On Friday night, my friends and I walked out of Grand Lake Theatre in Oakland, shaken and moved by the recounting of Oscar Grant’s meaningless death in our town a mere three years ago. We discovered that while we watched “Fruitvale Station,” George Zimmerman had been acquitted of all charges in the killing of Trayvon Martin.
The killing of Oscar Grant, Trayvon Martin and many, many other innocent youth at the hands of police, pseudo-police, or vigilantes is itself inflaming. The senseless killing of young people, of a people whose oppression remains embedded in the very fabric of our American society, is sickening and atrocious. But what is fueling protests in Oakland and around the country is that our legal system does not seem to serve any sense of justice in cases such as these. What is right, what is wrong, and how come the system that is supposed to have the answers seems to be betraying us all?
The Florida law which was the basis for Zimmerman’s acquittal required the defense to show that Zimmerman was acting in self-defense. And if they could prove this, then the murder of a defenseless 17-year-old could no longer be the responsibility of the man who wielded the gun with the bullet that went through Trayvon Martin’s head.
And so by the very fact that Zimmerman’s lawyers had the task of fittin the truth into this law – that they had to maneuver the entire situation that resulted in Martin’s death into a law that would make Zimmerman innocent – meant that our legal system would not be analyzing the rightness or wrongness of Zimmerman’s actions, or whether or not he was responsible for Martin’s death. Rather our legal system is concerned only with the written laws that exist on paper, and if anyone can figure out a way to fit what actually happened into the constructs of the law, then the legal system is on their side.
What happens when the law is not about justice but about words written on paper describing supposed situations? And the job of the judge or juror is not serving justice, but determining, much like the most primitive computer program, whether the story constructed by the lawyers can or cannot fit into those words written on paper?
What happens is mass confusion, utter inability to see the clarity of the situation. Two simple facts: that Zimmerman a) was threatened by Martin’s presence for no reason at all (unless, of course, he felt certain that all young, black men are criminals), and b) had no right or responsibility to leave his car with this gun at this side and act without any authority on his suspicions.
Zimmerman’s actions caused Martin’s death. It is so simple and so obvious.
Racism is very seldomly a red flag worn by some and not others. Rather, racism is as pervasive and all-consuming as the air we breathe. But our systems – whether they be legal, medical, or scientific – are not equipped to deal with whole, surrounding phenomena.
Our system can’t by its very nature defend against racism, because as soon as it tries to do so, it cuts up reality into little pieces. It picks through the truth to find facts that fit the desired story, and it loses sight of the giant, perfect, unmistakable truth that is glaring all of the rest of us in the face. The concept of right vs. wrong, of responsibility for one’s actions, become convoluted and confusing because of our legal system. It is a heartless corpse that denies the internal compass of every human being with enough living consciousness to be able to tell what is true and what is false. What our systems do really well is obscure truth, not reveal it.
The case is many-sided, complex, especially as race is involved. But the facts of the case make it crystal clear that had Zimmerman not attempted to take the law into his own hands, Trayvon Martin would not have been shot with his gun. The reality is that he did cause Trayvon Martin’s death by his actions and ignorance. That our justice system cannot account for this obvious factor is truly the tragedy. This article is particularly nuanced; do read. This one is good too.
Protests in Oakland
