- Jury Instruction, State of Florida v. George Zimmerman
One should always understand the tool of measurement before taking the measure, so let me begin by stating that I think of writer/director Mike Judge’s movie “Idiocracy” as much prescient documentary as entertainment.
Synopsis: it’s 2505 - the year of the Great Garbage Avalanche - and an average Joe from 2005 awakens from stasis to find he is now the smartest person alive. Hijinks ensue.
I laugh and am horrified. It’s a documentary. Knowing this impression of mine is as important as knowing that I majored in rhetoric, graduated from Harvard Law School, served in the “legal peace corps”, and left legal practice for the entertainment industry. That written, it may not take much to guess where I stand regarding the Zimmerman acquittal. It is one more artifact from the Age of Unreason.
Reason. The dividing line between those who are outraged by the acquittal of George Zimmerman - who followed then shot and killed unarmed teenager, Trayvon Martin - and those who support the verdict, the verdict of six women of whom half initially convicted Zimmerman. They reportedly cried, wanted to convict Zimmerman of something, morally certain Zimmerman unlawfully killed Martin - the definition of “beyond a reasonable doubt” - and yet deliberations altered their verdicts. I am unconvinced that it altered their certainty. The doubt they caved into was speculative and imaginary, created by force, not by facts or Zimmerman’s veracity. Their doubt was unreasonable, one in a series of unreasonable acts.
The jury instruction for Justifiable Use Of Deadly Force stated that “A person is justified in using deadly force if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself.” It further instructs that George Zimmerman “had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force” but only if “George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity”. ... only if George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity. There were no explanations or examples of what that might entail.
For example, Florida’s definition of the unlawful activity “stalking” includes a person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person, a misdemeanor of the first degree. Include a credible threat to that person, and it becomes “aggravated stalking”, a felony. “Aggravated assault” seems also apropos, an unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to another person with a deadly weapon, even without intent to kill. Although prosecutors chose the unreasonable path of not charging Zimmerman with stalking or assault, he was, based upon evidence presented at trial, engaged in these unlawful activities when he killed Trayvon Martin. Any reasonable juror would have concluded so even if she needed to ask for clarification about the term “unlawful activity”. However, we live in a day and age when the ignorant juror is unreasonably deemed first choice, thus the chances of her asking intelligent or insightful questions are unlikely.
Durell Peaden, the former Republican senator from Crestview, Florida who sponsored the “Stand Your Ground” bill, said the law was never intended for people who put themselves in harm’s way before they start firing. This legislative intention is crucial to interpretation of law, and the prosecution, defense, and judge know it. Because Zimmerman exited his vehicle, because he followed Martin, because his actions put him in a situation where he felt it necessary to shoot a boy dead, Peaden said, “The guy lost his defense right then. When he said, ‘I’m following him,’ he lost his defense.”
I’m not sure for whom that isn’t obvious. If Zimmerman had died that night instead of Martin, nothing but the most irrational jury would have found that Martin was not entitled to defend himself against an adult following on a rainy night with a gun. The insults about ignorant Floridians or how the law worked exactly as it is meant to - “and that’s what’s wrong” - distract from the fact that legislators never intended to create a “self defense of self defense” claim. It is unreasonable to think so, but we don’t address the truth of it: that the jurors’ verdict is an unreasonable one based upon unreasonable doubt.
President Obama further distracted from reason by delivering a speech focusing on challenges for Black males and commenting as though they are more criminally inclined than anyone else, suffer more than Black women who are penalized in our society both for race and gender, are not impacted by inequitable arrest and conviction rates, and are somehow relevant to the Zimmerman verdict because if they as a group clean up their act, then young Black males won’t be shot by people who are legitimately afraid of them. No mention was made of the fact that regardless of how you interpret the stats, odds are - and I really do mean actual ratios - that any individual Black person you encounter is unlikely to harm you. President Obama likewise spoke not about an African-American woman recently sentenced to 20 years for firing a warning shot over the head of an abusive husband (State of Florida v. Marissa Alexander). President Obama instead stated the obvious about the Zimmerman judge, jury, and attorneys: that they played their roles, and a verdict was reached.
The jury was instructed, “It is up to you to decide what evidence is reliable. You should use your common sense in deciding which is the best evidence, and which evidence should not be relied upon in considering your verdict.” This instruction presumes they had common sense.
We live in the Age of Unreason, a sad transition to what seems inevitable Idiocratic governance. At some point, we need to take a hard look at the tools measuring guilt, innocence, right, and wrong. ... or into Mike Judge’s prescient future we go.
Related Sources:
Idiocracy (2006)
State of Florida v. George Zimmerman jury instructions
President Obama Speaks on Trayvon Martin
'Stand Your Ground" law protects those who go far beyond that point, Tampa Bay Times (03/31/2012).
Jones, Van. ARE Blacks a Criminal Race? Surprising Statistics, Huffington Post (10/05/2005). Trayvon Martin's mother: Juror comments are 'devastating', Los Angeles Times (07/26/2013).
Tarr, Kathleen Antonia. Trayvon Martin and the Rhetoric of Justice in America, Cultural Weekly (07/25/2013).
No comments:
Post a Comment