Trayvon Martin and the Gray Muck of Reality

I love that clip, and I wish things were so simple.

We like to think of things either "are" or "are not" legal.  Only the legal world can create the need for me to quote simple forms of the verb "to be."  

But, I learned early in law school that there is only ever one answer... "it depends."  I want to write about my feelings on the Trayvon Martin murder case.

The only certain answer is that there will be no winners in this case.  After listening to some of the trial and hearing both closing arguments in the background while working, I believe that anyone who claims this case is "clear" or "simple" serves a preconceived notion, philosophy, or preference.  I have opinions, but I see nothing as clear.

George Zimmerman either murdered Trayvon Martin or he killed him for the lawful purpose of saving his own life.  Lesser-included-offenses aside (and that is a post for another day), it seems like one or the other. 

I have been glued to this case precisely because it illustrates the muddy gray between "legal" and "illegal."  It shows us just how chaotic our world is and how difficult simple truth can be. We have seen dueling mothers, a gun-control debate by proxy, and impassioned pleas on both sides for and against "stand your ground" laws.  In other words, we made it another battleground for the usual things even though it is simply a murder trial with interesting dynamics.

This is not easy.  This is a very tough case.  And it reflects so much about humanity.  It reflects how we all act and contrasts it with how we think we would act when faced with danger.  It shows how important it is to so many to fit this case into our own preferences (political, social, etc.).

This is one of those uncomfortable moments in front of the unflattering image of ourselves in a full-length mirror with bright fluorescent lights.  The lights bring it all to bear.  This case tells us so much about "us."

I don't know what I think about the truth from the evidence presented and I do not seek to influence anyone's opinion.  Rather, I have been ruminating about the nuances and I prefer to wade through the gray muck. 

No matter what happens in this case, people will be upset.  And that may tell us more about us than anything else.

To some, this is a case of a "Dudley-do-right" being beaten up for trying to help his fellow man live free from burglary.  Those folks seem to think this is exactly why we should all have guns because it saved Zimmerman's life.  

Others see this as a man who racially profiled Trayvon, stalked him to the point of creepy, got what was coming to him (an ass kicking), and overreacted by shooting to stand his ground. These folks also think this is exactly why gun-toting citizens are 20 times more dangerous than they are helpful.

Both sides have a point (although I think one is stronger than the other), but the only thing that matters is what happened this time.  

There seems to be two large camps of public opinion and that is because most people follow it on the surface, which is understandable.  Most people don't follow trials closely for fun... life is busy.  Most seem to either think Zimmerman was being crushed against a sidewalk and had no choice or, on the other side, feel a Band-Aid was all he needed and consider losing a fight insufficient to justify killing.  

And that is why people are concerned about riots after the verdict comes down, no matter what it is.

DUELING MOTHERS

I watched two mothers testify to the "undefinable instincts of a mother" who knows the cry of her own child.  Both mothers testified under oath, and the threat of perjury, that the cry for help heard in the background of the 911 call was that of her own son.  

One of them is mistaken, but clearly they are not lying.  

But that's not all.  The fathers testified. And Martin's brother.  And Zimmerman's friends. They all answered as expected.

But, the focus was on mothers.  This is partly because the jury is made up of six women, and five of them are mothers.  I do not tend to think that means much, but the media is playing it like this is somehow a slam dunk for the prosecution.  That strikes me as insulting to women.  

Rather, I think it is simply a case of the rationalizing mind confronted with the extreme facts that surround each of the sons of mothers in this case.  Anyone will favor an outlook that exonerates their own son or friend in a case like this, whether mother or not.  It isn't only motherly, but human, and the jurors aren't going to be slaves to that emotion when they see all family siding with their own.  But, it does illustrate the gray and the internal conflicts we all face.

Which brings me to...

INCENTIVES

I hate to say it ...  although the families have every incentive to lie, the Martin family has a stronger incentive.  That does not mean I believe that they are lying.  I do not think that, but they have the most understandable pull to hide blemishes in their story.

We all know who killed Trayvon Martin.  We just don't know if it was a legal killing or not. What could be a more horrible procedural exercise to the victim's family than determining whether a child's death by bullet was "just fine" in the eyes of society?  How could any family member not want to move heaven and earth to influence conviction?  They KNOW who did it.  The only question is whether he should walk.  How painful that must be?

Society's attempt to address this in the legal process involves a search for truth that is buried in gray ooze.  The jury must determine if Zimmerman felt so reasonably threatened of life-and-limb that the killing was justified and declare, essentially, that Zimmerman did nothing wrong by killing a teenager and that Trayvon Martin's death was a sad accident.  

I would submit that George Zimmerman did enough "stupid" things (like bringing a gun to a night-time stalking, but there are more) to at least expose him to reckless endangerment.  We are talking about second-degree murder and the nuances in the case are many.

This is tough, my friends.

As for family and their testimony, the incentives are just too much to take seriously.  

Zimmerman's family has every incentive to assert just how injured he was and how imperiled he was on that night.  They have every reason to believe that, even though probably 99% of fist fights do not end in death, this was that one time.  How could they believe anything else about their son and friend?

Martin's family will equally resist the narrative of Trayvon as aggressor and will naturally prefer to think of him as not only being pummeled, but then shot anyway.  

What we have here are a bunch of parallel lines.  And from that muck, the jury will make a decision.  And that decision (which will be as good and as flawed as everything from the mouths of humans) will really be the codification of the impressions made by the evidence upon total strangers... just as our system was designed.

We cannot escape our rationalizing minds.

WHO ARE WE?

I wonder what this case tells me about us.  Are we a bunch of angry people?  What do we value?  How does this trial reflect all of that?  I believe it tells us that we also see it through rationalizing minds of another sort. 

And how us observers see it is as gray and sticky as the question of justified killing.  People will frame this as it serves them, and many have.  This either proves or disproves so many philosophical beliefs in the eyes of those who believe or hate the philosophy in question.  It all serves a master within each person.

Obviously, we have to resist that. And this brings me back to the thought that there will be no winners.  Those who serve a philosophy will see this as either a victory to be celebrated or a defeat to be resisted and fought.

Are we a society that wants to restrict gun violence or encourages citizens to "stand your ground" or "make my day?"  That will never be answered in the macro sense, but how we react to the issues speaks volumes.

No one will win because acquittal will not allow George Zimmerman to live a normal or comfortable life as a free man.  A price was put on his head before he was arrested and his acquittal will temp the "periphery" of people in a way that will increase business for bodyguards wherever Zimmerman lives.

No one will win because Zimmerman's conviction will not resurrect Trayvon Martin.

No result will be the ultimate victory or death knell of a philosophy, but rather another battle in our philosophical "forever war."

I have no rooting interest in the outcome other than that I am fascinated by it and what it does to us.  I root for things I consider best for society, and I believe that laws that encourage people to think they can just shoot first are bad for us all.  I think this case clearly illustrates that, even with those laws, every use of a gun on a human will result in microscopic examination.  I think that lesson benefits us all and I  hope it was clear.

Even though I tend to think that losing a fistfight does not justify fear for life, I also cannot say how Zimmerman felt or pretend I could see or feel what he did.  So, I think the jury has a real tough job and I am suspicious of the motivations of anyone who calls this case clear.

ALWAYS IN JEST

I am reading Infinite Jest, by David Foster Wallace.  And that makes these two videos funny to me at this point more than it would in other times.  This is a serious case with real implication, but the circus surrounding it, the always-ridiculous media coverage, and the vitriol all around it by perfect strangers makes me channel the characters in Infinite Jest.

We've had knock-knock jokes, a slab of concrete thrown on the floor and declared a weapon, and rampant cursing in the courtroom to quote Zimmerman's "ill will."  It's been a wild trial and one that has pulled me in for serious reasons.

But, I think humor says much about us as well.  And, I think humor in the face of a serious world can be a saving grace.  I recognize this is a balm I get to enjoy as an observer and wish the Martin family could find some peace.

But, alas, it is just another example that none of us really know what goes through the minds of others.