-end of line- Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman and the secret that is Fight Club an apology .

This is and has been hard to write, in as much as its hard to have one idea about something, and to feel that the argument is solid and accurate, only to feel duped and therefore having to retract. However, I feel I must apologize for yesterday's segment entitled "Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman and the secret that is fight club".
In many ways it points towards the Writer, namely myself, not looking, or clearly understanding the case in its entirety; thus coming to a conclusion that is very wrong indeed.
In my defense, I can only say, that I followed an argument laid out, in what I considered to be both succinct and sound and came to a conclusion that really did no justice to the vast problems that are at the root of this case.
In fact I was a tourist, glimpsing, at a distance an issue that I do not fully understand, and in doing so, came to a conclusion that really was not right. The following post is essentially a rewrite, in the hope that I have been far more thorough in my analysis. I am sorry if I have caused offence with my previous post, I am, I have to say, trying to write about this honestly and openly, in a manner that would be seen as objective. I am indebted to the author of the American magazine for her insight.

I live in the UK and okay, I have to say that I am an Obama fan (yeah I'm out the closet) but I also think that his decision in coming out on the side of Trayvon, or at least by identifying with Mr. Martin a very strange thing to do, as it has the air of courting public opinion on a contentious issue, that perhaps he really should have stayed out of. I say that, as I feel that by taking sides in this case or at least by identifying himself with Trayvon as a teenager, he is unwittingly questioning the jury’s decision; and in turn, forcing up issues that many would rather not discuss. Perhaps, metaphorically speaking, I am being a nosy neighbour; so maybe I too should stay out of it, but there are many things about this case that lead me to think of not just the incident, but how on many different individuals have cleverly interpreted the events of that tragic night for their own ends.
From the UK, the Trayvon/ Zimmerman case has been very interesting but also very hard to observe: especially as there is little real news on the topic and even less about the on-going protest’s that I have to say I only really found out about on line.
From where I sit, in the high castle of Torydom, Both Martin Trayvon, George Zimmerman and cases similar, honestly seem like added news items that are thrust between David Cameron, who seems one minute to be shouting about banning child porn, then violent porn, then all porn, before retracting like the man of the people he is, while, at the same time, he covers up dealings about whether Benson and Hedges cigarettes should be called “Benson and Hedges” or “Smoking kills and if you smoke one cigarette you will die from a host of virulent diseases; and a baby that will soon be born to a rich couple, who will never know what it means to be without; and one day, if our Queen and his dad dies, will become part of the furniture that the rest of us carry in our pockets.
I did find out that the jury had to rely on what appears to be a lot of circumstantial evidence, and very unclear eye witness statements from people whom really couldn't (or possibly chose not to) see what was happening and therefore could not decide with clarity, whether Trayvon was killed or Zimmerman attacked in self-defence.
The fact that the Jury , which many sources seem to love to cite as an “all- woman jury, with a woman judge” chose to believe that Zimmerman was innocent, shows clearly that there are many complex issues at the heart of this case. Personally I don’t know why an “all-woman” jury was chosen for this particular case; in the end, evidence should speak for itself, and that is what any jury should be able to consider, whether they be all woman, or not. But that’s my opinion. Especially when in the end, a court case is nothing other than having a legal argument that will hold water enough to establish a conviction.
What is also very interesting are the “stand your ground laws”. This is legislature that is not law in this country, and seems to have. As I don’t have the austere eyes of academia staring over my shoulder, I went to Wikipedia and found out that: “A stand-your-ground law is a type of self-defence law that gives individuals the right to use reasonable force to defend themselves without any requirement to evade or retreat from a dangerous situation. It is law in certain jurisdictions within the United States. The basis may lie in either statutory law and or common law precedents.” (Wikipedia /stand your ground. 24/07/13) This is also connected to the “castle doctrine” which refers to individuals whose homes are broken into and allows individuals to:- “to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend against an intruder -- free from legal responsibility/prosecution for the consequences of the force used.” (Wikipedia/castle doctrine 24/07/13) both of which are part of the Florida state legislature.
In considering the “stand your ground laws” and “the Castle doctrine”, in relation to the Zimmerman/Trayvon case there again seems polarization across the web, and out into the wider public, and in analysing some of information I found two articles, that seemed to me sum up the complexities. If I have added to the confusion, well, sorry, I am as confused as many others. After one broadcast I was convinced that Zimmerman was guilty and Trayvon innocent, but then after receiving more information have found myself torn by issues to the point I felt that I had to redress my position.
Firstly there is Stefan Molyneux “Philosophical” broadcast: on “republic X”. This broadcast, itself included in the add on link, is very interesting; and Molyneux sounds very convincing, he, like a good lawyer, puts forward a a position on the events. He explains, clearly, and possibly too concisely, that the “stand your ground laws are ineffective in this case”. (Molyneux republic x 24/07/13) and also point out very clearly that it was Trayvon who committed the felony by “striking Zimmerman first”.(Molyneux republic x 24/07/13)
Molyneux also paints a very clear picture of both Zimmerman and Trayvon. Zimmerman, is seen to be Hispanic and has negro roots, he is also painted as man who works for and in his community: at the time of the incident Zimmerman was a sworn in captain of the local “neighbourhood watch” where there is an affluent gated community of Sanford amid a large sprawl or urban decay.
Trayvon is painted as a man who is into fighting, especially mixed martial arts fighting, and has been suspended for fighting in the past. To underpin this position he gives information relating to a series of text messages between Trayvon and a female friend. Evidence he says “is in the public domain”; and he is right, it is available. What I think Molyneux fails to comprehend, or perhaps allows us to consider, depending upon your point of view, is the complex interaction between Trayvon and his friend. The most fascinating thing about the series of text messages is that Trayvon is not describing a heated fight after school: he uses the phrase “in a ducked off spot” or an area where they would not be seen, and “I lost the first round, but I won rounds round 2 and 3”. This seems to suggest that the fight took place in area similar to what might be seen in an M.M.A bout. (Again I have enclosed an example of in the link connections at the bottom of the page.) He also points out that at the time of his death; a street drug called “lean” was in his system.
To make “lean” is quite easy, you require the following: Promethazine w/Codeine VC “ Sizzurp” (active ingredient.) Original “Sprite” Soda- Mixing ingredient (although different flavours of sprite are now used, such as sprite remix) and “Jolly rancher” candy or “skittles” as a flavour additive, this is mixed in a Styrofoam cup and ingested. According to the Urban dictionary, "It is the codeine that is mainly responsible for the euphoric feeling after drinking “lean”; as Promethazine causes motor skill impairment, lethargy, extreme drowsiness, as well as a dissociative feeling from all other parts of the body, specifically the stomach and digestive system." (urban dictionary 24/07/13) However, according to Molyneux the disturbing side effects of "Lean" are pretty devastating: they include "increased paranoia and heightened aggression, dependency and eventual brain damage". (Molyneux Xrepublic 24/07/13).
When Molyneux describes the attack upon Zimmerman, he paints a picture of Zimmerman being the victim, a man covered with blood and chocking being attacked by Trayvon who is using an M.M.A technique called “ground and pound”. Again in the Urban dictionary to ground and pound means “To take one's opponent to the ground, establish a dominant position. Usually a top position (i.e., mount, side mount, half mount, etc. can also be used while in one's "guard"). Then reign down punches, elbows and forearm strikes to the downed fighter. This is used in MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) or any other NHB (no holds barred) fight. (Urban dictionary 24/07/13) This seems to fit nicely into the image that Molyneux is describing: Trayvon is a youth on a substance and into fighting, and has been expelled for it. He does not seem to ask questions about why Zimmerman was armed with a pistol and why he followed Trayvon, or wether he thought it wise to do so. In fact Molyneux does point out that there is no legal precedence to stop someone walking down the street or questioning a person when they confront an individual; and with this, is placed before you, it is hard to see how Zimmerman could be anything else but a victim, who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
However, an article entitled “Trayvon Martin and the Irony of American Justice” by Ta-Nehisi Coates, for the “Atlantic” magazine, gives a very different portrait, and I feel that this article really needs to be considered. It points out the heart of the problem and really brings into the open the troubled heart of America: “In trying to assess the killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman” She begins, “two seemingly conflicting truths emerge for me. The first is that based on the case presented by the state, and based on Florida law, George Zimmerman should not have been convicted of second degree murder or manslaughter. The second is that the killing of Trayvon Martin is a profound injustice.” and from this point one she genuinely considers the use of force by an aggressor, which is described in law thus:
Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless: (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or (b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.
In other words, I can entice an individual into a fight, and if I start to lose that fight, I can legally kill you, providing, I believe myself subject to “great bodily harm”. She then points out very clearly, that it is then the state's job to prove -- beyond a reasonable doubt -- that I either did not actually fear for my life, or my fear was unreasonable. This is also seen in the summing up the Jury, the document is also attached to the Atlantic Article. And is also reprinted here.
“In deciding whether George Zimmerman was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge him by the circumstances by which he was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing George Zimmerman need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, George Zimmerman must have actually believed that the danger was real.
If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” (Ta-Neshi Coates Trayvon Martin and the Irony of American Justice The Atlantic/ summing up notes The Zimmerman trial 24/07/13)
Though Molyneux feels that “stand your ground” is not effective here, and Coates seems to agree, she feels that “the contravention is contravened the fact that it is cited in the instructions to the jury. Taken together, it is important to understand that it is not enough for the state to prove that George Zimmerman acted unwisely in following Martin. Under Florida law, George Zimmerman had no responsibility to -- at any point -- retreat. The state must prove that Zimmerman had no reasonable fear for his life. Moreover, it is not enough for the jury to find Zimmerman's story fishy.” (Ta Neshi Coates 24/07/13) and here she cites again form the Judges Summing up of the case:-
“George Zimmerman has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe George Zimmerman is innocent. The presumption stays with George Zimmerman as to each material allegation in the Information through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt. To overcome George Zimmerman's presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which George Zimmerman is charged was committed and George Zimmerman is the person who committed the crime. George Zimmerman is not required to present evidence or prove anything. Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following: A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find George Zimmerman not guilty because the doubt is reasonable. It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.” And though the evidence is clear, what is not clear is why Zimmerman was armed and why did he possibly provoke Trayvon into an act of aggression.
Her point is lucidly put. It is that it’s not the incident that is on trial here, but the entire legal framework of the United States, that seems to let off people who kill people, who test people, and goad people into acts of violence. And the death of Trayvon is not the only one.
There is the incident in November last year, when a seventeen year old youth called Jordan Davis was shot and “allegedly” killed by Michael Dunn 46, because an altercation between both Davis and Dunn became heated over the loudness of the radio from Davis’s S.U.V. the next piece is taken directly from the Atlantic Article:-
“Upon returning and seeing Dunn put his gun back into the glove compartment, Rouer asked why he had shot at the car playing music and Dunn claimed that he feared for his life and that "they threatened to kill me." The couple drove back to their hotel, and claim they did not realize anyone had died until the story appeared on the news the next day.
After killing Jordan Davis, Michael Dunn ordered a pizza.
She concludes far better than I : "When you have a society that takes at its founding the hatred and degradation of a people, when that society inscribes that degradation in its most hallowed document, and continues to inscribe hatred in its laws and policies, it is fantastic to believe that its citizens will derive no ill messaging.
It is painful to say this: Trayvon Martin is not a miscarriage of American justice, but American justice itself. This is not our system malfunctioning. It is our system working as intended. To expect our juries, our schools, our police to single-handedly correct for this, is to look at the final play in the final minute of the final quarter and wonder why we couldn't come back from twenty-four down.
To paraphrase a great man: We are what our record says we are. How can we sensibly expect different?"
How can I disagree with her?
-end of line-