely those assumptions is a problem, and mitigated this tragedy, both before and after and continuing onward today.
The question before us today is, “what are we going to do as ministers of the gospel to promote the Kingdom of God, as brothers and sisters in the Family of God?” Unless we deal with that question, we will always be subsumed with these tragedies that seek to divide us rather than unite us. Who exactly benefits from this? “Qui bono?”
Rob
Dwight:
Thanks for posting this. Your post and many comments like it offer a window into the thinking in the African American community on this subject.
As a lawyer, when I heard the facts surrounding this case, I suspected that Zimmerman would be not be found guilty. The standard for conviction is beyond any reasonable doubt. This defendant had a lot of objective proof that was favorable to him which would create reasonable doubt.
Most of us are seeing the situation in that way – as a legal matter.
But what Dwight’s post and Moore’s comments make clear is that many people are seeing this as a societal matter. That’s what make Moore’s comments so good. Moore could have Monday morning quaterbacked the jury, analyzed the proof etc. But Moore realizes that he is dealing with feelings more than facts. People’s feelings influence the way they interpret and see facts.
To win someone over, you must acknowledge and address their feelings.
That is what this is really about.
Sometimes people’s feelings cannot be adequately addressed. A wise person will see that early in the conversation, and will back off. Wait until another day to try and convince. Or develop a strategy for convincing that is long term.
Things are going to get better on the race question. I believe the younger generation is already well on their way toward this. Most of us who are 40 or older see race in particular way. We are not going to change or convince others to change.
The race question existed from the beginning of the U.S. Fortunately, it has improved dramatically. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed when I was 3. My generation sees race in a particular way. We lived through the assassinations, busing, the implementation of the Civil Rights Act in employment etc.
The next generation is intermarrying, having mixed race children, and the U.S. continues to see the entire race question shift, as the largest racial minority in the U.S. are hispanic. This is all going to change the equation.
In fact, in a few years, whites will be a minority, too. So we will all be minorities.
I am optimistic about the future. But we will get there quicker and sooner if we begin to recognize that feelings drive this discussion more than facts and act and speak accordingly.
I believe that Dr. Moore has done that in this instance for Southern Baptists.
Louis,
Sure, we all hold feelings about this on both sides. I acknowledged early on in this thread that reasonable people could view the facts of this case–and based on the reasonable doubt clause– reach a not guilty verdict. I further acknowledged that I do not hold the view that the jurors were racists, or anyone such as yourself, Dave and others who hold that the evidence did not rise to the level of surpassing the reasonable doubt threshold were racists, or without a factual basis for their conclusions.
Now having said that, just as the Supreme Court often have 5-4 decisions, none of them would argue that their decisions are based on “feelings,” but rather facts. Those of us who would have voted GUILTY in this case would not have based our votes on feelings, but rather on facts. Again, as in the case of the Supreme Court; people simply don’t all interpret or draw conclusions/judgements about all facts the same. To label one side as being motivated by “feelings” and the other side as being motivated by “facts”; is factually incorrect. The reality is that those who hold my view belive that those on the other side have bases their decisions on feelings, and with a cultural/social identification with Zimmerman, more-so than Trayvon. I don’t believe that it is healthy, fair, factual, or good for either side to claim an exclusive and inherent factual basis for their decision or opinion, while labeling the other side as “feeling based.” We need to rethink this approach. Neither do I think that this was Dr. Moore’s philosophical mindset as he framed the division around this issue as Macroscopic and Microscopic. As a lawyer, do you believe those judges who vote with the minority in Supreme Court cases are basing their votes on “feelings”?
Louis, thanks for your comment here. For years I have appreciated the perspective that you bring to these discussions as a lawyer and layman.
I hope that I don’t sound to combative or confrontational in my commentary or questioning here about feelings versus facts. It is a very legitimate question from my perspective, and as a lawyer your answer based on the ruling of multiple judges or jurors, would be of great interest to me. To put the question another way, are jurors who hold dissenting views, seen as basing their views on emotions or feelings, rather than facts?
I agree that it is important to emphasize that feelings matter and feelings matter even more so when they are not stand-alone but are supported by facts from a specific historical context.
Moore noted that when he stated that we have “a legal system that does seem to have systemic injustices as it relates to African Americans with arrests and sentencing.”
With this quote, Moore is at least one of the first prominent conservative Southern Baptists to acknowledge that racism or racial injustices have a clear structural component.
In the past, the approach of white conservative evangelicals has been to approach racial issues from an almost completely individualistic perspective. Evangelical sociologist Christian Smith and Michael Emerson attribute this approach to what they call the “evangelical toolkit” which they define as “accountable freewill individualism,” relationalism (emphasis on interpersonal relationships), antistructuralism (mindset that makes individuals unable to perceive and accept influence of historical social structures on their own or others’ lives).
I think the 3rd point needs more emphasis because it directs us to the idea of privilege, that many of us middle and upper-class whites enjoy quite a bit of privilege in American society thanks in part to the influence of historical social structures. And many of us don’t recognize this privilege. I don’t always myself. One privilege is certainly the freedom from profiling – something that my African-American friends and colleagues don’t always enjoy when driving their vehicles.
Moore, it seems, is offering a more nuanced, complex and thoughtful view of race to conservative evangelicalism.
I’ve refrained from commenting for several reasons:
1. I generally find myself agreeing with Dwight, and this time I was even in more agreement with him than usual.
2. I worried that just showing up and saying that actually would distract from what he had written.
3. I suspected I was missing a layer or two of meaning and wanted to spend more time reading and considering what he wrote.
I want to kind of lay out my journey with this piece. As I’ve written before–and I think it’s worth repeating just in order to provide a context for my other comments–there was a close friend and post-graduation roommate in College Station who shared a lot in common with me:
a. He was a chemistry major at A&M and came in the same class I came in (matriculating in the fall of ’79 after both of us had graduated from HS in the spring of ’79). I started as a chemical engineering major but switched to chemistry before I met him.
b. He also was a President’s Endowed Scholar (which, as a graduate from a California HS was how I received in-state tuition at A&M after being out of state for my senior year of HS.)
c. And as I’ve mentioned before, he is Black.
Now to get immediately to the point of why I bring him up, as his roommate I’ve related in the past that I got “love taps” on the back of the head when I would make racist comments in front of him. They were stern enough to get the point across but he wasn’t slugging me (even when I deserved it and I want to affirm here and now that SOME of my statements deserved me being slugged.)
I happen to have experienced and grieved with Vince–my friend–over how he was profiled as a manager for a fast-food restaurant in the BCS area and eventually fired over it. Look: we all make mistakes and it’s tempting to say “your friend got fired because he made mistakes”. I’m telling you that isn’t what happened. It was a takedown by someone who didn’t like him because he was Black.
So while I cannot for a moment claim that I see the Trayvon Martin death through “Black eyes”, I also know some of the limitations of my OWN eyes in comprehending how others see it. (I also will note that I don’t believe there is a single viewpoint among any group of people but your viewpoint is more likely to be consistent in the event of consistent facts that consistently work against you, but I digress.)
So what startled me about Dwight’s sermon? Two things: one you might anticipate and one you might not>
The first thing that startled me is that what he wrote caused me to “re-hear” what I thought I FULLY read and FULLY understood the first time I read it. I thought I read Russell Moore’s comment–you might remember I copied, pasted, and linked it in the comment thread where it was first mentioned–as carefully as I could. But Dwight showed me that Moore was saying something different than what I first read. And BDW’s analysis confirms what Dwight said: Moore is, indeed, acknowledging the appearance of systemic racially-oriented outcomes in the American justice system with the word “seem”.
That’s hopeful if you’re in the people group that has experienced “targeting” and “profiling” and you’ve attempted to explain it to other people and they dismiss you. We laugh at the “driving while black” meme. But I’ve lived in several locales that are WELL KNOWN for harassing people of color just for driving through the area.
Now one of those changed its methodology and you’ll find this humorous. The current city I live in now profiles strictly on having window tinting on your window when you drive through town. It turns out it’s more profitable to ticket offenders who violate the state law on window tinting and they get sued less frequently for civil rights violations…
Now you might wonder, if I’m so enlightened–surely that’s what I’m claiming by saying I had a Black roommate, right?–why do I keep ending up in locales that have a history for doing that? Because the same locales tend to have good schools and emphasize law and order. I don’t select them for my biases against others but to provide something for my family: a good education and safety.
But if those locales actively select against those of color–or at least did in the past (now it’s just colored windows on my car)–isn’t that an effort to prefer one group over the other systematically (and systemically)? The entire history of the post-Civil War south includes a thorough indictment of that thought process and required federal intervention to overcome those systematic and systemic biases. So do we believe the problem is solved now? That the playing field is level? Shouldn’t we be at least a little suspicious of our willingness to declare the problem solved? Shouldn’t we want some metrics and statistics that are truly colorblind that affirm that the problem is solved?
Let me say that a little louder: if God is a God of justice and there is even the slightest WHIFF of corruption in the nation, and this area has systemic evidence that at least causes us CONCERN (such as higher incarceration rates for minorities), then should we at the very least be on our knees in prayer to God that he would heal our land? And shouldn’t we be sympathetic to those who feel that oppression is a clear and present danger to the body politic?
It’s a question. It’s rhetorical. I’m asking it not to say I know the answer, but instead to ask “do you really think about what this means before the Throne of Heaven? especially if we’re guilty of dismissing it out of hand?”
So that’s the FIRST thing I recognized AFTER my first read of this sermon that startled me. I really wasn’t tuned into how God might judge me for being casual regarding this situation. And Dwight showing me the HOPE that Moore’s comment caused him helped me see my (potential) insensitivity to the depth of the problem by simply pointing out the power of the word “seem” in Moore’s comment.
The SECOND thing that startled me was when I realized what was going on in the sermon. Dwight was clearly preaching to an audience. And that audience wasn’t the primary SBCVoices constituency. He was preaching to the young men in his congregation that are exactly like Trayvon Martin. Exactly in the sense of color of skin. Exactly in the sense of age. Exactly in the sense of feeling oppressed: what other reason is there really for Trayvon’s response–the beatdown he gave Zimmerman–other than fear (and if you say “trying to show he was more powerful”, then what is that other than fear)?
Dwight acknowledges in the sermon what the community surrounding him felt and judged based on a lifetime of seeing with their own eyes. So he could do what? Offer them support for their sense of aggrievement and call them to violence? No. So he could counsel them then to put aside the offenses and to live in the Spirit of Christ Jesus.
Now I said I was startled by those two things AFTER my first reading of Dwight’s sermon. But I want to tell you something true: I was startled, but I wasn’t surprised by the content of Dwight’s character. He’s lived out loud consistently exactly what he preached in that sermon in his interactions here. I can’t tell by looking at the page what his skin color actually is, but I can tell by looking at the page what the content of his character actually is!
And I’m going to tell you another thought it prompted (some might think of this as a warning to Dwight in case it comes true!!) God then whispered in my ear: imagine you are returning to the Dallas Fort Worth area. What would be your reasons for not going immediately to Arlington on the very next Sunday and joining Dwight’s church?
Men and women of SBCVoices, I want to confess to you what happened next: I started listing excuses why I wouldn’t do that:
“We might not live near by (because, well, we chose not to).”
“You know, Dwight has already expressed that he supports private prayer language and speaking in tongues. How do I explain that to my kids?”
” What would they think of this family of six white people trying to intrude on THEIR church? (emphasis on THEM v. US)”
I just want to write that down while it’s still fresh in my mind and I’m not inventing what my response was. I’m not saying any of you might have done the same thing. I just know I did. I feel like I’ve lived a life of trying to put behind me a history of racism in my family and in the geographic region I grew up in. But I can’t in honesty say that the sins of the fathers hasn’t been passed down to this succeeding generation.
What should that cause me to do? Might I offer: get down on my knees and pray for my nation and pray that God would lead us all to righteousness and that God would heal us?
But more importantly: I pray that God would start with me and finish what he’s started. We’ve come quite a way from legal slavery based on skin color and the essential elements of apartheid justified by the story of Noah and his curse of Ham. But we’ve also got a long, long way to go. And no one can get us there faster than Jesus Christ can. No one. So let’s let Jesus take us there as fast as he will take us, shall we?
Let’s celebrate what Russell Moore said. Because it sounds a lot like this:
Matthew 25 (HCSB):
35 For I was hungry
and you gave Me something to eat;
I was thirsty
and you gave Me something to drink;
I was a stranger and you took Me in;
36 I was naked and you clothed Me;
I was sick and you took care of Me;
I was in prison and you visited Me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You something to drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or without clothes and clothe You? 39 When did we see You sick, or in prison, and visit You?’
40 “And the King will answer them, ‘I assure you: Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of Mine, you did for Me.’
These are our brothers and they are his brothers. They have experienced great difficulty and oppression. When we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with THEM, we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with HIM. Let’s stand shoulder to shoulder and cry out for justice so that God will hear our prayer and heal our land.
We’re not just doing it for them. We’re doing it for HIM as well.
Pastor McKissick:
It appears that the majority view of the black community – of which I am a member – is that Zimmerman presumed Trayvon Martin to be a criminal because Martin is black, and that sole act makes Zimmerman responsible for everything else that happened afterwards. This view is adhered to despite the fact that Zimmerman was 100% right about Martin! He speculated that Martin was on drugs, and Martin did indeed have drugs in his system. He speculated that Martin was a thug, and Martin indeed in the past year had A) been found with marijuana on school grounds, B) been found with 12 pieces of stolen jewelry on school grounds and C) might have possibly assaulted a bus driver, and as a result had been suspended from school 3 times. The reality is that the school should have had Martin arrested for each incident, and had they done so, Martin would be in juvenile detention or jail right now, and hence would be alive and possibly “scared straight.” http://spectator.org/blog/2013/07/15/trayvon-crime-school-miami
So as for Zimmerman saying that Martin “was acting suspiciously”, I am sorry but people with a street criminal mindset – which Martin was clearly cultivating by virtue of the area that he lived in, the people that he chose to hang around, the music that he chose to listen to and the culture that he chose to identify with – act differently from other people. To put it another way, street criminals tend to act like street criminals. Not just when they are committing crimes, but all the time, especially if you are someone who lacks the sophistication to conceal your behavior to avoid detection and arrest (and the culture that Martin chose to align himself with chooses to reject all such sophistication in form of a proud, confrontational bravado).
Now I am not among those right wing cranks who now claim that Martin was actually going to use his Skittles and tea to concoct some narcotic drink. But I am sorry, based on what is now known about Martin is that there is a real chance that a kid with Martin’s behavior – which he chose to do himself – and his cultural affinities – which he chose himself … he could have been a band geek, computer nerd or chess hobbyist but he chose the criminal culture mainstreamed by hip-hop – actually was acting suspiciously. If Martin was indeed caught with 12 pieces of jewelry and a screwdriver on school property less than a year prior, what makes you so certain that Martin WASN’T casing houses to rob while walking home in the rain in the middle of the night?
Of course, this doesn’t mean that Zimmerman’s behavior wasn’t reckless and wrong in chasing Martin, leaving his car and confronting him. I believe that Martin felt that Zimmerman was a criminal trying to do him harm and attacked him as a result. But the problem is that all available evidence points to Zimmerman being 100% correct in his initial assessment of Martin, and that this assessment had less to do with Martin’s “externals” than with Martin’s behavior.
As blacks, we are far too willing to ignore this, simply indict Zimmerman as a profiler and therefore likely a racist and go from there. But here is the reality: I live in an inner city area. There are drug dealers on my street, and plenty of other drug dealers in the surrounding area. Do you know how they look, act and dress? Like drug dealers. Not just when they are in the act of selling drugs but all the time. There are also pimps in the area. Do you know how they act? Like pimps. ALL THE TIME. If you leave my immediate area and go to some of the nearby areas, there are gang members. How do they act? Like gang members. All the time. Yes, the drug dealers and pimps are black. The gang members are mostly Hispanic. But the point isn’t their race; that they act black or Hispanic. It is that they act like drug dealers, pimps and gang members. (And thieves … I have been robbed once, as has my neighbor and another neighbor has been robbed twice. All in the last 2 years.) These drug dealers, pimps, gang members and thieves do not act like the black and Hispanic doctors, lawyers, teachers, nurses, engineers, mechanics, construction workers, janitors, cooks, waitresses, salesmen, pastors etc. that I know and run across. Instead, they act like the criminals that they are, and as a result any police officer, neighborhood watchmen or private citizen who sees them and considers them as such would be 100% correct, doing their jobs (in the case of policemen and neighborhood watchmen) or simply being prudent concerning their own safety (in the case of private citizens).
Of course, as black people we experience plenty of discrimination. The problem in cases like this is that we view them in the context of our own experiences. In this case, we want to believe that Martin got discriminated against by Trayvon Martin in the same way that we experience discrimination in our lives. But in this instance, we honestly do not know that this was the case, and there is plenty that leads us to believe that it wasn’t. Especially since Martin was only 100 yards from his house when he encountered Zimmerman. When Zimmerman got out of his car and was on foot, Martin could have simply outrun Zimmerman to his house. Even more: there is evidence (Rachel Jeantel’s testimony and the generally agreed to timeline) that Martin was at one point actually closer to his house than he was to the place where Zimmerman confronted him and that he had ample time to get there (as much as a couple of minutes). Did Martin backtrack? If so, why? Those are the types of questions that simply beginning with the notion that Zimmerman profiled Martin allows us to nullify, but a jury has to consider questions like that.
Finally, when you state that you would have voted to convict Zimmerman, you are wrong according to Florida law. In Texas, where you reside, one cannot provoke a confrontation – as Zimmerman at least arguably did – and then claim self defense. But in Florida you can. According to Florida law, a person can provoke a confrontation and then use lethal force in self defense if they feel that their life was threatened during the confrontation that they provoked. So the facts that Zimmerman ignored the 911 operator, pursued Zimmerman, got out of his law and confronted Martin were meaningless under Florida law. According to Florida law, the only thing that mattered was that Martin was on top of Zimmerman punching him and pushing his head against the sidewalk. Even the fact that Martin reached for Zimmerman’s gun only helps Zimmerman’s self-defense case. Florida’s law is less than ideal, because it basically sides with whoever wins a fight to the death regardless of who initiates it. But the jurors were correct in choosing not to disregard the Florida statute even though – if their reports to the media are accurate – at least 4 of the 6 jurors badly wanted to and diligently searched for some way under Florida law to find Zimmerman guilty of something but could not.
The jury’s case was made harder, by the way, by the horrible decision to charge Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder. Zimmerman obviously did not commit 2nd degree or 3rd degree murder under Florida law because Zimmerman would have never killed Martin had Martin not attacked him. Had the state instead tried from the beginning to prove the charge of voluntary or involuntary manslaughter instead of 2nd degree murder, that would have greatly increased the chance of conviction. Instead, they ruined the case trying to prove something that Zimmerman obviously could not possibly have been guilty of, and then – when they knew that they had no chance of winning – asked the judge to consider other charges that they had not made any attempt to prove during the trial. The decision to charge Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder significantly reduced the chances for a conviction, so if there is anything that needs to be investigated, it is the decision process that led to the 2nd degree murder charge. But the people who believe that the 2nd degree murder charge was warranted because Zimmerman profiled Martin which means Zimmerman is a racist which means Zimmerman killed Martin because he was black and that is why Zimmerman chased Martin and got out of his car when the 911 operator told him not to etc. simply are not looking at this case the way that the law does. If the decision to charge Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder was because of the pressure created by activists and the media (and also by the Justice Department, who consulted with the state of Florida and the special prosecutor before the charges were brought) then that is the worst irony of this whole deal. We already learned from the Ray Lewis case how overcharging a person only helps the defense because the defense only has to beat the charge, not establish total innocence.
The way that we as a community viewed the Martin case was based more of wishful thinking created by our own negative racial experiences rather than the facts of the case – including truly troubling information about Martin – and Florida law. Another thing: Martin’s father. Why was Tracy Martin far more effective at rallying the media and civil rights leaders in response to his son’s death than dealing with his son’s spiral into juvenile delinquency? It is a lot easier to focus on Zimmerman’s alleged profiling, racism and ignoring the instructions of the 911 operator than ask hard questions like that, but those are precisely the questions that we are supposed to ask.
Job,
Thanks for your comment here. I am honestly glad to dialogue with one of the 14% of Black people who view this case the way you do. Bill Cosby, Charles Barkley, and one rapper whose name escape me at the moment also see things the way that you do. Just read where Eric Holder, and of course President Obama, both lawyers as you know, see things more in line with how I and 86% of African Americans view this case. Of course, being in the minority on most issues relative to the Black Community is usually where I stand. So I know what it feels like to earnestly believe in the minority viewpoint. This time I sincerely see things as the majority.
Truly glad to converse with you here.
Question: On the night in question, specifically what behavior did TM exhibit that made GZ “100% right about Martin”? You and I disagree that GZ was 100% right about Martin. But in one sense that is irrelevant; what exactly did GZ see externally that merited Martin being a “a…hole, f…ing punk,….suspicious,…and a member of a mysterious group called “they”? I am not asking about information that surfaced later as you have already mentioned. That night, when GZ saw TM what exactly did he see that caused such a reaction? Please be precise. Reference what GZ said on the 911 call to answer my question please.
If everything you said about TM is true–and indeed it may be; what makes that relevant to what took place that night? What behaviors were TM engaged in at the time that GZ called 911 that merited the phone call? What behaviors that night observed by GZ, merited GZ following TM?
GZ has a abusive alcohol, violent, and resiting arrest history? Should his history be brought into the discussion prior to that night? Why wasn’t GZ tested for drug/alcohol consumption or under the influence? The mere fact that he wasn’t, or no attempt was made to do so, is shoddy police work, and ascribing to him the benefit of the doubt. Trayvon was not extended such courtesy.
GZ on the 911 tape mentioned voluntarily that TM was holding his hand in his pocket and was “Black”. Why did he connect holding his hand in his pocket with him being Black?
Finally, what you say about the particulars of the Florida law may be true. You are not the first one to say that to me. But, if you view Zimmerman’s injuries as minor, and not life threatening-which indeed is the fact; and you did not view Zimmerman life as being endangered–and indeed it was not; what would have been wrong–based on Florida law–with voting to convict him guilty as charged?
Thanks again for the dialogue. Brother Job, I await your responses. I really appreciate your perspective and your willingness to articulate it here.
Pastor McKissic:
I do not know if Zimmerman’s assessment of Martin was justified. I just know enough about Martin’s background to say that it is wrong to presume that Zimmerman made assumptions about Martin based solely or even primarily on his race. Again: the criminals in my neighborhood are different in their behavior, demeanor, the way that they carry themselves etc. than the law abiding ones. Also, I have seen plenty of people who are on drugs. How do they look? Like they are on drugs. Whether they are young, old, white, black, rich, poor they aren’t hard to spot. Zimmerman theorized that Martin was on drugs, and Martin did have marijuana in his system. So what are we supposed to do? Are we supposed to do the opposite? Are we supposed to refrain from saying that a person is carrying himself the way that criminals do and is acting the way that a person who is on drugs acts if that person is black out of fear that we might be stereotyping him? If so, are we the only ones who should get the benefit of the doubt? If I were to see a menacing, bald headed, tattooed up, profusely swearing and drinking (or reeking of marijuana or with the “sky high on cocaine” red eye) white guy with the insignia jacket on, should I not presume that he is a biker for fear of stereotyping him?
I am aware of George Zimmerman’s history, and I was furious when some of the right wing types called discussing Zimmerman’s history “character assassination.” Zimmerman’s history is totally fair game.
“But, if you view Zimmerman’s injuries as minor, and not life threatening-which indeed is the fact; and you did not view Zimmerman life as being endangered–and indeed it was not; what would have been wrong–based on Florida law–with voting to convict him guilty as charged?”
The problem is that the standard according to the Florida statute is not whether Zimmerman’s life was in danger. The question is whether Zimmerman reasonably believed that his life was in danger. So even if you leave apart the claim that Martin reached for his gun, how many times was Martin supposed to punch Zimmerman in the face and bash his head against the sidewalk and scream “somebody is gonna die tonight!” before it was reasonable for Zimmerman to believe that his life was in danger? Was Zimmerman supposed to wait until his skull was cracked or until he was nearly incapacitated and on the verge of passing out before acting? Again, I was infuriated at a lot of the right wingers who denied that Martin was afraid of Zimmerman because they were claiming that Martin, because he was a young black male, had no reason to be afraid of anyone else but other black males. That is a racist position and I reject it. But if a guy has attacked you, overpowered you, is on top of you punching you in the face, smashing your head against the concrete and is screaming that someone is going to die tonight, can you deny that thinking “this person is going to kill me or at least try his best to” isn’t a reasonable, logical conclusion? Also, if Zimmerman didn’t feel that Martin was trying to kill him, then why did he shoot him? See, that is the thing. You can’t take the “well his injuries weren’t life threatening so it wasn’t self defense” angle. You have to provide a motive for why Zimmerman shot Martin other than the fact that Martin pounding him.
As far as the “a member of a mysterious group called “they” let me answer the mystery. Zimmerman, as a neighborhood watchman, saw law-abiding, productive citizens as “we” and criminals as “they.” It is improper to assume that Zimmerman presumed Martin to be of the criminal class because Martin was black. Keep in mind: when Zimmerman called 911, he did not say “There’s this black guy looking suspicious.” He made no mention of Martin’s race at all until and because the 911 operator asked him. And he didn’t even definitely say that Martin was black! He only said that Martin “looks black.” So consider that. According to Zimmerman, he definitely thought that Martin was suspicious. He definitely thought that Martin was a “they.” He definitely thought that Martin was a punk and a thug. But he only POSSIBLY thought that Martin was black. So how does that equate to Zimmerman thinking that Martin was a punk, a thug, suspicious and a “they” because he was black?
Now let us go back to Zimmerman’s arrest history. Add that to Martin’s “should have been arrested but wasn’t because of a terrible decision by his school” history and you know what? They’re even. Which means that Zimmerman deserves as much benefit of the doubt as Martin does. Basically, you want us to accept the position that Zimmerman presumed Martin to be a criminal and therefore pursued him solely because Martin was black and preclude any possibility that Martin actually was acting stoned (which means that you want us to take the position that Martin was not acting as if he had marijuana in his system when he in fact did) and suspicious. I hate to say it, but you want that to be the accepted position because it fits a certain narrative that paints Zimmerman in the worst possible light and Martin in the best. The truth is that we have no more evidence that Zimmerman made judgments about Martin due to Martin’s race than we have that Martin was not acting the way that people high on marijuana typically act, and that Martin was not looking for another place that had jewelry to steal. There honestly is no more reason or basis for siding with Zimmerman’s version over your version (as Martin is not alive to give his version) other than Zimmerman being the survivor of the encounter. While that certainly makes you more sympathetic to Martin – as 4 of the 6 members of the jury clearly were – being less sympathetic to Zimmerman doesn’t make Zimmerman wrong.
Here is an example of the failure to give Zimmerman the same benefit of the doubt that many are contriving to give Martin. You said: “Why did he connect holding his hand in his pocket with him being Black?”
He didn’t. This is what was happening. The 911 dispatcher asked Zimmerman if Martin was white, black or Hispanic. Zimmerman said “He looks black.” The 911 dispatcher asked what Martin was wearing and doing and how he was behaving, Zimmerman replied. Zimmerman then said “Yeah, now he is coming towards me.” Then he says “He’s got his hand in his waistband. And he’s a black male.” Why did he mention the hand in his waistband? Because he was still describing Martin’s behavior to the 911 dispatcher, as he had just stated that Martin was walking around the area looking at all the houses. And why did he mention that Martin was black? To definitely answer the dispatcher’s earlier question. Previously, Zimmerman did not definitely know Martin’s race because Martin was too far away for Zimmerman to definitely see him as it was dark, raining and Martin was wearing a hooded sweatshirt. But when Martin turned around, faced Zimmerman and walked towards him, that was when Zimmerman was finally able to definitely tell Martin’s race and give a conclusive answer to the 911 dispatcher’s question. But apart from the 911 dispatcher’s asking about Martin’s race, Zimmerman never discussed the issue. In a 3+ page transcript, Zimmerman only mention’s Martin’s race twice, and both were in response to the 911 dispatcher’s asking him. The first reference: I think he is black (but I can’t really tell). The 2nd reference: I can tell now and he is black. Based on that transcript, in which Zimmerman spent 4 minutes discussing Martin’s behavior and movementsthere isn’t anything that leads us to believe that Zimmerman would have ever mentioned Martin’s race had the 911 dispatcher not asked him. So the whole “associating his having his hand in his pocket with his being black” was just viewing the incident through the lens of your choice as opposed to the actual evidence.
As far as my being in the 14% along with former Republican Barkley and sometimes politically incorrect in his criticisms of the black community Cosby, I will let you know something: a couple of decades ago, I was a black nationalist. I listened to Public Enemy, Poor Righteous Teachers, Ice Cube, X-Clan, KRS-One, The Coup and all the other rappers who espoused black nationalist/black radical politics. I read books by H. Rap Brown, Elaine Brown, Shahrazad Ali and other former Black Panther and radical leaders, as well as was a regular reader of The Final Call and Muhammed Speaks. When a Spike Lee or John Singleton movie came out, I was first in line. The Million Man March? Even though I was not able to attend it myself, I certainly helped promote it and watched TV coverage of it from beginning to end. So I guess you can say that I went from one 14% to the other 14% – from one end of the spectrum to the other – as far as black opinion is concerned, as where I would have not only voted for Obama but been a volunteer for and (to the best of my means) financial contributor to his presidential campaign – and in full agreement with Jeremiah Wright’s views – then, suffice to say that I in no way support Obama beyond obeying the Bible’s commands to pray for him now. So, opinions are exactly that – opinions – and they do change. After all, I was on SBC Voices just last year vehemently arguing that Zimmerman was obviously guilty and would certainly be convicted. But allow me to say that – thanks to the media – I did not know nearly as much about the facts of the case then that I do now. And I will also say that if a person is relying on the mainstream media and the black alternative media, such a person is still unaware of a lot of issues in this case that the jury does know. And therefore, the media and black leaders did our community a grave disservice with regards to this issue.
Job,
Thanks. I honestly don’t know what “acting stone” means. Could you help me understand that?
Isn’t the jury responsible for weighing the evidence to see if GZ was actually in danger? GZ did not testify in court to being in danger.
The problem in Florida may be the law that allows the aggressor to wrap themselves in self defense.
Do you honestly believe if Trayvon was the one feeling as if his life was being threatened, would he have been exonerated by the same jury, based on the same set of facts & law?
Any man who would beat a woman as GZ did twice & would view a complete stranger the way GZ viewed TM without a cause, Yes!!!! I believe that he would kill TM on false premises, just as he profiled him on false premises; and just as he was carrying a weapon in violation of NW rules; and just as he followed TM against 911 counsel.
Dwight: I really appreciated Todd Littletons take on this post. I agreed with him totally as I do see your point. I hope and pray and have been even stronger since knowing you that others would understand, even if they do not fully agree, the Black communities outrage on this verdict.
Debbi,
Thanks. God has used you to be a source of blessing and encouragement in my life now for almost 7 years. Even on those rare occasions when we are on different sides of the opinion poll, I deeply appreciate your ability to ably articulate and defend your position. Thanks for being a friend and encourager. Thanks for providing a much needed voice who offers a perspective that we would not ordinarily get. And I might add, one that is substantive and significant, informative and inspiring. I want to encourage you in the words of Scripture: “Be not weary in well doing for in due season you shall reap if you faint not.”
Job,
I can appreciate your interpretation of “associating his hand in his pocket with being black” but I am not convinced that your understanding of this comports with what GZ had on his mind that night.
My reading pf that statement is that GZ was intimating to the 911 operator that TM had a gun in his pocket. Why, because GZ had a gun in his pocket. As I recall he later said that he wondered if TM had a gun. That is what the gun statement was about from my vantage point. But again, I don’t find your interpretation unreasonable.
GZ was caught in many lies and contradictions in pretrial tapes. What then makes him credible in alledgedlly quoting TM saying,”somebody is going to die tonight”?
TM has never been charged with or convicted of a crime. Are you seriously telling me that without ever having met him, GZ was justified in viewing TM as a “criminal,” “punk,” “thug,” suspicious,” and a “they”? You are willing to allow GZ to do that based on his assumptions and prejudging, without any evidence other than his perceptions?
What is your source for the “Martin should have been arrested…” statement? Even if that were true, why is that relevant to the night in question?
You seem to want to convict Trayvon based on things that had nothing to do with that night. If everyone we saw walking who had recently, within the hour, smoked weed was worthy of profiling and calling the law; we would be calling the law all day long.
Based on the evidence presented in court and the 911 call, do you really see justifiable reasons for GZ to have said anything to TM?; pursued him?; call 911 on him?; and murder him? Do you really see justification for that? Do you really believe that we should place stock in the word of a man who had all kinds of conflicting information that he had shared about the night in question? Really? You actually believe this?
Dwight,
Debating the merits of the Martin-Zimmerman issue is one thing, but using the case to promote the POTUS as a great humanitarian is quite another. He is not. His record on abortion is that of a barbarian.
Like our grandmothers said when we were kids, “Babes it is just a fact, you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.”
CB,
Glad to hear from you. I vehemently oppose abortion, gay rights/marriage, and irresponsible and out of control federal spending. But on this issue the POTUS has performed stellar. Sort of like Daddy Bush did on the Rodney King issue. He handled that quite well, and made me proud that I voted for Daddy Bush.
President Obama’s remarks and response thus far on this issue has been therapeutic and refreshing. Only Russell Moore’s response I think has excelled the President. President Obama has a heartfelt identification, and can feel the pain of our community in ways other people simply cannot feel, because they have never experienced it. President Obama is a great humanitarian. He won the Nobel Peace Prize that’s given to great humanitarians. But you and I are in 100% agreement: on the key issue(s ) that are important to us, he is absolutely wrong.
But do keep in mind. Many of us view the death of TM as a life issue. Many people voted for President Obama, and will vote for future Democratic presidential candidates, because they feel as if that person will better respect, protect, understand, and render a fairer justice system, than a Republican President.
Let’s pray that Ben Carson runs and win. He is the one candidate that I believe can bring all facets of the conservative side together, and win a sizeable enough percentage of the Black vote–even those who usually vote Democrat–to win. I assure the fall out of this verdict is a a boom for the Democratic Party. Good to hear from you CB.
Nate,
As important as abortion is, there are other important life issues to consider that would fall under the category of “Humanitarian.” Politicians have been trying to pass Health Care Legislation since the ’30’s, because they recognized that it was a great humanitarian cause to do so. Lily Ledbetter, who was denied equal retirement benefits for the same job classification as her male colleagues, was given by President Obama her full benefits. That was a great humanitarian gesture. The Trayvon Martin remarks by the President was a great humanitarian act. He effectively and affectionately, addressed the pain of millions of Americans. Because of his views and policies regarding abortion are not in line with yours and mine, it does not eradicate the fact that he has a great humanitarian record.
Dwight, I respectfully disagree with your opinion on that. You can certainly claim that POTUS has made, what you believe to be, helpful statements concerning this trial, but every definition I gave (per Webster) shows this President is a complete and abysmal failure to the plight of the unborn.
I don’t know if this post will be deleted as my previous one has been, but again, I must disagree with you, in the strongest possible terms, of categorizing this President as a Humanitarian.
Nothing wrong with disagreeing, Nate. In fact, I agree with you, that Mr. Obama’s abortion policies undo just about any good he could do on other issues.
But, we have to guard our words – especially when we are discussing issues like race.
Jay,
Please read my comment # 46 addressed to. Clark Dunlap. It also responds to your posting here. In short, the judge instructed the jury to use their “common sense”. Based on the common sense jury instruction finding GZ guilty was a no-brainer.
Yet the jury found him not guilty. The jury now has “no brains.” God have mercy.
Rob
Rob,
Juries vote as individuals; not as a group. As an individual juror for me it would have been a no-brainer—based on the “use your common sense” jury instruction. Obviously, for other jurors, their brains led them to a different conclusion.
In the Dred Scott decision a judge or jury ruled that a Black person was only 3/5th of a person/human being. For you & I that would have been a no-brainer to vote as a judge or juror against that notion. But it wasn’t for him/them. My point is simply this: what is a no-brainer for one person is obviously more of a complex, nuanced, and different judgement for another. No!!! I was not saying the jury did not have brains. I was saying, it would have been a no-brainer for me.
I’ve read the Trayvon Martin case jury instructions.
Attorney Gray,
Seriously, you recognizing my pain, and expressing empathy seriously ministered to a couple of days ago. I have gotten over the hurt, in part due to your feeling my pain. Thanks again.
Last night, I listened to one of Trayvon’s family lawyers say that the jury was instructed to “use their common sense”. Is that what you read? I know that is what she said in response to the juror who is now saying-“Zimmerman got away with murder”. TM’s lawyer said in response, based on the common sense jury instruction that juror would have been justified in voting fore Zimmermans guilt.
Why? She see’s it as I do. It is plain and simple common sense when you look at all the facts: Zimmerman needlessly murdered Trayvon Martin.
In the Dred Scott decision the Supreme Court ruled that slavery was an institution of the states, and the Federal Government had no say. This was taken only partially from the reading of the Constitution that a black (slave) person was only 3/5th of a human being and therefore did not count. Ultimately the Dred Scott decision was a political decision of seven jurists (in a 7-2 ruling) – a ruling by the way that was made predominantly by Democrats appointed by Democratic presidents.
The real purpose of the 3/5th quota was to deny the slave (Southern) states the ability to count slaves for the purpose of apportionment. Many of the the Northern (free) representatives desired abolition (read Madison’s Federalist Papers). The Southern (slave) states threatened to walk out of the Convention Hall as result. As one part of the Grand Compromise of the Federal Constitutional Convention (there were several), the South was allowed to continue their slave economy if slave states did not get to count slaves toward seating districts in the House of Representatives – in other words it was an anti-slavery mechanism not a pro-slavery mechanism. In Dred Scott, Chief Justice Taney determined that since slavery was left to the states, the Federal government could not recognize “freemen” – thus leaving it to the States. If an African-American entered a slave state, he/she could be recognized as slave – hence the dilemma of Dred Scott who crossed borders from a free state (he followed his master who was in the military to various posts in states where he was considered “free” by a host of state laws, and also federal laws including the Missouri Compromise which the decision invalidated as “unconstitutional”) into a slave state, into free states, back into slave states (a very convoluted route over many years – read the case sometime) . Taney believed (wrongly) that the ruling would deal with the issue of slavery once and for all and bring peace – yet lived to see that the ruling created into being the Republican Party and the ascendancy of Abraham Lincoln – with the Civil War following.
My dear brother – what is infuriating about reading your writing is you make no such qualifications in your original post = “no one disputes” when many good men do = “common sense” = equals conviction, which the jury itself did not share = conflating the jury members to the decision of the jurists in the Dred Scott case – if you simply wanted to argue that juries come to different conclusions than those outside of the jury box, I would have agreed and been more agreeable with you than with the obvious conflation with the racial tinge and racial history of Dred Scott.
My brother, I have not hurt you yet I hear your pain. I will pray that God’s grace work in you well, and that you will be a spiritual and moral agent that brings healing and truth to your congregation this week. I know you travel far and wide oftentimes. If you are ever in Missouri, I would love to share and break bread with you, and share my pulpit – we need Spirit filled Pastors to share God’s Word with us = we have a great (and I mean great) Barbeque joint that makes about every other place in Texas pale in comparison to it. Believe me – I been to some of those joints in Texas. Ours is better!
Grace and Peace,
Rob
Rob,
Thanks. Your commentary here was a studied & well thought out. The Dred Scott analogy may have been a little over the too, but I could not think of a better way to illustrate my point. I appreciate your acknowledging that minority jury decisions aren’t inherently emotional decisions
You a smart, articulate and reasonable guy. Whenever my schedule lands me in Missouri, I would love to fellowship with you. Thanks for the words of affirmation. And thanks for addressing the pain.
So tell me CB how Bush (both Bush’s and a Reagan for that matter) stopped divorce again? Yet Christians hail the above as the greatest thing since Churchhill.
that should be abortion. But speaking of divorced, Regan was and did not stop abortion. That’s two strikes by your view isn’t it?
Dwight:
Thanks. I don’t feel that you are being harsh at all toward me.
My comment should not be read as saying that people who agree with the jury verdict are basing their decisions on fact and people who so not are motivated by feelings.
I am saying that both sides are motivated by feelings, and in the case of many African Americans that needs to be understood when addressing this situation. I am not saying that they are being anti-rational. I am saying that people look at facts based on feelings. When speaking about this matter, that needs to be remembered. You have expressed that perspective and Dr. Moore has kept that in mind in making his comments.
I am not trying to delegitimatize any particular position here or say that any position is anti-rational. Each side would point to facts to support their position.
I am saying that when addressing the position expressed by some in the African American community that countering with facts or emphasizing certain facts over others is not helpful and is probably counter productive.
Louis,
Thanks for your clarifying your comments. I understand them much better now. I agree with everything you said in your last comment. Ironically, both sides believe that feelings, not facts, were/are the key motivating factors with regard to where one lands on this issue. I find that quite interesting. Thanks again for your response. it was most appreciated.
Louis,
I might add, you are 100% correct. It was/is important to acknowledge the real pain and disappointment that African Americans are feeling with regard to this issue. Dr. Moore addressed the reality and validity of that pain, as well as the President. Agree with or disagree with; Fine. But please recognize my pain. I appreciate you and BDW for seeing the significance of this, and the freshness of Moore’s remarks.
You are welcome. I also thought that BDW had some good things to say.
Look, folks, some of the comments here have gone over the boundaries of good taste.
I am not a fan of the president. Didn’t vote for him and wouldn’t. Abortion is the main reason, but there are many others. But expressions of hatred for the president about abortion are just not helpful to this discussion.
You can hate the president all you want, but keep it to yourself.
I think we can raise the level of conversation above what it has been in several of the comments made.
By the way, for those who consistently accuse me of unfairness and POV bias – all the comments I’ve deleted have come from those with whom I would agree politically (though I would try not to express the kind of hatred and unkindness some have done).
But if we are going to have racial conversation, it has to be with respect, even for those with whom we disagree.
I know some of you will disagree. Fine. If you want to discuss it, use my SBC Voices email (specifically designed for you!) davemillerisajerk@hotmail.com. I do not discuss moderation publicly and will delete moderation-related comments immediately. Them’s the breaks, fellas.
Someone,
I was looking at “Victim Mentality” on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_mentality
Looking at some of those traits that have been attributed to blacks, I saw similar traits that have developed over the years in whites based upon some of the complaints whites have had, for example, toward Affirmative Action. It seems that some of those traits affect us all, but in different ways. I would like to see someone develop the idea if they see it, too, for a future post. Such a development of victimization on both sides may build a wall on the race issue that is not easy to tear down once established. Then again, if no one sees it, que sera sera.
Pastor McKissic:
Please see my post above. Thank you.
Rather than facts and feelings I’d say this: first there is evidence. Then the jury can draw reasonable INFERENCES from the evidence.
On this thread, first we had some misunderstandings about the facts. Checking the facts really helped. Then we discovered we were drawing different inferences from those facts. People will do that. It’s a cloudy area, reasonable inferences. That’s why I don’t usually second-guess a jury from afar. (I’m a retired attorney).
K. Gray,
Thanks for your perspective here. I can’t take issue with your view that evidence is the most important matter here. Didn’t know that you were an attorney. Did know that you were a linear thinker, informed, perceptive, and empathetic.
Like Louis, your being an attorney and a laywoman, provides for an interesting, informed, and much needed perspective here.
It really is an enlightening discussion and I hope we have grown in good ways. The heart of the matter is death and its aftermath, and — in Christ — resisting Satan’s wiles. I hope my linear thinking (busted!!) doesn’t overshadow that.
I reread the President’s speech. He took the moment to speak for and about the African American community– with a nod to the jury system. On that day before the Trayvon rallies, he said his remarks might be “useful” and overall I hope they were. He identified personally with African American experience and context — of course that would be powerful for the African American community. He gets it! He also cautioned everyone about violence or having unrealistic expectations of federal law, directing us to look at state law. His remaining suggestions were not new, including more police training on profiling, more local group efforts, and more soul searching. He ended with hope.
Interestingly, as President, he shifted focus away from federal answers and toward local efforts, including businesses, churches and clergy.
It’s not often a President steps to the bully pulpit regarding a state criminal case victim, explaining one racial community’s perspective. He holds the nation’s highest office and federal legal authority, and these are his third remarks on the Martins’ case. It’s risky. I hope in the long run it is indeed useful to the nation.
I hope that Dr. Mckissic realizes that in order for him to render “his” verdict apart from the formal jury, he must admit that he must have heard every word the “real” jury did in order for his verdict to be fair. Did you hear every fact, every testimony, every minute, Dr.? I bet not.
Second, if Travon Martin had continued on his way to his fathers house without doubling back to confront and hump Zimmerman, he might still be alive. He had four minutes to meander on around to Dads place, but no, he preferred to double back and because he did not like a white cracker observing him from a distance, he chose to be the aggressor, take a swing, knock Zimmerman down and proceed to pummel Zimmerman’s head into the asphalt not knowing Zimmerman was armed. Zimmerman had not yet drawn his weapon. A big mistake for little Travon. Did you hear that testimony Dr?
That evidence, alone should demonstrate to the color-blind Dr. Mckissic that the jury did indeed arrive at the correct decision.
As to the pseudo-presidential remarks, they only fan the racial flames of hatred and do absolutely nothing to resolve the racial problem, but attempts to identify with and justify Little Travon for his suspicious acts, when he could have said and done so much more as a leader .
So, unless you sat there through the whole trial Doc, don’t say the real jurors got it wrong. Profiling isn’t wrong, it’s necessary for survival and the black kids are making that job easy by the role models the emulate, the music and movies they act out and George Zimmerman would have been foolish not to have profiled the punk Martin.
Love you bro, but your wrong on this one.
This is a critical and counter-intuitive fact: the criminal justice system does NOT have “systematic injustices as it relates to African-Americans”. Numerous studies since the 1960’s show that while more blacks are incarcerated and for longer times, and it is NOT due to race, but rather criminality. Our system is not unfair. If you state otherwise, show proof.
J. Craig,
I heard a prominent White lawyer on CNN–I believe his name was Mark Geragos(sp) who once represented Miachel Jackson–say that he is in the courtrooms, and is working within the criminal justice system everyday. And he emphatically stated that it is systemically racist. He also stated that Blacks are given greater sentences for committing the exact same crime. I know other lawyers, including my brother, who share the same opinion. So, if you want to believe otherwise, be my guess. But I have been observing this all my life & I have also seen Blacks dealt with with much stiffer penalties, ‘ not given the benefit of the doubt as much as Anglos. Even looking at how this TM/GZ post- mortam(sp) is playing out. Trayvon has become a “punk,” “thug,” “criminal,” and troubled child. Zimmerman has become an angel. Go figure?
Dwight:
If people would just look at the facts. It is a fact that Blacks are given longer sentences for committing the same crimes as others.
Dwight,
I want to thank you for having the courage to come to this blog and share your perspective, knowing that there is a substantial lack of understanding on the part of most of us when it comes to issues involving race. Few white people, myself included, do not have the kind of frame of reference required to have the kind of understanding or empathy needed to experience the emotions that surround incidents like this. We are not that far down the road, in a historical sense, from the Civil Rights movement. Most of us do not have parents or grandparents that can vividly recall incidents where their skin color led to discrimination, or being separated by race in school, or having someone in your extended family who experienced waking up in the middle of the night, seeing white robes and hoods in the glow of a burning cross in the front yard, wondering who would be hanging from a tree in the morning, or whether your bedroom would be in flames in a moment. Most of those days are gone now, but that doesn’t mean the attitudes have disappeared. And there are new, more subtle, less visible means of racial discrimination. The past makes people extremely sensitive in being able to detect it.
And the point, really, is not whether the jury rendered a correct verdict under the law. The point is that a black teenager was shot to death by an individual who profiled him as a troublemaker, confirmed by Zimmerman’s own words and testimony to his actions as to why he got out of the car and confronted him in the first place. What happened after that is only relevant to the trial itself. The long history of injustice when it comes to African Americans and the justice system, the struggle for civil rights, voting rights, and just about everything else, brought the emotions to the surface immediately. The emotions are real, and the protests and attention drawn to this incident are realistic and legitimate. And the only way we are ever going to get past this sort of thing is to be as respectful of those who are speaking up on the other side as we expect people to be when we are speaking. Dwight’s perspective has been well thought out, respectfully delivered (in spite of some really vitriolic and caustic remarks that have been made, which confirm what Dwight is saying) and consistent with his professed faith in Christ. That warrants paying attention to it.
The person called Maddy–supposedly Juror 29-B offered this in an interview (the text is from an USAToday article:
Maddy said the case was not about race as far as she was concerned.
“George Zimmerman got away with murder, but you can’t get away from God. And at the end of the day, he’s going to have a lot of questions and answers he has to deal with,” Maddy said. But, she added, “the law couldn’t prove it.”
I think it is potentially problematic to add the thoughts of jurors to their official actions from a standpoint of interpreting the verdict legally. But her thought process reveals there is a bit more nuance to the situation than the simple reading of the verdict itself conveyed.
Furthermore, her comment strongly supports Dwight’s assertions.
BTW: I suspect threading breaks because deleted sequence ids are getting reused. Don’t know if Tony has the skill to look at that (or the desire), but it seems a likely explanation. If the deletion action could save off hidden ids instead of merely deleting them, they might not get reused. (PURE SPECULATION…I don’t have code to look at.)
My brothers,
I’ve been out of the net for the last couple of days interfacing with law enforcement personnel at the State, County and local levels. Even with my background it was enlightening to say the least but I kept up with most of the posts thru my phone.
My disagreement with Pastor McKissic’s statement in the lead paragraph has already been documented in this post but I would like to say Pastor McKissic is correct when he states blacks have a history of mistreatment. What I disagree with is the inherent belief that because of past mistreatment any person has the right to use that as justification for immoral or illegal activities. I further disagree with the feeling that no one has the right to make decisions concerning their, or their communities safety on the way an individual is dressed, acting, etc. You can call it profiling all you want, it still happens and from what I’ve read here many have tried to postulate that argument. Having said that can we move on to another part of Pastor McKissic’s post that I believe we need to address as minister’s of the Gospel: i.e the growing violence culture within our young people and what we can do about it.
I would hope no one here would disagree that our young people, especially from middle age children, to youth, to young adults have been and continue to be infected with a disregard for others, authority and the promoting of immorality and violence without regard for consequences from multiple sources.
Within certain communities, crossing all racial boundaries, this violence mentality is flamed into an intense hatred of others who they feel are responsible for there current situation. We see this erupting daily within our communities and I fear it is only going to get worse.
What I have observed personally leads me to believe that we are seeing the rise of violence in every racial group in America is based in a large part on the fact they have been taught they came from nothing, they are going to nothing, therefore they are nothing except what they experience in this life. Because of this many, not all, feel they are completely justified in doing whatever they want to do regardless of how it may affect others. Their desire is to feel some form of immediate self-gratification, though I would add most would not put in those words.
When this concept is held, one feels they must live for the moment – that’s all they have. Because of this they act on the belief that:
1. If you have something I want, I have a right to take it from you.
2. If I feel your look, attitude and or words offend or disrespect me, I have the right to immediately retaliate in any way I deem necessary to preserve and/or build up my personal identity.
3. Sex is taught as a pleasurable act that is normal and not to be denied; therefore I should be able to do it without any boundaries or consequences.
4. If the girl/woman is impregnated, no problem, it’s not human, dump it.
5. Wrong has been done to my racial group in the past therefore I have the right to retaliate against those I hold responsible.
6. You owe me!
Simplistic? Perhaps, but let’s look a little further.
Within America there has always been the legal recourse of self-defense. With a growing sense of fear of violence and a growing desire to insure one is better able to defend self, family and neighbors every state in the Union has passed laws authorizing residents to carry weapons. In local areas where this is the norm crime has been deterred according to the statistics and from my personal observation. It has also resulted in people using their weapons to defend themselves.
Personally I’m against all violence. I’ve seen enough with 3 tours of combat in Viet Nam and 40 plus years of ministering to families whose loved ones have been killed because of a parking space or drugs, in a robbery or a senseless drive-by shooting, because they looked at someone who got mad and/or because someone wanted the jacket or shoes or whatever the other one was wearing. I’m tired of burying people because someone felt they had a right to kill another so they could have what they had or so they could feel better about themselves for a few minutes.
What can we do to combat this infestation of violence and rampant immorality that is infecting our society and dividing people like nothing in our history?
I wish I had to power to change sinful man and make everything right, but I don’t.
Legislation is not the answer though I believe we need to constantly push for legislation that clearly delineates right and wrong based on the clear Word of God rather than what is socially acceptable at the moment.
Churches need to stop deserting the downtown areas of our communities for the nice suburbs. I’ve seen church after church refuse to minister to the changing dynamics of their community and die or move to where their members and people like their members live. There should be no untouchables to us!
We need church planters who feel the call of God to reach the unreachable and be willing to sacrifice all in doing it. That goes against everything our society preaches. We don’t need more mega churches but we do need thousands of churches impacting the community they are located in.
We need more ministers out of their offices, off the golf courses and out of time wasting meetings sharing the Gospel with individuals who have come to believe no one really cares for them – that’s across all races and all neighborhoods, and then to personally disciple them instead of secluding ourselves in the midst of dynamic bible studies with others like us.
Maybe my views a simplistic; they probably are since I’m a simple minded guy. As I consider the future I don’t see us making a national impact during our lifetime, but I believe we can make a difference in the lives of those God brings us in contact with in dynamic ways.
I don’t see our world getting more Godly, rather I see it becoming more ungodly as the day of the Lord nears. I do not see the Church being embraced by society but rather persecuted. I do not see this as an excuse to throw up our hands and sit down – it should drive us out into the fields where the harvest is ready but filled with thorns and weeds.
I’ve worked in the inner-cities of Baltimore and Chicago; I’ve ministered it the midst of the gangs and the resultant violence; I ministered on the foreign field where being a Christian could result in your death; through all of this I’ve seen God change lives – beginning first and foremost with me.
If we don’t start making a difference in the lives of those who are without Christ right now, regardless of race or demographic, when will it get done? Who is going to do it?
Maybe we can start a discussion focused on how we can make a difference instead of arguing about who is right or wrong. I hope so.
Richard,
I am largely in agreement with your remarks here. And the discussion even under this or another post need to shift to, where do we go from here? How do we bridge the gap?
I have been praying for direction about this discussion. It is very important to me to only speak what I heard from God.
He said ” Will you forgive Zimmerman?”
I said “yes, Lord I forgive him.”
He said” Ask me if I will forgive him.”
I said” Lord will you forgive him?”
He said” I will forgive you both.”
Than I remembered Jesus on the cross. Saying” Father forgive them they know not what they do”
Also Jesus said” If you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”
God is good and His mercy endures forever.
James 3:17-18 We are the peace makers and the first step is not man’s wisdom but Gods. Will you join me and forgive all who mistreat us? God will heal this people as He promised. The macro starts with the micro first. The power of the gospel of Jesus Christ has changed the world. Let us continue to speak His gospel of reconciliation.
I love you all. If I missed it than please disregard.
I am an ‘outsider’ who occasionally views this blog and who has never commented before.
First of all, I want to commend (most of) those who have commented for their evident commitment to speak with love and humility their deeply-felt concerns and conclusions.
Secondly, the distinction between legal reasoning and ethical reasoning must be recognized. If one approaches this issue from the standpoint of ethical concerns and reasoning, it may distort one’s legal reasoning and conclusions. Likewise, if one approaches the issue from solely from a legal standpoint – as jurors should do – one’s conclusions will fall short regarding ethical dimensions and issues attendant to this case.
Thirdly, emotions play a role in our reasoning processes and conclusions. Recognizing this fact, and making an intentional effort to be as critical toward one’s own feeling-biases as one is towards the perceived feeling-biases of others, are two steps one may take toward a more objective point of view. (One should take very seriously the question: How could I be mistaken about this?)
Between ‘pure objectivity’ and ‘complete subjectivity’ there is a continuum: some of the statements in this thread fall more toward one end and others fall more toward the other end of the spectrum.
I have concluded that several key positions and assertions on the jury’s legal verdict taken by Rev. McKissic err in the direction of being overly-influenced by emotional and ethical considerations in such a manner as to distort his perspective on the jury’s verdict. For this, he is not blameworthy – I am sure that he, and hopefully all of us, has done his best to arrive at his best judgment / conclusion.But I do believe that he has erred in his some of his inferences and in his conclusion.
I commend respondent JOB – among the many good posts by many of the respondents, I believe that yours were the best.
Mark Whitten
Mark,
Thanks for sharing your perspective. Quite interesting. As I said to Louis the lawyer, when SCOTUS votes 5-4 or jury votes are divided, how does one determine which side was driven by emotions? Could it be that neither side was driven by emotions, but they simply interpreted and processed the evidence, facts, and information differently?
It is fascinating to me that those that I talk to that view this matter as I do think that persons like yourself, and the majority of people on this thread, and the jurors were driven by emotions, and a bias against Rachael G.?
The juror that was unduly influenced by the other jurors, and is now expressing ambivalent feelings about her vote, seems to recognize that their is a “common sense” aspect to jury decision making that maybe goes beyond certain facts and feelings, that is a part of our decision making process. Based on all existing evidence, the juror who has come forth is correct: Zimmerman got by with murder. And based on the “common sense” jury instruction, if the jury had been racially balanced as it should have been, Zimmerman would have been convicted. Thanks again for your comment here.
Mark,
I agree with you about Job’s comment. It was one of the best in this thread. Your analysis is very good, as well.
Again, I believe that Zimmerman was over zealous, and did something stupid….he should’ve stayed in his car and followed Trayvon until the cops got there….he should’ve never, never did what he did….it was stupid….a bad decision…but, not criminal.
Also, Trayvon did something very dumb and overly aggressive. He attacked a man for following him.
It was just a huge display of bad choices that led to a tettible tragedy. Hopefully, we can all learn from their bad choices….not to do likewise… and maybe, just maybe, we can all learn some lessons about race relations from all of this….especially if we can get the people, who use these kinds of things, to stir up racial tension and hatred, and who use these types of things to get ratings on TV, and who use these things to justify their jobs(Sharpton and Jackson), if…if….if we can get them to stop trying to stir up racial hatred…then, maybe we can learn from this to get along….maybe?
David
David,
What proof do you have that TM attacked GZ first? Where is that documented?
The trail of recidivist history, with regard to TM.is astounding ? This thread reports that he was walking along peering in windows. There is not one shred of truth to that. Now we learn that TM hit GZ first. This is truly amazing. Unless you can prove that, it would be wise to retract the statement.
Mr. Whitten,
Are you Mark Weldon Whitten, author of The Myth of Christian America? Or a different Mark Whitten?
Or “hard-hitting” Mark Whitten of baseball fame?
Praise God that He used some of our weakness as balm for you! He truly is good.
I read the whole 27 pages of jury instructions, which doesn’t take long. They are at NPR here:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/07/12/201410108/read-instructions-for-the-jury-in-trial-of-george-zimmerman.
The instructions show what the jury had to decide. Both prosecution and defense agreed to them. They contain standard Constitutional criminal rights all defendants get, plus the Florida law that applies.
And juror B29, oh my. That is as nice a thing as I can say. She is anguished for the Martins but I think she is very, very unhelpful. In that same interview she said the case probably should not have gone to trial and was a publicity stunt! She also said she hung on the guilty vote “to the end,” a whole 9 hours, and then voted not guilty because she was constrained by the law rather than by her heart.
Which ‘truth’ has she confirmed? (1) that there should have been no trial, it was a publicity stunt; or (2) Zimmerman got away with murder; or (3) the law required an acquittal? Because she said all of them. Naturally all we hear is #2. One should be very careful hanging his/her hat on it.
IMO B29 has done a terrible disservice, one way or the other. The judge asked the jury to swear to their individual and collective not guilty verdict. Didn’t B29 swear to it in open court? And two weeks later she gives interviews disclaiming it. These post-trial interviews are awful. Perhaps the lawyers are aiming for a new trial based on juror misconduct.
K. Gray,
Thanks. At first opportunity, I’ll read the jury instructions.
I will bow out now and may God bless you all.
Dwight:
I have been off of this post for several days and have not read all of the entries.
But because it was listed last, I saw your question to David about TM attacking GZ first.
I may be mistaken, but I believe that was the proof in the case. In his recorded statements that were introduced, I believe GZ said that he was on his way back to his car when TM jumped him, or something to that effect.
As I understand it, GZ says he followed TM, and was returning to his car when TM appeared and attacked him – hit him and broke his nose.
Let me know if I remember that right.
Can you believe all the post trial statements? TM’s friend saying that TM thought GZ was gay? And now the juror making nonsensical statements?
That is the reason jurors are not allowed legally to impeach their own verdicts. They can do so, but the law does not allow it to have any effect.
The reason is all of the post trial discussion and societal reaction, such as we have here. A juror may conclude one thing in a room full of jurors discussing the case. But then they get out of the room, see the reaction to the verdict, and start saying things.
Louis,
I will be traveling today & have limited time to respond if you have a follow up comment/question. I should have qualified my question to David, with the qualification being someone other than Zimmerman making such a statement. Of course, what else would GZ say? He murdered the only other witness in his case. So what we have left is the testimony of s man who was arrested for assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest, two charged of domestic battery against a woman, and two alcohol related arrest. Furthermore, his pre-trial statements are contradictory & some were proven to be false. And we seriously are suppose to take his account if events that night to the bank? GZ’s testimony is not evidence to me regarding who passed the first blow, or who felt encroached upon, and felt the need to protect/defend themselves. If that is he evidence Volfan refers to, I acknowledge that it may have been entered into the record somehow(although as u know FZ didn’t take the stand) but I don’t consider his word s reliable.
It appears that Florida has a law that allows you to murder a person, & as long as that person was the only witness, you can get by Scott free.
I understand how & why you feel the way you feel ’bout the Judie’s statement who now ays that GZ got by with murder. But as dar as O am concerned, Russell Moore has thus far made the best statement on this matter. President Obama made the next best statement. This juror is third in line. I obviously was not a juror but she is saying everything I imagined a minority juror would feel. And I totally agree with her statement that the jurors allowed a murder to go free. I appreciated her apology to Trayvon’s mom. Fourthly, Alan Bean at ABP wrote a article on the jury composition being the major problem in this trial. Got to catch a plane. But I hope that you look up Alan Bean’s article at Associated Baptis Press. I would love to know what Louis the lawyer & Attorbey Katie- who is a lady if great empath-think about Alan Bean’s Zimmerman jury article. Thanks Louis. Appreciate interacting with you.
Correction: I’ve now seen juror B29″s interview segments in ABC’s story. She was asked if she stands by her vote still today: “I stand by the decision because of the law.” Although her heart protested, “…we had to grab our hearts and put it aside and look at the evidence.” She said maybe if people would read the law they would understand the choices the jury had. Her heart says Zimmerman is guilty. “Guilty of what?” “Guilty of killing Trayvon Martin.” But she says they could not find the intent for a murder charge. Robin Roberts says some people believe Zimmerman “got away with murder.” Juror B29 hesitates, then repeats the phrase, then says but he has to answer to God. ABC then points out the juror stands by the verdict because she had to put emotion aside and follow the law.
I saw something similar – that her position was (to simplify) that George Zimmerman was morally guilty of murder, but legally not guilty.
I honestly don’t see how one can differentiate between the two. At least 86% of African Americans apply the judge’s instructions regarding “common sense” to mean that if he us morally guilty if murder & he pulled the trigger….then he is legally guilty if murder. If this juror means that GZ truly acted in self defense—-if she really buy’s that–then GZ is not morally or legally guilty of murder? I don’t believe that you can split the baby like that. I appreciate this juror speaking out. I think that her conscience is bothering her because she realizes that she & the others let a murderer go free. But she is going to have a hard time selling a story that places two ends against the middle. My heart goes out to her. Her pain is felt only greater by Teayvon’s parents.
On another note, Dave gave you read the scathing rebuke of Dr. Russell Moire from a blogger whose moniker I believe is “The Reformed Reader”(?). If you google Russell Moore/Trayvon Martin his blog will come up. It is a viscous & vitriolic attack on Dr. Moire for the stand he took on this matter. We need to pray for Russell Moire. If someone will publicly say those things, privately, I’m sure he is catching it equally as difficult.
I am going to post in response to that reformed reader Russell Moire pist next week. I appreciate the privelege that you have so graciously extended to post my post here. I sense that some of your commentators here, really are not feeling my perspective on this matter. I don’t expect them, you, or anybody else to agree with every or anything that I say. But I feel a level if intensity surrounding this issue that is greater than most issues. And of course, I admit that I have not been at my best behavior in all of my responses either. What Zimmerman am trying to say is this: Watching the negative response to Russell Moore which is absolutely & totally unjustifiable from my corner of the world; and feeling the sting of those who feel like that gentleman concerning me; know that I have a very small readership at my blog. But I am willing to post at my place if my post here becomes to problematic or uncomfortable for you and/or your readership. Thank God that you in no way, shape, form or fashion have even remotely suggested, intimated, or insinuated that you are uncomfortable with my post and commentary: But as a friend, I want to make it easy for you & let you know sincerely & earnestly, that if the vision & harmony of SBC Voices is better served by me not posting & commenting here, I will step aside, and be most grateful for the favor & friendship that you & The Lord has granted me here. Furthermore, because of a book collaboration project with two other gentleman that is auute demanding–I am going to have to spend more time on that project, and less time blogging & commenting. I do have one installment left to complete the series I stated here on Refkections & Ruminations on the Future of the SBC. I would like to post that here. And perhaps the response piece to the reformed reader Russell Moore post. At that point, Zimmerman would like to bow out. But again, much appreciation & much respect for your friendship, & the gracious opportunity that you gave afforded me to express what was on my heart here. Dave I really love you. And I appreciate this perhaps only open forum in the SBC to share diverse views. Didn’t intend to say all of this in this forum. But that’s the way it came out & I hope you don’t mind. Thanks. I Love You Man. Dwight.
“What I am trying to say…” Not what Zimnernan’s is trying to say…” Autocorrect messed that one up. All the other–& there are many–typos are mine. Sorry about that.
I think the difference between moral guilt and legal guilt would be a result of the the fact that God’s law is perfect, but our laws aren’t.
In this case, I think what the juror was saying (and what probably reflects my view on the matter) is that George Zimmerman was morally guilty because he pursued Trayvon Martin and initiated the contact which resulted in him shooting the man dead.
However, there is evidence that he was assaulted. As I understand it, the law in Florida allows me to use deadly force if I believe I am in danger.
Hypothetical: You and I are walking down the street. I pursue you in anger. I start calling you names. I push you. I am the clear aggressor. But, then you fight back. You tackle me, pin me down and start pummeling me.
Morally, I was the aggressor. I am guilty. But legally (in Florida, at least), I still have the right, if you are hitting me, to “defend” myself, even if I started it.
So, before God I would be guilty, but by (perhaps flawed) Florida law, I would have a legitimate argument for self-defense.
As I understand it, that is what the juror was saying. She thought that Zimmerman provoked the incident and was, therefore, guilty morally. But there was evidence that Trayvon (who was a big, strong kid by reports) did, in fact, start beating him. That gave him the legal right to “defend” himself.
I really don’t know what happened there that night, but what I have read leads me to agree with that juror – that Zimmerman was wrong in his actions, but technically justified in “defending” himself.
That’s where I am–this is a case where the law is specific in terms of what “murder” is, but I cannot escape thinking Zimmerman could have, and should have, made different choices that avoided killing Martin.
When you are carrying a firearm, you should think in terms of avoiding confrontation, because you know that a physical confrontation carries the possibility of deadly force. You should not be emboldened to confront because you’ve got a gun, but respectful of the power in that compact space. I think the law is inadequate to address what happened that night–I think the “not guilty” verdict was technically correct on the case as presented, but it is wholly unsatisfactory. It just feels wrong–but I don’t know how to make it right.
And, I feel the same about you. You add greatly to our dialogue here.
I especially appreciate the patience you show when people provoke you. I wish I was more like that.
And, no, I’ve not read the rebuke of Dr. Moore. It does not surprise me that he is getting hit. He is being tested by fire in his first months on the job, isn’t he?
I only meant to correct my own remarks about juror B29, not anyone else’s. Hope that is clear. You almost have to take notes on her interview to understand it.
I bow out in sympathy with juror B29’s struggle, and our own.
@Pastor McKissick:
Sorry it took me so long to get back.
“GZ did not testify in court to being in danger.”
Please understand that not taking the stand to testify in your defense is very common in criminal trials. (If you recall, O.J. Simpson did not take the stand either.) In our justice system, the defendant does not have to establish innocence. Instead, the prosecution only has to establish guilt. All the defense has to do is poke holes in the prosecution’s case, and that can usually be done without the accused needing to take the stand. Of course, defense attorneys usually shield their clients from the stand for a reason – in most cases their testimony will not be helpful, especially under cross examination – but juries are not supposed to weigh the fact that a person does not testify in the evidence. As we have a 5th amendment right not to incriminate ourselves, jurors cannot take his refusal to take the stand as “having something to hide.”
“Isn’t the jury responsible for weighing the evidence to see if GZ was actually in danger?”
No, they are not. They are only supposed to weigh the evidence to see if a reasonable person could conclude that his life was actually in danger. Basically they are supposed to put themselves in that same situation and ask themselves “Would I fear for my life if that were me.” An example: if a person points a gun at you and threatens you and you shoot the person and claim self-defense, convicting you of murder because you weren’t actually in danger because unbeknownst to you the gun wasn’t loaded isn’t valid. And second, what do you believe would have been the ultimate outcome of Trayvon Martin punching him in the face and slamming his head into the concrete? As I mentioned earlier, Zimmerman wasn’t obligated to wait for Martin to inflict more bodily harm before getting around to defending himself.
“The problem in Florida may be the law that allows the aggressor to wrap themselves in self defense.”
It isn’t that it may be the law. Instead, it is absolutely the law. Had Zimmerman committed the same act in Texas and had the same trial with the same jury, he would be in jail for manslaughter. In Florida you can indeed provoke a confrontation and claim self defense. However, please realize that the problem with calling Zimmerman “the aggressor” is that Zimmerman did not actually throw the first punch. The truth is that no evidence exists whatsoever that Zimmerman had any ill intentions towards Martin at all, or that his interactions with Martin would have ever escalated beyond exchange of words had Martin not attacked him.
And even the circumstances where Martin attacked Zimmerman are under dispute. When this case was first reported, I believed that Zimmerman chased Martin down and cornered him with his car, got out and confronted him, possibly with angry words. Not only was this not proven by the prosecution, but the defense raised the real possibility that Martin was not cornered and that he could have avoided any confrontation at all with Zimmerman by just continuing to go home. And they used Rachel Jeantel’s testimony to raise this possibility.
“Do you honestly believe if Trayvon was the one feeling as if his life was being threatened, would he have been exonerated by the same jury, based on the same set of facts & law?”
It would not have been the same jury. Zimmerman was the one on trial and according to the constitution got a jury of his peers, which was 5 whites and one Hispanic. At least 4 of the 6 jurors, including the Hispanic juror B29 “Maddy”, wanted badly to convict Zimmerman of something but were precluded from doing so by the Florida statutes and the information available to them. Had Martin been on trial, he would have gotten a jury of his peers, which would have had to by law include at least 1 black juror and would have likely had 2 or 3. But to answer your question, I do not believe that this jury would have rejected a self-defense claim had it been Zimmerman breaking Martin’s nose and on top of him beating him senseless. Pastor McKissick, the defense pretty much won the case when the forensic examiner stated that the bullet went up into Martin’s chest. That greatly aided the defense’s contention that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot.
The issue is that a lot of people believe that Zimmerman should be held legally accountable for Martin’s death just because they disagree with Zimmerman’s decision to chase him, and what they believe was the basis for Zimmerman’s reason for labeling Martin as a criminal suspect in the first place. But here is the problem with that.
1. Chasing Martin and even confronting him was not illegal. Unwise, yes, but not illegal.
2. Even if you believe that Zimmerman profiled Martin, it is legal for private citizens to profile. It is only illegal for law enforcement to do so. I am sorry, but wanting Zimmerman in jail because he profiled Martin is criminalizing his thoughts, not his actions.
And regarding his actions, the problem is that even if you believe the facts that were originally reported by the media – that Zimmerman chased and cornered Martin and provoked a confrontation based on Martin reasonably believing that Zimmerman was a criminal trying to harm him – are true, under Florida law it doesn’t make a difference. Florida law tells you to consider only that Martin was a threat to kill Zimmerman, not that Martin was a threat to kill Zimmerman only because Zimmerman was a threat to kill Martin. That is what I meant when I stated earlier that Florida law appears to side with whoever wins a fight to the death. Another issue on Zimmerman’s side is that Zimmerman didn’t throw the first punch – or for that matter any punch – nor did he pull his weapon on Martin before the confrontation began.
Basically your position appears to be that the jury was responsible for finding some way, some justification, for nullifying Florida law because Zimmerman was in the wrong for initiating the entire encounter to begin with. That is a position that I simply cannot endorse, especially since the prosecution failed to establish my initial beliefs, which was that Zimmerman chased Martin down, pulled up beside or very near Martin in his car and essentially cornered him, or put Martin in a position where he believed that if he ran away, Zimmerman would just catch him in his car again. The jurors could not ignore that Martin was at most only 100 yards from his house when he attacked Zimmerman (I hate using that terminology but it is indeed what happened) and could have just kept running. If your position is that Zimmerman should be in jail because he profiled and chased Martin to begin with then you can throw all that stuff out the window, but the jury decided not to do that, and in my opinion it was the correct decision.
Dwight:
You asked me about an article related to the jury that was on the Associated Baptist Press website. I read that article.
The author suggests undoing several hundred years of Western jurisprudence, and even ancient jurisprudence, when he advocates for jurors who by their background (racial or otherwise) have some sympathy to the parties or the victim in a case.
I believe that it is a fundamental to achieving justice that we explicitly seek after neutral jurors who are not connected to the case by sympathy.
I agree that there are flaws with the jury system. Today it is very hard to get really smart people are a jury. Defense counsel in a criminal case and plaintiffs’ counsel in a tort case often do not want really intelligent people. They often want people who are more easy to manipulate.
One thing about which the author failed to comment was race in juror make up.
Lawyers get 2 kinds of challenges to jurors. Challenges for “cause” are challenges based on the fact that the juror has some kind of disclosed bias. The number of challenges for cause is unlimited.
The second kind of challenges are peremptory challenges. These challenges allow a lawyer to strike a potential juror without any reason. The lawyer can strike the juror for something in the juror’s background about which the lawyer has been unable to prove bias, but which makes the lawyer uncomfortable.
Peremptory challenges are limited. In my state, a party gets 4. I can use them for almost any reason – with one exception.
If a lawyer strikes a person based on race, that is an unlawful use of the a peremptory challenge.
I did not follow the trial. I know nothing of the jury selection. But if any African Americans were excluded from the jury, it had to be for cause, or if it was a peremptory challenge, the lawyer who struck the juror has to show the court that it was because of some factor other than race.
At any rate, I disagree that we should be assembling juries based on the empathy that they have for the defendant or the victim. In fact, if a juror expresses “empathy”, they should be struck from the jury.
We need, as best we can, to get neutral jurors who have the least amount of bias as possible.
Thanks for the question and for recommending the article.
I think that this thread is a true case of “Come, Let us reason together”
I have significant difficulties with how Brother Dwight views this case, but this thread has helped me understand where he is coming from.
I think their are several things that we can agree on.
If it is the case, and I believe it is, that Blacks get harsher sentences than other races, it is contrary to the ideals of Christianity and the ideals of the American nation. It should be remedied, today, not tomorrow, today. Equality in sentencing is a civil right as far as I am concerned.
The pain of racial attitudes is still deep in the Black community. Even, though I am incapable of fully comprehending this fact, I can’t ignore the reality of my Black brothers and sisters.
I think we all agree that racism is still alive and well in America, I think great strides have been made, but there is still work to do.
I weep for the Black community. I live and work near East St Louis, IL. I am in the community to work at least once a week, and the church planting network of which I am a part, is partnered with a Black pastor who has started a new work there. As I am East St. Louis, I pray, not for safety, because I am not afraid; but I pray that the Gospel would be fruitful, that it would corral the hopelessness that is often so palpable and replace it with the hope of Christ.
The despair and desperation of failed economic policies, of children growing up without fathers, of a soul destroying drug culture causes a visceral reaction in me. I wish I could eliminate the drugs, give them all good jobs, repair their families. But, I can’t.
Only Jesus can. And, so I pray for spiritual awakening, for economic opportunity, for a generation of young, Black men and women, who will forego the sexual licentiousness that has led to the condition that a large majority of black children are born out of wedlock.
Jesus, save our cities, save our young, Black brothers and sisters. Let us truly be one race, working together for Your kingdom.