The event:
In 2012, Trayvon Martin was walking down the street in a neighborhood where Geroge Zimmerman was doing neighborhood watch. Zimmerman noticed that Martin was looking suspicious and called the police department saying he looked like he was up to no good and, the person on the other line said that there was no need for Zimmerman to keep following Martin. Though Zimmerman did not follow these instructions and continued to follow Martin down the street. As Zimmerman came closer to Martin, he then shot him and continued to tell police officers it was out of self-defense. The trial was a year later and Zimmerman was not guilty of the murder of Trayvon Martin because of the lack of evidence given in court and Florida’s “Stand-your-ground” law that essentially says that the use of weapons can be used as a form of self-defense.
My thoughts:
As we were watching the documentary of Michael Brown, I was reminded of Trayvon Martin’s story and the similarities between these two events. To think that there are people out there who have killed innocent victims because of the color of their skin is horrible and very unjust to the families of these victims. There have been so many protests and movements that have been going on around the country in order to help this issue be heard, but it is still not enough to stop innocent people from being killed.
Sources:
https://www.britannica.com/event/shooting-of-Trayvon-Martin
Sources:
https://www.britannica.com/event/shooting-of-Trayvon-Martin
This isn’t the only case in which a white man in Florida has shot a black unarmed male and defended themselves with the “Stand Your Ground” law—Michael Drejka, then 47, fatally shot Markeis McGlockton, 28, in a dispute over a handicapped parking spot. While McGlockton had pushed Drejka to the ground at first, McGlockton was moving away when Drejka shot him. The prosecution, as well as the public, saw the incident as an act of racist violence. Prejudices held by white Americans often lead to percieving black Americans as more threatening, according to recent studies. Although the defense claimed the incident had “nothing to do with race”, it’s undeniable that these relations play a key part in the incident, as long as the many like it.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.vox.com/2019/8/24/20831092/florida-man-michael-drejka-markeis-mcglockton-stand-your-ground-found-guilty-manslaughter
I think events like this happen far to often. I think for Stand Your Ground Laws physical evidence should be required to prove you were being threatened. It seems like you can almost go around shooting anyone as long as their is not physical evidence. Additionally I never realized that people work neighborhood watch. It seems unnecessary for armed untrained citizens to take protection into their own hands.
ReplyDeleteMany defendants have used the Stand Your Ground Law to argue self defense when the trial should be considered a race case or a hate crime. The Stand Your Ground Law can be beneficial, but there should be a higher standard for what constitutes the need for self defense especially in cases where racial bias could be an aspect. In the case of Jordan Davis from 3 1/2 Minutes:Ten Bullets, Micheal Dunn tried to argue self defense when there was clearly a racial bias that heavily factored into his encounter with Jordan Davis. Dunn called the boys thugs, insulted their music, and later made comments about African American men sagging their pants. Micheal Dunn made assumptions about Jordan Davis and his friends in the same way that George Zimmerman made assumptions about Trayvon Martin. In both cases, bias towards African men made the perpetrators feel threatened without the introduction of any threat. In Jordan Davis' case, Micheal Dunn was found guilty because Jordan was in an occupied dwelling and clearly not outside his vehicle threatening Micheal Dunn. The injustice was too apparent for Micheal Dunn to walk away from the incident unpunished, but this is not always the case. Like Trayvon Martin's case, there are many cases in which the perpetrator gets away with killing innocent people because they are able to argue the Stand Your Ground Law and hide their racial bias. For this reason, the Stand Your Ground Law should only be applied in cases where there is significant evidence of the need for self defense and it is obvious that racial bias was not a factor in the incident.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like all these defendants point straight to the Stand Your Ground Law. It seems like the easiest way to get away with murder. I think that there should be a required amount of evidence to point to the Stand Your Ground Law. These guys are basically claiming that they felt threatened because "they were thugs" or their "music was loud and they said bad words". It's way too easy to say "I thought I saw a weapon". Whether it's one's phone, wallet, id, whatever they are reaching for and that someone claims to look like a gun, we've seen it all.
ReplyDeleteAt some point, it's been enough. To be of dark skin in America, you have to worry about reaching for your phone, id, wallet, etc. The worst part of all this is that a lot of these officers are getting away with the murder. This shows to other officers that it is perfectly legal to pull out your gun too early if the victim is black. Luckily, in the Michael Dunn case he was found guilty, but in far too many cases, the officers have been found not guilty.
I believe that there has to be some sort of evidence for one to claim that they were threatened. It's not enough to claim that they thought someone was a gun. I also strongly believe that police departments need to do better background checks to make sure officers don't have a past of institutionalized racism.