I Thought It Was About A KID

Sunday, March 25, 2012

This morning I went online to see if there was a rally for Trayvon Martin planned for anywhere near here so I could go.  Not finding one listed, I googled how to organize one.  All I found was the report of a mother from Scottsdale, Arizona who is organizing one to be held in Phoenix near the ASU campus at 5:00.  She has used Facebook to publicize the event.  I stupidly read a few of the comments.  I’m not sure why, really.  I have only ever read comments to any news report twice.  Maybe on some level I was hoping to find positive responses that others cared about the life of a KID.   Wow!  What I found!

 One man is outraged because “unarmed white Arizonans are being shot, having their throats slashes (I assumed the writer meant slashed.) and heads bashed in and Arizona law allows the killers to go unprosecuted just like this Florida case yet because white people are not united and no one speaks for us the killers of our children run free.”   (Copied exactly as it read online.) 

Another man is angry at the media.  “I for one am sick of the hypocrisy and double standard evident in the ‘lamestream’ media over the matter…”

Still another is angry with the NAACP and is betting a hundred dollars that the NAACP wouldn’t be up in arms if “the Trayvon (Yes, “the” was in front of Trayvon.) was white, Hispanic, or Asian!”   He goes on to ask “Did the NAACP jump up and down when Casey Anthony killed her daughter in Florida?  Of course not!  I hope the Martin family gets their justice for their son’s death.  But, someone has to point out the hypocrisies sometimes!”   A woman named Catherine gently responds and points out that the NAACP was created to help black people in this country.

You know how people have pictures either of themselves and/or of something else as an identity label?  One person who responded had the picture of the noose of a scaffold and the outline of a city behind.  The name was “Hang Em Man”.  This one upset me the most, saying, “Leave it upto the naacp to claim racism everytime there is crime committed against a black person.  Anything to cause a disturbance and try and sue to get money.  There were crimes committed by both parties that night, but…leave race out of it.”  (Again, typed exactly as it was online, spaces, or lack or, etc.)  This person goes on to predict the outcome but it is too vulgar for me to bother with.    

With respect to the first man, my brother lives in Flagstaff, Arizona.  I will have to ask him about all those murders in Arizona.  Of course, I would be equally upset with the deaths of children in Arizona, regardless of color.  But, I have to say that if the gentleman is concerned that no one speaks for whites AND people who kill children are running free, perhaps he could do the organizing so that there will be someone speaking for whites. 

It is disconcerting to me that I have not heard of any outrage or of people coming out in Arizona to protest the death of a child whose killer went free.  That does not mean it hasn’t happened.   As I understand it, social media got people of all races incensed about Trayvon’s murder.  Couldn’t anyone in Arizona do the same; just make others aware and let parents across the country react? 

Also, from what I can ascertain, Arizona has a form of “Stand Your Ground” law.  I didn’t bother to find out when it was passed, but that should help some Arizonans protect themselves having their throats slashed and their heads bashed in. 

 The second and third gentlemen confuse me.  I remember lots of media coverage of the Casey Anthony trial, as there should have been, in my opinion, and she was white.  I’m not sure exactly where the hypocrisy and double standard is in this case. 

And the “Hang Em Man”?  I respectfully disagree with him that the NAACP is causing a “disturbance”.  People across the country who are white, who are parents, who believe kids should be protected, are part of the “disturbance”.   People like me.  As for suing to get money, I don’t care for assuming guilt before proof of that guilt.  And I don’t like broad, sweeping assumptions.  And speaking about assumptions of guilt, on what basis does this man say “There were crimes committed by both parties that night…”?  The 17 year old kid isn’t here to defend himself in any way, is he?  But other than George Zimmerman claiming self-defense because he was in danger from Trayvon, I have not heard nor read any suggestion that Trayvon was committing a crime.  So what crime on Trayvon’s part this “Hang Em Man” might be referring to, I have no idea.

Here’s the bottom line for me.  I completely understand that many others will not be as upset by this as I.  A woman about my age was at the NYC rally and when asked why she was there she answered that her family had lost a child and the pain Trayvon’s family was going through was touching her heart.  I do not recall her exact words beyond that, but her message was that she knew about that pain and wanted to support them.  She’s right; you will feel for this family more if you have had any such experience. 

 Yet, regardless of our experience, this, from my perspective, is about a KID.  Not a black kid.  Just a kid.  Since Trista played sports in high school we had the opportunity to get to cheer for all the teenaged athletes, not just the white ones.  They were all equally pleased when they did well.  They were all equally disappointed and totally discouraged when they did not.  And they all appreciated someone besides mom and dad taking an interest in them.  (And sadly, in too many cases mom and dad did not take enough interest, or any interest, for that matter.)

Also in my teaching career, I had students from a number of other countries over the years; Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Brazil, Germany, Morocco, South Africa, to name a few.  I had a good number of Hispanic students whose parents were migrant workers.  They would be there in the Fall, but would be moving when the crops were all harvested and winter was on its way.  I learned it did not matter the country of birth.  It did not matter the culture.  It did not matter the language.  Interacting with them on a daily basis made it easy to see what they all had in common, they were just KIDS.  Period.  They thought they were beyond being kids, but they were not. People often enough asked if it wasn’t really difficult working with teenagers.  My response, besides the fact that I loved teenagers, was that many days there is no difference between a 7 year old and a 17 year old. 

Tuesday March 27, 2012

I watched some news shows last night so I could hear the latest about this story.  One young white woman who lived in the gated community where Trayvon was shot was giving her account of that night.  I don’t know if it was at a city council meeting in Sanford or where.  I missed that part.  She said the voice yelling for help was a boy’s.  Let’s say she was wrong and it ends up being George Zimmerman’s voice.  (I’m sure modern technology will be able to determine whether or not it is his.)  It still remains true that George Zimmerman left his vehicle and went towards Trayvon Martin, not the other way around.  If he had not done so he would not have had to yell for help.  And Trayvon would be alive today. 

This morning I read that two women who heard calls of distress and the gunshot came outside.  They came upon George Zimmerman straddling Trayvon, who was face down.  George Zimmerman, according to these two women, had his hand on Trayvon’s back.  One said she didn’t see that Zimmerman was in any way trying to help Trayvon.  I assume, in his defense, and in an attempt to be fair, he could have been in shock.  He had just shot someone.  Maybe he was momentarily unable to react, no matter how the shooting took place. 

Another update I got last night was that Trayvon had been suspended from school for a number of days for being in possession of a bag with trace amounts of marijuana.  I guess we will hear more about that as the days go by.  But, even if it proves to be true, I see no bearing on the fact that a 17 year old is dead.  Evidently the police did a drug and alcohol tests on Trayvon.  I have heard nothing saying they found any of either in his body.  So, why is this part of the discussion about his death? 

As I understand it, the “Stand Your Ground” law speaks of justifiable use of deadly force, without reference to any particular type of weapon.  (I did read the actual Florida law.)   However, I am going to address the gun issue for two reasons.  First, it is the weapon used in this case.  Secondly, and to my way of thinking very significant, is the fact that Marion Hammer, a lobbyist for the NRA was standing next to Governor Jeb Bush when he signed the “Stand Your Ground” law.  I don’t know if there were also present any family members of victims who had been killed and who might have benefitted from such a law.  But I hope so.  That would seem a whole lot more appropriate to me. 

Easy to determine that this kid’s death has upset me.  I know many Americans feel VERY strongly about their guns and gun rights.  I’m not commenting on that issue.  What I am questioning is the wisdom to have laws that can so readily be called upon to protect an aggressor.  Some states now allow guns to be taken into bars.  What rational adult doesn’t see the potential for disaster there?  Aren’t laws intended to protect the majority?  So how is it that laws are being passed that value and respect the right/s of one or a few in situations where it could be detrimental to many?  I can’t go into a theatre and yell “Fire!”  And rightly so.  Does it not also seem logical that guns might NOT be okay in certain places?  That to allow them might be equally inappropriate as not allowing someone to yell “Fire!” when there is no fire? 

We are restricted in other ways and in other situations.  I don’t believe theme parks allow all sized backpacks, etc. into the park.  I believe some sports stadiums inspect bags to ensure that certain items are not taken into the stadium.  I know that was true at Rich Stadium in Buffalo when Allan would go to Bills’ games.  So we Americans are willing to have our person and/or personal belongings searched for some things.  We willingly surrender some rights at times. 

So why not for guns?  Why can’t some restrictions be okay in certain situations?  For example, if there is a neighborhood watch program, why allow the people involved to carry a gun during “watch” times?  His/her right to own a gun does not have to be denied; simply say that in order to be part of a neighborhood watch that is one time during which the gun may not be carried?  If the person does not willingly comply, s/he can’t be involved in the program.  We agree to legal stipulations all the time.  Wouldn’t such a solution be at least an attempt to create a win-win for everyone?  Even for law enforcement. 

And speaking about law enforcement, it seems strange to me that a law would give a citizen the right to protect him/herself by a “Stand Your Ground” law but an officer who shoots someone is immediately suspended so an investigation can be done.  I think that is as it should be.  But why couldn’t it be true, for example, that a person who shoots someone on the basis of this “Stand Your Ground” law be expected to at least surrender his/her gun until such time as the matter is investigated?  Why couldn’t the law read such that a shooter is automatically tested for drugs and alcohol?  Wouldn’t this be similar to the other situations I’ve mentioned in which people temporarily give up some rights in order to have the right to something else?  A person has a right to carry a gun.  Just not everywhere and not under certain circumstances.  And s/he either agree to that or s/he doesn’t get to enter a bar, or be part of a neighborhood watch program, etc. 

I have hated “all-or-nothing” thinking for a very long time now.  It has been my experience that for the vast majority of life experiences it is detrimental and rarely leads to any good that might actually be possible.  Isn’t there some middle ground that we can agree to for different societal issues?     

The last thing I will say about this tragedy is that now Trayvon himself will be on trial.  Everything he has done wrong will be brought out.  It will be brought out and emphasized in the same way I emphasize here using bold and/or capital lettering.  But the kid doesn’t have to be perfect.  The fact remains that George Zimmerman, against the statement of the dispatcher saying they did NOT need him to do so, got out of his car and went in the direction of Trayvon, while knowing he was carrying a gun.  If he ultimately proves that he was returning to his car and Trayvon attacked him, how will it justify this kid’s death?  Even in that kind of case scenario, Trayvon would not have had the opportunity to interrupt his walk home with his candy and tea to pursue a fight; at least not with George Zimmerman, if Mr. Zimmerman had only listened to the dispatcher’s urging and waited for the police.  A 17 year old, regardless of how perfect a kid or imperfect, would be alive.  And neither George Zimmerman, nor his family, would be in fear for his life.  And/or he would not be facing some really frightening consequences. 

And what about those lawmakers who could not, or would not, look for more of a middle ground in drafting a law about self-protection?  I do hope some are feeling like they completely blew it and failed miserably to do work that treats all as equal and affords all those certain unalienable rights, among which are counted life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as is clearly stated in our Declaration of Independence.  Due to their inability and/or unwillingness to attempt to draft laws that provide and protect these rights for all, a kid was denied his right to life.  He was denied his right to grow up and pursue happiness.  And a man will most likely lose his liberty, even though the law is definitely slanted in his favor.  It most certainly can not be argued that this law was drafted with any thought or wisdom about the possible impact on kids not yet old enough to vote for said lawmakers.  I hope enough people feel as sick as I do that gun rights trumped all else in this case.  And a KID is dead as a result of that attitude of valuing one type of personal right at the expense of other types.   At least that’s how I see it.  And I can well imagine that Trayvon’s mom and dad are seeing it that way too.