Unless you live under a rock, you've probably read in the news that a young man, Trayvon Martin, was shot and killed while walking home in a gated community in Sanford, Florida. His death is a tragedy, but now an even bigger tragedy is brewing that involves race and the rule of law.
The man who shot Trayvon followed him because he looked "suspicious," which many take as code language for black. Against the advice of a 911 dispatcher, the man continued following Trayvon and confronted him. According to the only eyewitness testimony we have so far, a fight ensued and the man fatally shot Trayvon, claiming self-defense. Sanford's police chief conducted an investigation and determined that he could not pursue charges because the claim of self-defense looked solid.
Now all hell has broken loose. The police chief has stepped down temporarily and is confronting a chorus of voices chanting for him to be fired. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have crawled out of the woodwork. Barack Obama has called for national "soul searching" and wants the feds to intervene and investigate. Senator Charles Schumer thinks that Florida's law of self-defense needs to be changed. The New Black Panthers have put a bounty on the shooter's head. And the shooter has drawn attention to the fact that he is Hispanic in order to help exonerate himself in the public's eyes.
Everyone should shut up and think about this for a moment, although I'm sure that's not going to happen.
First, Florida's law of self-defense was altered a few years back to allow people to "stand their ground" rather than retreat when facing an attack. This law has been portrayed as violent and uncivilized, but in fact it mirrors the old common law and makes good sense because the right of self-defense is fundamental. To require retreat is truly uncivilized because it compels innocent people to accommodate aggressors. And the issue here is not whether Trayvon posed a real threat of death or serious bodily harm to the man who shot him. The issue is whether the shooter had a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily harm -- i.e., the test is both subjective (a belief) and objective (that is reasonable). This doctrine of self-defense has worked well for centuries. Is it perfect? No, but it's better than the alternatives of 1) being forced to cower and hide, or 2) being forced to know with 100% accuracy that the person coming at you really is able to kill you. Here, the evidence thus far shows that the man had a reasonable fear for his life because Trayvon attacked him upon being questioned. The law did not require retreat nor 100% accuracy about Trayvon's lethality, so the killing was tragic, but not criminal (unless some new evidence comes to light). Whatever pure or impure motives the man had for following Trayvon and questioning him have no bearing on the legal analysis -- following and questioning are not crimes.
Second, there is no constitutional basis for the federal government to stick its nose into this. Homicide, self-defense, and criminal law are all within the domain of Florida's police power, whereas the federal government has a paltry few enumerated powers to work with. The shooter was not acting as a police officer or other agent of the state, so he cannot be said to have violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The only federal crimes recognized by the Constitution are counterfeiting, piracy, offenses committed on the high seas, violations of international law, and treason; the thousands of other federal crimes now on the books are unlawful, and a federal prosecution against the shooter would be equally unlawful. Arrogance oozes from Charles Schumer as he recommends revamping state laws, for the federal government cannot tell states what kind of self-defense doctrine is best. America is a federation, not a singular nation, and each jurisdiction can learn from this experience and change its laws as it wishes -- not as Schumer wishes.
If anyone's civil rights are being threatened now, it is the shooter's. He acted by all accounts within the scope of the law, yet the President is effectively defaming and endangering him rather than acting as the dignified and prudent steward of the Constitution he swore to protect.
And it is sad that the shooter feels that the most effective way to cleanse his image is to proclaim that he is not white. In so doing, he boosts the perverse political narrative that only whites can be guilty of racism. The narrative itself is racist, but unfortunately it still has legs.
In conclusion, the shooter strikes me as a suburban commando of a type I remember all too well from having lived in Florida. Ideally, he would have left Trayvon alone unless and until Trayvon did something wrong. The decision to confront Trayvon was unnecessary and unwise, but it did not rob the shooter of his right to self-defense, which he appears to have exercised when Trayvon grew belligerent and attacked him. If Florida's law of self-defense is unpopular, then let the people of Florida change it. Until then, it must be upheld.
The man who shot Trayvon followed him because he looked "suspicious," which many take as code language for black. Against the advice of a 911 dispatcher, the man continued following Trayvon and confronted him. According to the only eyewitness testimony we have so far, a fight ensued and the man fatally shot Trayvon, claiming self-defense. Sanford's police chief conducted an investigation and determined that he could not pursue charges because the claim of self-defense looked solid.
Now all hell has broken loose. The police chief has stepped down temporarily and is confronting a chorus of voices chanting for him to be fired. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have crawled out of the woodwork. Barack Obama has called for national "soul searching" and wants the feds to intervene and investigate. Senator Charles Schumer thinks that Florida's law of self-defense needs to be changed. The New Black Panthers have put a bounty on the shooter's head. And the shooter has drawn attention to the fact that he is Hispanic in order to help exonerate himself in the public's eyes.
Everyone should shut up and think about this for a moment, although I'm sure that's not going to happen.
First, Florida's law of self-defense was altered a few years back to allow people to "stand their ground" rather than retreat when facing an attack. This law has been portrayed as violent and uncivilized, but in fact it mirrors the old common law and makes good sense because the right of self-defense is fundamental. To require retreat is truly uncivilized because it compels innocent people to accommodate aggressors. And the issue here is not whether Trayvon posed a real threat of death or serious bodily harm to the man who shot him. The issue is whether the shooter had a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily harm -- i.e., the test is both subjective (a belief) and objective (that is reasonable). This doctrine of self-defense has worked well for centuries. Is it perfect? No, but it's better than the alternatives of 1) being forced to cower and hide, or 2) being forced to know with 100% accuracy that the person coming at you really is able to kill you. Here, the evidence thus far shows that the man had a reasonable fear for his life because Trayvon attacked him upon being questioned. The law did not require retreat nor 100% accuracy about Trayvon's lethality, so the killing was tragic, but not criminal (unless some new evidence comes to light). Whatever pure or impure motives the man had for following Trayvon and questioning him have no bearing on the legal analysis -- following and questioning are not crimes.
Second, there is no constitutional basis for the federal government to stick its nose into this. Homicide, self-defense, and criminal law are all within the domain of Florida's police power, whereas the federal government has a paltry few enumerated powers to work with. The shooter was not acting as a police officer or other agent of the state, so he cannot be said to have violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The only federal crimes recognized by the Constitution are counterfeiting, piracy, offenses committed on the high seas, violations of international law, and treason; the thousands of other federal crimes now on the books are unlawful, and a federal prosecution against the shooter would be equally unlawful. Arrogance oozes from Charles Schumer as he recommends revamping state laws, for the federal government cannot tell states what kind of self-defense doctrine is best. America is a federation, not a singular nation, and each jurisdiction can learn from this experience and change its laws as it wishes -- not as Schumer wishes.
If anyone's civil rights are being threatened now, it is the shooter's. He acted by all accounts within the scope of the law, yet the President is effectively defaming and endangering him rather than acting as the dignified and prudent steward of the Constitution he swore to protect.
And it is sad that the shooter feels that the most effective way to cleanse his image is to proclaim that he is not white. In so doing, he boosts the perverse political narrative that only whites can be guilty of racism. The narrative itself is racist, but unfortunately it still has legs.
In conclusion, the shooter strikes me as a suburban commando of a type I remember all too well from having lived in Florida. Ideally, he would have left Trayvon alone unless and until Trayvon did something wrong. The decision to confront Trayvon was unnecessary and unwise, but it did not rob the shooter of his right to self-defense, which he appears to have exercised when Trayvon grew belligerent and attacked him. If Florida's law of self-defense is unpopular, then let the people of Florida change it. Until then, it must be upheld.
UPDATE:
As new details continue to transpire (note the correct usage of that word), it appears more and more certain that the shooter was a wannabe cop, but also that Trayvon was a wannabe gangster who assaulted the shooter for simply daring to question him. You could almost write a tragic poem about the winding path these two took that brought them together on that fateful night. I'm reminded of Convergence Of The Twain, where Thomas Hardy eerily described how the Titanic met with the iceberg.
No comments:
Post a Comment