Monday, July 15, 2013

A “judicial” lynching: what American “justice” is

A non-black vigilante is patrolling a housing project. He spots a young man in a hoodie walking in the rain. He finds him suspicious. He radios the police about him. The clerk – a woman – tells him not to get out of his car.

He has a gun. He does get out of his car. He hunts for the young man.

The young man is afraid of him. He tries to hide. But he is staying with his father in a nearby apartment. He is trying to go home.

A confrontation occurs. There is a fight of some sort and the vigilante shoots and kills the young man.

Under a new state law – “Stand your Ground” – if a person feels threatened (a nonblack person fighting a black person), then the former can kill the black person.

The young man here was hunted as prey and attacked and murdered by a man with a gun. Who was threatened?

Who was walking while black?

The law about self-defense is clear. One must be attacked. One must not hunt an unarmed man with a gun.

The unjust law in Florida is that if a man feels threatened, even one who hunts another man with a gun, it is permissible to shoot and kill the man who “feels” frightening to the hunter.

This is making the young black man dangerous because, with vicious racist stereotypes propagated since the Founding, some non-black people (some middle class black people also) find young black men threatening.

The American constitution has a law that blacks count for 3/5ths of a human being in order to provide more votes for their "owners." This law made slave-owners President of the Republic for 52 out of its first 72 years. This law gave enough representatives to non-black and non-red men so that the US government passed the Indian Removal Act against peaceful native americans in Georgia and Mississippi who had settled and farmed, drove them, with many dying, along the Trail of Tears to Oklahoma.

They were dangerous, these Indians, just like Trayvon Martin, walking with skittles, in the rain…


Lisa Graves is a former assistant Attorney General in the Clinton administration working on gun laws. She said about the instructions of the “judge” to the jury:

“Well, even though the defense in the Zimmerman case did not ask for the legal grant of immunity that that law would have potentially given him, the fact is that the NRA, through changing that law in Florida, through getting Stand Your Ground enacted in Florida in 2005, got the jury instructions changed. And so, even though it’s popular wisdom to say that that law was not at issue in this case, in fact it was, because the exact instruction to the jury was that Zimmerman had ‘no duty to retreat’ and had a ‘right to stand his ... ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.’ That’s a direct quote from the jury instructions. Those jury instructions incorporate the Stand Your Ground law. And so, I think that’s significant.” See here.
h/t Michelle Sisk

No comments:

Post a Comment