the id, the ego, & the single misfiring brain cell

This popular Facebook meme is my way of saying "fair warning."

Like many Americans, I followed the Zimmerman trial fairly closely. Unlike most (?) of them, however, I can honestly say that while I believe--passionately--that Zimmerman was wrong, I'm fairly sure I would have voted exactly as the jury did. Before I explain that, however, I'd like to get a few misconceptions out of the way. 

"beyond the shadow of a doubt" v. "beyond reasonable doubt"

The law charges juries with finding a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond the shadow of a doubt. Those who use the second phrase regarding legal matters demonstrate their ignorance of the law and/or a sloppy and vague understanding of the language. It is the job of the state to show where reasonable doubt lies. I'm not convinced that "beyond the shadow of a doubt" would ever be possible. 

"not guilty" v. "innocent"

There is no such thing, in criminal law, of finding a defendant "innocent." A jury may believe a defendant innocent of any wrong-doing, of course, but that isn't the requirement. The requirement is that they determine if the evidence proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty of a specific charge. In Zimmerman's case, the jury was charged with determining if the state had sufficient evidence to find him guilty of second-degree murder or manslaughter. They are not allowed to find the defendant guilty of any other charge. 

To find Zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder or manslaughter, the jury had to decide if the state had proved that he did not act in self-defense. That's the law. I think it's backwards, frankly, but it's still the law. More on this in a minute, too. 

I read an interesting argument this morning that "innocent" and "not guilty" must be interchangeable in the eyes of the law. Otherwise, the "innocent until proven guilty" rule is meaningless. This argument is based on the misunderstanding of the place and purpose of the concepts being expressed. 

First, the rule is that the jury must presume the defendant innocent until proven guilty (this is why it's otherwise called the "presumption of innocence" rule). This rule helps the jury remember that the burden of proof rests upon the prosecution. They must be as objective as possible, disregarding any feelings or knee-jerk reactions to the defendant or his case. Until sufficient evidence is presented to reverse this presumption, the jury is required to think of the defendant as innocent of the charges against him.

This is not the same as saying that if he is found not guilty that he has been found innocent. The jury is not asked to decide if the defendant is innocent. The presumption of innocence means they must determine if the prosecution has met the burden of proof of guilt of the crimes he is accused of beyond a reasonable doubt. 

the facts of the case v. assumptions, claims, and opinions

The facts of Zimmerman's case are pretty straightforward. There had been break-ins in the gated neighborhood recently and Zimmerman was on the neighborhood watch. Both he and Martin had a legal right to be where they were. Zimmerman had a permit to carry a concealed weapon and was carrying that evening. Zimmerman trailed Martin while he called the 911 operator, then left the car to follow Martin on foot. There was a struggle. Zimmerman’s family physician said he had a pair of lacerations to the back of his head, two black eyes, a minor back injury and a “closed fracture” of his nose. Zimmerman's medical examiner deemed these injuries to be "insignificant." Other than the shot through the heart that killed him, Martin had broken flesh on his knuckles. Zimmerman admitting shooting Martin. Zimmerman later told investigators that "a suspicious person" (meaning Martin) had approached his SUV and "rattled" him so much that he rolled up the windows to avoid a confrontation; Zimmerman had not mentioned this event to the 911 dispatcher at the time. 

There are more facts, of course, but these are the basic ones. They are not to be confused with Zimmerman's claims of what happened. Among those claims--which are being accepted as fact by far too many people--are the assertions that Martin attacked Zimmerman, that Zimmerman did not draw his weapon until the struggle ensued, that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin,* or that Zimmerman acted in self defense.  

* He clearly profiled him (in the sense of Merriam-Webster's definition: "the act of suspecting or targeting a person on the basis of observed characteristics or behavior"), but there is no proof that race was the reason for it. There's a good argument to be made that Zimmerman profiled him based on Martin's youth and Zimmerman's failure to recognize him). 

What else isn't fact? Opinions and theories about what happened. People are opining that Zimmerman couldn't have pulled his concealed gun and shot Martin through the heart if Martin was on top of him, for example. While I admit that it's a reasonable argument, it may or may not be true; what is important is that it has not been proven. Lots of crazy things can happen in a fight, things you don't even know you're doing. 

I have opinions, as well. For one, considering the testimony of an expert witness who said Zimmerman had trained in a martial art with him (to lose weight, which differs considerably from training to fight) and on a scale of 1 to 5 he would rate Zimmerman's fighting skill at ".5"; and considering the defense's insistence that Zimmerman was overweight and out of shape; and based on Zimmerman's post-event claim that Martin had circled his vehicle and "rattled" him; I consider it highly unlikely that Zimmerman would have left the vehicle without his weapon drawn. But I don't know that. It is not fact; it is opinion. 

Here's another opinion (and it is mine): Zimmerman would not have left his car in the first place had he not had a gun. Not fact. Opinion. 

If I could ask the American public to learn one thing, it would be how to discern between facts and assumptions/claims/opinions.* 

* And how to reason cogently. And that possessive pronouns never have an apostrophe. 

the race card

"Racist" is a surprisingly vague term. While I've seen this word bandied about more times than I can count in the last couple of weeks, I've yet to see anyone point this out. So I'm doing it, probably because vague terms bother me. A fruitful exchange of ideas is often impossible because the participants do not recognize that they have not clearly defined their terms. 

Let's start with this question: when you use the term "racist," what do you mean?* Specifically, I mean. Are you referring to attitudes or actions? or both? Do you only mean people who use the term "nigger" (or any other such pejorative slang)? Probably not, but you definitely include those people; they are low-hanging fruit in this discussion. How about people who prefer to hire and work with white people? those who will avoid encountering a group of black teens on the street? who don't consider sitting with the black kids at lunch? who think all black people like watermelon and fried chicken? that they're all criminals? Do you include people who equate "welfare recipient" with "black"? who think that "African American" is a pretentious and inaccurate label for a race? who use the term "Negro" to describe someone? How about people who think there should be no "African American" category in literature or history, or even those who won't consider reading/learning it? How about those who argue that Affirmative Action is an "anti-white" law?

* For the sake of brevity--and because it's the relevant racism here, if there is any--I'm going to limit my example to African Americans. 

I could go on, but I think you get the point. We all draw the line in different places, and most of us--except extremist groups like Nazis, Skinheads, or the KKK--do not think of themselves as "racist." There was a time I argued that "African American" was a silly label, as it suggests a dual citizenship. I've since changed my view. Would I consider myself racist at that time? No. Other people probably did though. 

When I was writing my thesis* in 2006, I used the word "Negro" interchangeably with "black" and "African American." My thesis director--a white man--went through the first chapter marking out "Negro" (except where it was a direct quote) and changing it to "African American" or "Black."** Apparently, "Negro" is generally considered pejorative. The only times it's acceptable in today's world is in the names of traditional and well-recognized associations (like the United Negro College Fund), or in reference to objects. But not people. But I didn't know that until I had occasion to use the term, which is why I was corrected. 

* Racial Rhetoric Used by Temperance Agitators in Jim Crow Alabama: 1905-1915. 
** Note that I'm not capitalizing "black" here. Nor am I capitalizing "white." This is because I consider these to be not so much labels or races so much as descriptions. Also, writing Black and White throughout any piece becomes tedious and annoying. 

My point is this: we're probably all considered racist by someone based on our words or actions, but most of us don't consider ourselves racist. But the perception of racism is often impossible to distinguish from actual racism. It is so polarizing from the outset that we often cannot reach an understanding about why someone believes/does/says something. So when people claim that Zimmerman is racist (and/or that the jury is), keep this in mind. 

Again...maybe he is (and/or they are), but who decides, and based on what criteria? 

the concept of "justice"

Was justice served in this case? That depends on how you define "justice." (Are you spotting a theme yet?) I submit that this is another word that we tend to unintentionally bifurcate. Your answer to this question will be determined by whether you believe the jury should adhere to the law or to what you believe is just. 

The law is not always just. 

In this case, the jury did its duty according to the letter of the law. If you agree with the law, you believe the verdict was just. If you believe the verdict is unjust, then you believe the law is unjust. 

I am one of those. This is why. 

the burden of proof

I generally support the idea that the burden of proof in criminal law lies with the state. However, I agree wholeheartedly with Farren, one of my South African friends, in his statements here (I know it's lengthy, but he is a pleasure to read): 

I've been beaten up before, plenty. And I would not pull a gun and shoot a teenager who assaulted me with fists, especially if I knew (a) I provoked them and (b) since we had no prior acquaintance, it is clearly not a murder attempt but a kid getting into a fight because someone pissed him off, which happens millions of times a day all over the world without bloodshed. 

...

FYI: under South African law he would have been proven guilty on the strength of the evidence, because there is a substantially greater burden of proof that your life is in mortal danger before you can discharge a firearm (which it is not your universal right to carry and comes with substantial legal responsibilities and requirements just to own). IOW our legal framework, while generally following the principle of innocent until proven guilty, front-loads things like shooting people (and rear-ending someone in traffic, and a variety of other scenarios) with a presumption of culpability based on the act itself. The fact that you did shoot someone and admit to doing so already places a burden of proof on you, the defendant, to bring evidence to the table that you had to. This is missing from Florida law. Hell, I get the impression the legal framework front-loads it in the other direction. So the nature of the law and whether its a just law matters. Personally I think your gun culture is messed up and that's why its easy to get away with murder.

...

The bit I'm talking about is believing, on the strength of his account, that he was reasonable to believe his life was at risk and reasonable to act on that belief by shooting an unarmed teenager with a deadly weapon. For those of us inured to a different culture, such an opinion would require extra evidence. Not just the guy saying "[because] I was scared for my life", but the guy providing additional, compelling evidence that he had reason to be scared and that the situation merited deadly force, the absence of which would signal guilt of murder. 

From everything I've read, he did not. Therefore in my way of reasoning, and based on what I consider reasonable to expect of a killer protesting his innocence, accepting nothing more than "[because] I had reason to fear for my life and you can't prove otherwise" is patently *un*-reasonable. He provided no evidence that either his fear was reasonable or that deadly force was required. The prosecution simply failed to show otherwise. So on the strength of his own account, he's a murderer and an asshole in my eyes.

I'm not calling for collapse of the rule of law, just recognition that what was likely a murderer walked free.... That makes me a moral being using consistent moral reasoning to make a moral determination based on the facts available to me. I believe Florida law found him not guilty because Florida law is inadequate.

...

I feel:

(a) That "fear for your own safety" isn't even adequate grounds. "Fear for your life" is required at the very least. So I am asked to imagine that a grown man believed his life was in danger when he was assaulted with fists by a 17-year-old he didn't know and had no prior motive for attacking him apart from the fact that Zimmerman was stalking him in the dark. Since I find that very hard to imagine, unless I further impute that Zimmerman was afflicted with unreasonable paranoia. Which would make him a murderer. 

(2) That, as I indicated earlier, in a case of actually admitting to homicide, there is an automatic burden of proof on *you* to *prove* you had grounds to do so. Clearly, Zimmerman did nothing of the sort in defending himself. His entire defense was "You can't prove it wasn't necessary because of a lack of coherent witnesses/physical evidence". As I stated above, the legal framework of many countries places this burden of proof on erstwhile "self-defense" killers precisely because the absence of such a burden makes cases like the Martin case a template for murder, *as many American lawyers have pointed out*. So that legal requirement of other countries is a test for reasonableness that Florida law seems to lack. And that is also a good test for third parties to use in establishing an opinion, a perfectly reasonable test that your actual reasoning seems to lack. This is why I say the laws we're accustomed to shape our moral reasoning.

In short, the injustice lies within Florida laws themselves--not with the jury. 

closing thoughts

I've discussed the problems with assuming this incident was provoked by racism. We will never know if it was or wasn't. What we can know, perhaps, is whether our belief in Zimmerman's innocence is racially motivated....

A Time to Kill has been reverberating in my head for several days, as I listened to the proceedings and read the thoughts of the peanut gallery (Facebook, tweets, blogs, and op-eds). In the event you haven't seen this movie, here's the basic plot: Two white men violently rape, beat, humiliate, and attempt to murder a 10-year-old black girl in the South. She survives. Realizing that there's a good chance that the men will not be found guilty, her father takes an M-16 to the arraignment and kills them. This is the closing argument of the defense in his murder trial. Please take a few minutes to watch the video, then turn that lens on yourself. 

One last thing. 

This comment is through a friend of a friend, who also was passing it on from some unknown source: 

Thought this was a profound post regarding Zimmerman's future: "For the rest of your life you are now going to feel what its like to be a black man in America. You will feel people stare at you. Judging you for what you think are unfair reasons. You will lose out on getting jobs for something you feel is outside of your control. You will believe yourself to be an upstanding citizen and wonder why people choose to not see that...I bet you never thought that by shooting a black male you'd end up inheriting all of his struggles. Enjoy your 'freedom.'"

I agree. We know that Zimmerman profiled, followed, fought, and shot Martin--an unarmed kid--through the heart. His injuries from that night in no way correlate with any real threat on his life. Thus, I reserve the right to enjoy some schadenfreude in the fact that Zimmerman will spend the rest of his life being treated like a black man in America. 

Poetic justice ftw.

Peace.

d